ISRAEL ALLIES TO ATTACK SYRIA & IRAN

[London Terrorism]

ISRAEL ALLIES TO ATTACK SYRIA & IRAN

"Britain is sending two ships, including an aircraft carrier, to the
Middle East... ministry of defence said no "specific tasking" had yet
been allotted to HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5184134.stm


You don't send military aircraft carriers to evacuate people. This is
like the convenient "exercise" Saif Sareea II in Oman just before 9/11
- the Afghanistan invasion force were conveniently already in place
thanks to the largest military deployment of all time - which they
claimed was just an exercise!
(The name of the operation gave the game away: "Swift Sword". Swift as
in immediate as in just before 9/11. Sword as in attack as in killing
people.)
http://www.army.mod.uk/saifsareea/index.htm


IN FACT HMS ILLUSTRIOUS WAS ONE OF THE SHIPS SENT TO PREPARE FOR
AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11 AND IS NOW BEING SENT TO THE MIDDLE-EAST TO
PREPARE TO ATTACK SYRIA & IRAN.
"A notable combat deployment for the ship took place in late 2001. A
large British exercise, Saif Sareea II took place in Oman in the autumn
of 2001. During the exercise, the World Trade Center was destroyed by
Al Qaida. What had been an exercise became a wartime mission... the
ship had made a valuable contribution to British options in the
conflict, providing a launching point for ground forces...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06)

(The real concern is will they manufacture a pretext for Britain and
the UK to attack

Syria & Iran? Such as the deaths of UK civilians or rocket attacks on
the ships?)


HMS Bulwark is also an ASSAULT SHIP! AN ATTACK SHIP!! (They are BOTH
designed for attack operations!)
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1824


HMS Bulwark is designed to carry crack assult troops (Royal
Marine/SBS/other Commandos)

and is also a command and control ship. It is obviously going to be
pivotal to the planned invasion of Syria and Iran!)
The 18,400 tonne amphibious assault ship HMS Bulwark is the Royal
Navy's newest Commando Assault and Command and Control ship. It is also
County Durham's 'adopted' Royal Navy vessel.
http://www.durham.gov.uk


France has chartered a ship, which is what you would expect her
neigbour Britain to do unless there were military intentions. Poland
has extracted people into Syria on buses.

But spot the difference: the US already has at least 2,200 Marines on
the coast there and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The UK has sent
Marines, fighter-bombers and warships.

Why would you need commandos and fighter-bombers to get Brits onto
ships? Israel is the one destroying the exits and raining down a
holocaust of ordnance on women and children in Lebanon. Israel is
supposed to be an ally in the great and noble war on terror so surely
we can say, "Hey, Israel can you stop spraying shrapnel and babys' guts
around for a few hours while we get the Westerners out safely?


UN May Send Zionist Force:

Mr Blair said the force could "stop the bombardment coming over into
Israel and therefore gives Israel a reason to stop its attacks on
Hezbollah"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5186474.stm


Nobody would dare to suggest Israel stops turning civillians into red
paste buried under huge piles of rubble. Instead somehow every
Hezbollah man with a rocket should be tracked down and stopped. Are
people really this stupid? This is clearly a blatant move to:

1) Send UN troops in to fight Israel's immediate battle, helping maim
innocent Lebanese families - and

2) Put the troops in place for the already-planned, already-decided
invasion of Syria and Iran. (I wonder what the excuse will be. Most
likely a lot of people are going to die to get public opinion behind
this, just like they did on 9/11.)


Israel always likes to pretend that history started just after their
act of provocation. Israel and of course its puppet Presidents and
Prime Ministers and the world's media keep telling us that this all
started when Hezbola fired rockets at Israel. But Hezbola exists only
because Israel illegally occuplied Palestinian land and continues to
oppress people, regularly bulldozing homes and shooting civilians and
even peace protesters. In this case Hamas and Hezbola had been holding
a ceasefire, then Israel started massacring civilians again with
renewed vigour. Most notably they fired heavy artillery at families
sitting on a beach. Take a good long look:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5065782.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5066496.stm

"Hamas ended an informal ceasefire ... amid escalating tensions
following the beach killings ..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5082820.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5067414.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5076514.stm


HISTORY DOES NOT BEGIN WHEN ISRAEL SAYS IT BEGINS. THERE ARE TWO SIDES
TO EVERY STORY. ISRAEL STARTED THIS AND NOW THEY CLAIM THEY WERE
ATTACKED FIRST WHICH IS NONSENSE.

The US sends an awful lot of weapons and billions of dollars in mostly
military aid to Israel every year. That's why terrorists target the US,
not because they "hate freedom!" The US is heavily involved. That's why
so many people are angry. It's time for the killing and the lies to
stop. The ordinary people in Israel have been used by crazed Zionist
extremists for too long, not to mention the growing lake of Arab blood
and gore. And not to mention the knock-on effects of hatred and
terrorism, staged terrorism and the "War to Promote Terror" Get ready
for the "International Intervention". People just like you and I are
seeing their loved ones torn apart by hot metal and the pieces of their
family homes.

This is just the start. This is David and Goliath and nuclear Israel
with its plans, tanks, nuclear weapons and US backing is the monstrous
Goliath. But that is not the way
the media is portraying this.


BACKGROUND:

Blair takes his prompt (and his policy) from Israel, blaming Iran &
Syria:

Mr Blair said that countries such as Iran and Syria "do not want this
process of democratisation and peace and negotiation to succeed". I
don't think anybody really believes that this is just about Hezbollah
and Israel.
"We are very worried about the influence of both Syria and Iran in
respect of this"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5184254.stm


Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said Israel had no choice but to react
to Hezbollah's aggression, describing the group as "merely the finger
on the bloodstained and long-reaching arms of Syria and Iran".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5179862.stm


Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. Iran.

The war for oil and Israel continues. Israel must be protected at all
costs.

The oil men who control the US & UK government must get richer.

The oil corporations must make bigger profits.

The petroeuro must not replace the petrodollar or the US economy will
collapse and Israel will lose its funding in the process and cease to
exist.

The arms industry must make even more profit.

The defense and intelligence communities must get more funding and
power.


These are the real reasons for the war on terror. For the sake of truth

and for all that is good please share this warning with others.


Syria and Iran can most easily be invaded from Iraq. That's one of the
reasons why it was so important to maintain a huge military presence in
Iraq long after the oil installations were siezed. Mechanised and
armoured divisions are no doubt being lined up on Iraq's borders with
Syria and Iran right now and Special Forces will already be well behind
enemy lines.

The plan was to take down Iran, Iraq and Syria for the oil in Iran and
Iraq and because they oppose Israel and desire a shift away from oil
trading in US dollars. This shift could cause the US economy to
collapse within weeks.

Afghanistan was invaded first, to enable the strategically critical
building of the

Centgas oil pipeline. Recently huge numbers of additional troops were
sent there supposedly to fight the Taliban again but really to use
Afghanistan's border with Iran to attack into Iran.

Iraq was softened for 10 years with bombs and sanctions and invaded
second because it borders with both Syria and Iran with obvious
benefits for the biggest operation of all - Iran. (Apart from being
world oil country number two and having plans to stop using
petrodollars.)

Syria will be next. It is partly just a formality but it borders Israel
and hates Israel and has ports on the Mediteranean which can be used to
bring in troops, arms and supplies. It is not expected to put up a lot
of resistance but has Iran as an ally. To help invade Syria Lebanon is
already being pounded into submission. They are just in the wrong place
at the wrong time.

Iran is the world's most important producer of oil and plans to scrap
the petrodollar threatening to destroy the US economy and US aid to
Israel. Iran is going to be a big job. (As in World War III.) This is
the ultimate prize. Its destruction relies on all the previous
invasions in order to gain strategic locations and destroy its allies
in the area.
Thanks to the increasing numbers of troops pouring into Iraq and
Afghanistan right now, the allied regimes are almost ready.


http://www.theinsider.org

[John Ruddy]

Post by London Terrorism
France has chartered a ship, which is what you would expect her
neigbour Britain to do unless there were military intentions. Poland
has extracted people into Syria on buses.

I hate to reply to such obvious trolling, but please bear in mind the
different numbers involved. Poland evacuated people on busses, because
they only had a few bus loads of citizens there. France had several
hundred people needing evacuation. Britain has an estimated 22,000
citizens in Lebanon requiring evac. Yes, no doubt there will be many
chartered boats taking people to Cyprus, and the RN vessels are there to
coordinate the large scale project, as well as to provide essential
defence of the evacuation craft. It has been described as the biggest
emergency evacuation conducted by the UK since Dunkirk. I would actually
have expected MORE RN vessels to be involved, but Illustrious and
Bulwark were already in the eastern Med.

Post by London Terrorism
But spot the difference: the US already has at least 2,200 Marines on
the coast there and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The UK has sent
Marines, fighter-bombers and warships.
Why would you need commandos and fighter-bombers to get Brits onto
ships? Israel is the one destroying the exits and raining down a
holocaust of ordnance on women and children in Lebanon. Israel is
supposed to be an ally in the great and noble war on terror so surely
we can say, "Hey, Israel can you stop spraying shrapnel and babys' guts
around for a few hours while we get the Westerners out safely?

[Jordan]

While I certainly do hope that America and Britain are getting ready to
take Syria and Iran down in the immediate future, there's no real
evidence of this. As for the British sending warships, of course you
send warships to escort people out of a war zone by sea. Warships can
defend the passengers (or transports carrying the passengers) from
enemy aeronaval attack.

- Jordan

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jordan
While I certainly do hope that America and Britain are getting ready to
take Syria and Iran down in the immediate future, there's no real
evidence of this. As for the British sending warships, of course you
send warships to escort people out of a war zone by sea. Warships can
defend the passengers (or transports carrying the passengers) from
enemy aeronaval attack.

ITIYM "from aeronval attack by either side". Britain isn't actually at
war with either Israel or Lebanon.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[Syd Webb]

***@hotmail.com wrote:

[snip]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
ITIYM "from aeronval attack by either side". Britain isn't actually at
war with either Israel or Lebanon.

Nigel, while I can't fault your command of English or current affairs
I'm wondering why you feel compelled to respond to a troll cascade.
Recognising that there is little enough AH on the group during a
northern summer may we remedy that with an excursion to almost 350
years ago?

WI the regicide Richard Ingolsby is hung, drawn and quartered? In OTL
he escaped in part for his capture of the leader of the 'Good Old
Cause', John Lambert, and partly for his fatuous claim that his ee-vul
cousin Oliver Cromwell had physically forced him to sign King Charles'
death warrant. WI Charles II is more ruthless, or more capricious?
Who represents the good yeomen of Aylesbury in the House of Commons
during the 1660s and '70s?

- Syd

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by Syd Webb
[snip]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
ITIYM "from aeronval attack by either side". Britain isn't actually at
war with either Israel or Lebanon.

Nigel, while I can't fault your command of English or current affairs
I'm wondering why you feel compelled to respond to a troll cascade.

You are quite right, and I humbly apologise.

As partial recompense, I'll try and wring a WI out of this mess. So WI
an Anglo-Israeli War (post 1950). It's probably ASB territory, since
both countries are friendly towards the USA and Israel has enough
enemies near by without wanting to pick a fight with some-one further
afield. It would be as likely as Britain and Argentina going to war.

Best candidate for a POD is probably our old friend the Suez Crisis.
On the principal that nothing fails like success, let's say that the
POD is that the USA does not pull the plug on Britain and France and
that the Anglo-French force successfully takes control of the Suez
Canal.

The alliance between Britain, France and Israel was one of convenience.
With the immediate purpose accomplished, there are plenty of
opportunities for the different aims of the parties to lead to
disagreement and conflict. Throw in the usual accidental clashes on
the ground between British and Israeli forces, some successful
diplomatic manoeuvres by Nasser and trouble stirring by the USSR and
this could blow up into a full-scale war between the UK and Israel.

Another possible POD would be in the 1970's when concerns about energy
supplies meant that the UK tended to take a some-what pro-arabi stance.
However in this case a suitable crisis point escapes me. Any ideas ?

Cheers,
Nigel.

[Aaron Kuperman]

Do you mean a war involving only the United Kingdom and Israel (except for
the Falklands, the UK hasn't had a war against a single country since the
19th century colonial wars)? Do you mean a war in which both the United
Kingdom and Israel are belligerents, but on different sides (not hard,
unless you insist on both countries be pro-western democracies).

***@hotmail.com wrote:

: Syd Webb wrote:
: > ***@hotmail.com wrote:
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > > ITIYM "from aeronval attack by either side". Britain isn't actually at
: > > war with either Israel or Lebanon.
: >
: > Nigel, while I can't fault your command of English or current affairs
: > I'm wondering why you feel compelled to respond to a troll cascade.

: You are quite right, and I humbly apologise.

: As partial recompense, I'll try and wring a WI out of this mess. So WI
: an Anglo-Israeli War (post 1950). It's probably ASB territory, since
: both countries are friendly towards the USA and Israel has enough
: enemies near by without wanting to pick a fight with some-one further
: afield. It would be as likely as Britain and Argentina going to war.

: Best candidate for a POD is probably our old friend the Suez Crisis.
: On the principal that nothing fails like success, let's say that the
: POD is that the USA does not pull the plug on Britain and France and
: that the Anglo-French force successfully takes control of the Suez
: Canal.

: The alliance between Britain, France and Israel was one of convenience.
: With the immediate purpose accomplished, there are plenty of
: opportunities for the different aims of the parties to lead to
: disagreement and conflict. Throw in the usual accidental clashes on
: the ground between British and Israeli forces, some successful
: diplomatic manoeuvres by Nasser and trouble stirring by the USSR and
: this could blow up into a full-scale war between the UK and Israel.

: Another possible POD would be in the 1970's when concerns about energy
: supplies meant that the UK tended to take a some-what pro-arabi stance.
: However in this case a suitable crisis point escapes me. Any ideas ?

: Cheers,
: Nigel.

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by Aaron Kuperman
: As partial recompense, I'll try and wring a WI out of this mess. So WI
: an Anglo-Israeli War (post 1950). It's probably ASB territory, since
: both countries are friendly towards the USA and Israel has enough
: enemies near by without wanting to pick a fight with some-one further
: afield. It would be as likely as Britain and Argentina going to war.
: Best candidate for a POD is probably our old friend the Suez Crisis.
: On the principal that nothing fails like success, let's say that the
: POD is that the USA does not pull the plug on Britain and France and
: that the Anglo-French force successfully takes control of the Suez
: Canal.
: The alliance between Britain, France and Israel was one of convenience.
: With the immediate purpose accomplished, there are plenty of
: opportunities for the different aims of the parties to lead to
: disagreement and conflict. Throw in the usual accidental clashes on
: the ground between British and Israeli forces, some successful
: diplomatic manoeuvres by Nasser and trouble stirring by the USSR and
: this could blow up into a full-scale war between the UK and Israel.
: Another possible POD would be in the 1970's when concerns about energy
: supplies meant that the UK tended to take a some-what pro-arabi stance.
: However in this case a suitable crisis point escapes me. Any ideas ?
Do you mean a war involving only the United Kingdom and Israel (except for
the Falklands, the UK hasn't had a war against a single country since the
19th century colonial wars)? Do you mean a war in which both the United
Kingdom and Israel are belligerents, but on different sides (not hard,
unless you insist on both countries be pro-western democracies).

Either of those would be acceptable. As you can see above, my initial
thoughts were that the most likely route to war would be a tragedy of
errors something like the run-up to the Falkland's Conflict [1]. OTOH,
for a 1970's POD, the most likely scenario for a war would be for the
UK to join in supporting some arab state against Israel (e.g. if Israel
undertook some action which seriously threatened Britain's oil
supplies).

Cheers,
Nigel.


[1] Tragedy of Errors because it seems that a contributing factor was
a mis-reading of British intentions by the Argentinian government. The
reduction in armed forces in the area gave the impression that the UK
would accept a fait-accompli.

[Aaron Kuperman]

***@hotmail.com wrote:
: Either of those would be acceptable. As you can see above, my initial
: thoughts were that the most likely route to war would be a tragedy of
: errors something like the run-up to the Falkland's Conflict [1]. OTOH,
: for a 1970's POD, the most likely scenario for a war would be for the
: UK to join in supporting some arab state against Israel (e.g. if Israel
: undertook some action which seriously threatened Britain's oil
: supplies).

In OTL the closest point of conflict was 1946-1947 but that was more of a
colonial war, however after the official date of Israeli independence
some British troops stayed on Israeli territory (probably planning to lead
a reoccupation in order to save the Jews, and show everyone how necessary
British imperialism was to good world order), also some RAF plans were
destroyed by the Israelis (the RAF conducted joint operations with
Transjordan and Egypt and the Israelis attacked the Brits to pressure the
Arabs, largely since the Brits were officially neutral).

Especially if British troops were more active in support of Transjordan or
Egypt, and especially if Israel were more to the left (a timeline with a
bigger Stalinist role in Israeli politics) could lead to more conflict,
but public opinion in Britain would have kept it from turning into a war.

If Israel ended up in the Warsaw Pact (not absurd), Israel could easily
end up at war with the UK, but that would be part of a bigger war.

If a pre-1918 POD is allowed, an alternative Israel could have developed
under Imperial German tutelage in a timeline where WWI ends differently,
but that is making it too easy.

[Dan]

Post by Aaron Kuperman
: Either of those would be acceptable. As you can see above, my initial
: thoughts were that the most likely route to war would be a tragedy of
: errors something like the run-up to the Falkland's Conflict [1]. OTOH,
: for a 1970's POD, the most likely scenario for a war would be for the
: UK to join in supporting some arab state against Israel (e.g. if Israel
: undertook some action which seriously threatened Britain's oil
: supplies).
In OTL the closest point of conflict was 1946-1947 but that was more of a
colonial war, however after the official date of Israeli independence
some British troops stayed on Israeli territory (probably planning to lead
a reoccupation in order to save the Jews, and show everyone how necessary
British imperialism was to good world order), also some RAF plans were
destroyed by the Israelis (the RAF conducted joint operations with
Transjordan and Egypt and the Israelis attacked the Brits to pressure the
Arabs, largely since the Brits were officially neutral).
Especially if British troops were more active in support of Transjordan or
Egypt, and especially if Israel were more to the left (a timeline with a
bigger Stalinist role in Israeli politics) could lead to more conflict,
but public opinion in Britain would have kept it from turning into a war.

A POD around the 46-47 period could easily have led to a more explicit
pro Arab strategy by the UK. More extreme terrorism by Stern Gang Irgun
would deal with UK public opinion. There were either explicit British
troops or UK officers seconded to run local armies or both in Egypt,
and Jordan and Iraq. The UK faced terrorism in the Suez canal zone, but
with more Israeli terrorism and a more pro Arab policy then Egypt may
have accepted UK troops on Egyptian soil, they would then have been
expected to help if Israel attacked. There were Royal Marines in Aquaba
Jordan in 1949 and on occasions they exchanged machine gun fire with
Israelis at Eliat. It is possible this could have developed into a war.

[n***@hotmail.com]

Aaron Kuperman wrote:

<snip>

Post by Aaron Kuperman
If Israel ended up in the Warsaw Pact (not absurd), Israel could easily
end up at war with the UK, but that would be part of a bigger war.

Israel as part of the Warsaw Pact would make an interesting TL, but I
don't quite see it myself. Geography alone would prevent the USSR from
dominating Israel to such an extent. IMO a communist Israel would
follow a more independant path, like Yugoslavia, and probably become a
member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Still, a Peoples Democratic
Repubic of Israel spreading its own form of Communist revolution in the
region would lead to a very different Middle East.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[frédéric haessig]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
As partial recompense, I'll try and wring a WI out of this mess. So WI
an Anglo-Israeli War (post 1950).

A not ASB PoD is to have Israel stay in the soviet camp instead of coming in
the West one. So, at the end of the 50s, when Israel takes the canal and
close it during a war with Egypt ( who is closer to the west than OTL if
Israel is soviet ), Uk gets involved, to restore international law and open
the canal again. I think the french will sit this one out, as they have
conflicting interests ( not to support soviets on the one hand, not to
support arab nationalism on the other ).

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by frédéric haessig

Post by n***@hotmail.com
As partial recompense, I'll try and wring a WI out of this mess. So WI
an Anglo-Israeli War (post 1950).

A not ASB PoD is to have Israel stay in the soviet camp instead of coming in
the West one. So, at the end of the 50s, when Israel takes the canal and
close it during a war with Egypt ( who is closer to the west than OTL if
Israel is soviet ), Uk gets involved, to restore international law and open
the canal again. I think the french will sit this one out, as they have
conflicting interests ( not to support soviets on the one hand, not to
support arab nationalism on the other ).

I think you've got something here. A communist Israel (not a memeber
of the Warsaw Pact, but following a somewhat independant path like
Yugoslavia) could lead to something like a reverse Suez Crisis [1]. As
well as trying to stir up revolution in its neighbours, it could engage
in armed expansion of its own, particularly to try and capture
strategic assets such as the Suez Canal. As you say, Britain could
well act in support of Egypt to keep the Canal open. France would be
less keen to join in, as support of arab nationalism could give them
problems in Algeria. Similarly, the USA would sit on the fence here -
on the one hand they would be in favour of an action to prevent the
spread of communism, on the other in the late fifties/early sixties the
US was not keen to encourage the maintenance of British Imperialism.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[1] Reverse form the British point of view of course in that the UK
fights against Israel to maintain Egyptian control of the Canal.

[Jordan]

Post by n***@hotmail.com

Post by Jordan
While I certainly do hope that America and Britain are getting ready to
take Syria and Iran down in the immediate future, there's no real
evidence of this. As for the British sending warships, of course you
send warships to escort people out of a war zone by sea. Warships can
defend the passengers (or transports carrying the passengers) from
enemy aeronaval attack.

ITIYM "from aeronval attack by either side". Britain isn't actually at
war with either Israel or Lebanon.

Neither Israel nor Lebanon is the threat here -- Syria, Iran, and their
puppet terrorist groups are the reason why the transport would have to
be escorted. And while Britain isn't _formally_ at war with either
side, Britain would be foolish not to realize that she is effectively
at war with _both_ Syria or Iran (or will be, very shortly).

- Jordan

[Dan]

Post by London Terrorism
ISRAEL ALLIES TO ATTACK SYRIA & IRAN
"Britain is sending two ships, including an aircraft carrier, to the
Middle East... ministry of defence said no "specific tasking" had yet
been allotted to HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5184134.stm
You don't send military aircraft carriers to evacuate people. This is
like the convenient "exercise" Saif Sareea II in Oman just before 9/11
- the Afghanistan invasion force were conveniently already in place
thanks to the largest military deployment of all time - which they
claimed was just an exercise!
(The name of the operation gave the game away: "Swift Sword". Swift as
in immediate as in just before 9/11. Sword as in attack as in killing
people.)

Sorry but what a lot of nonsense,
Illustrious and Bulwark were at Gibralter at the time, they had lots of
Helicopters on board which may be needed as part of an evacuation it
seems perfectly sensible to make them available.

Yes the French charterterd a cruise liner but they also sent warships
as did Italy and Greece and India,, (it had 4 ships had just exited the
Med via Suez and they were turned around to help evacuate Indian
nationals and have offered to take responsibility for those from Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh.

The Brits are both co-ordianting with other EU nations and taking
responsibility for other commonwealth citizens such as Australians and
New Zeland, as they would do if the problem was in the Pacific.

What I wish all thisMilitary hardware would do is help defend Lebanon.
Hizbullah sends a few unguided rockets into Northern Israel, Israel
responds with counter battery fire and air strikes on the katushya
sites in the South no problem.

Mass bombardment of all of the Infrastucture of Lebanon, hospitals,
airports, bridges etc is totally unreasonable, Lebanon has no airforce
and its people are being slaughtered.
Where are the airforces of Syria, Egypt, Saudi, UAE etc,
Why can the EU not declare a no fly zone say beyond 30km north of the
border, and dare the Israelis to shoot down French or RAF pilots?

If this is a reasonable response to kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers then
it would have been reasonable for Germany to burn Paris to the ground
in reponse to any number of French resistance activities, for the
British to bomb Dublin or Boston in response to any number of
attrocities over the years, what should our reponse have been to the
bombing of the King David Hotel, strategic bombing of Tel Aviv?
There was an incident with 2 Paratroopers in the 1940's, 2 Stern Gang
members were arrested, tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to
hang, the Israelis kidnapped 2 British paratroopers and threatened to
kill them if the terrorists were executed. The execution was carried
out. The Israelis tortured the UK troops, hung them, disfigured the
bodies and left them hanging in public but then booby trapped the site
so that other soldiers became casualties as they cut their colleagues
down.
What would have been a reasonable response, if what Israel is doing is
reasonable?

[Helios http://members.fortunecity.com/juillet]

Post by Dan

Post by London Terrorism
ISRAEL ALLIES TO ATTACK SYRIA & IRAN
"Britain is sending two ships, including an aircraft carrier, to the
Middle East... ministry of defence said no "specific tasking" had yet
been allotted to HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5184134.stm
You don't send military aircraft carriers to evacuate people. This is
like the convenient "exercise" Saif Sareea II in Oman just before 9/11
- the Afghanistan invasion force were conveniently already in place
thanks to the largest military deployment of all time - which they
claimed was just an exercise!
(The name of the operation gave the game away: "Swift Sword". Swift as
in immediate as in just before 9/11. Sword as in attack as in killing
people.)

Sorry but what a lot of nonsense,
Illustrious and Bulwark were at Gibralter at the time, they had lots of
Helicopters on board which may be needed as part of an evacuation it
seems perfectly sensible to make them available.
Yes the French charterterd a cruise liner but they also sent warships
as did Italy and Greece and India,, (it had 4 ships had just exited the
Med via Suez and they were turned around to help evacuate Indian
nationals and have offered to take responsibility for those from Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh.
The Brits are both co-ordianting with other EU nations and taking
responsibility for other commonwealth citizens such as Australians and
New Zeland, as they would do if the problem was in the Pacific.
What I wish all thisMilitary hardware would do is help defend Lebanon.
Hizbullah sends a few unguided rockets into Northern Israel, Israel
responds with counter battery fire and air strikes on the katushya
sites in the South no problem.
Mass bombardment of all of the Infrastucture of Lebanon, hospitals,
airports, bridges etc is totally unreasonable, Lebanon has no airforce
and its people are being slaughtered.
Where are the airforces of Syria, Egypt, Saudi, UAE etc,
Why can the EU not declare a no fly zone say beyond 30km north of the
border, and dare the Israelis to shoot down French or RAF pilots?
If this is a reasonable response to kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers then
it would have been reasonable for Germany to burn Paris to the ground
in reponse to any number of French resistance activities, for the
British to bomb Dublin or Boston in response to any number of
attrocities over the years, what should our reponse have been to the
bombing of the King David Hotel, strategic bombing of Tel Aviv?
There was an incident with 2 Paratroopers in the 1940's, 2 Stern Gang
members were arrested, tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to
hang, the Israelis kidnapped 2 British paratroopers and threatened to
kill them if the terrorists were executed. The execution was carried
out. The Israelis tortured the UK troops, hung them, disfigured the
bodies and left them hanging in public but then booby trapped the site
so that other soldiers became casualties as they cut their colleagues
down.
What would have been a reasonable response, if what Israel is doing is
reasonable?

We can talk the day out and Israel will keep on doing what he know best
. Since the beguining of that race, they had being doing the same.
Romans understand that , and while they were around, Israel was
abashed.
Now with the new Roman US Empire, the jews learned to infiltrate the
Empire and so they have nothing to worry about.
But some day U.S. will wake up and act as the first Empire.

[Jordan]

Post by Helios http://members.fortunecity.com/juillet
Now with the new Roman US Empire, the jews learned to infiltrate the
Empire and so they have nothing to worry about.
But some day U.S. will wake up and act as the first Empire.

Actually, the Islamofascists are acting more like the Judeans did in
Roman times, and are the more likely to suffer a Diaspora in the long
run at American hands.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Jordan]

Post by Dan
What I wish all thisMilitary hardware would do is help defend Lebanon.
Hizbullah sends a few unguided rockets into Northern Israel, Israel
responds with counter battery fire and air strikes on the katushya
sites in the South no problem.

Hezbullah has launched 1400 artillery rockets, which is hardly "a few"
save in the minds of the exceedingly anti-Semitic who consider killing
or trying to kill Jewish civilians more in the nature of a laudable
recreational activity than a war crime.

Post by Dan
Mass bombardment of all of the Infrastucture of Lebanon, hospitals,
airports, bridges etc is totally unreasonable,

While I'm sure that anti-Semites would _prefer_ a "proportionate"
response, so that Hezbullah could continue playing their fun little
"bombard the Jews" game, Israel appears to have wised up to the
situation and has taken the game to a level at which Hezbullah is
unable to compete.

Good for Israel.

Post by Dan
Lebanon has no airforce
and its people are being slaughtered.

Some Lebanese civilians have died in the bombardment of the Hezbullah
positions. That's how war works. Lebanon had the responsibility to
actively prevent Hezbullah from bombarding Israeli soil from territory
Lebanon claimed. If Lebanon was unable to prevent such a massive
bombardment from that territory, then Lebanon had no effective
sovereignity over that territory and has no right to prevent the victim
from responding to the attack.

Post by Dan
Where are the airforces of Syria, Egypt, Saudi, UAE etc,

In the case of Egypt, Saudi, UAE etc. staying home, in the case of
Syria writing out their wills and farewell letters to loved ones.

Post by Dan
Why can the EU not declare a no fly zone say beyond 30km north of the
border, and dare the Israelis to shoot down French or RAF pilots?

Because actually intervening _on the side of the Terrorists_ would be a
bit mad even for the Europeans?

Post by Dan
If this is a reasonable response to kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers then
it would have been reasonable for Germany to burn Paris to the ground
in reponse to any number of French resistance activities, for the
British to bomb Dublin or Boston in response to any number of
attrocities over the years, what should our reponse have been to the
bombing of the King David Hotel, strategic bombing of Tel Aviv?

Sorry, what place do you imagine Israel has "strategically bombed?" Do
you even know what "strategic bombing" means?

Post by Dan
There was an incident with 2 Paratroopers in the 1940's, 2 Stern Gang
members were arrested, tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to
hang, the Israelis kidnapped 2 British paratroopers and threatened to
kill them if the terrorists were executed. The execution was carried
out. The Israelis tortured the UK troops, hung them, disfigured the
bodies and left them hanging in public but then booby trapped the site
so that other soldiers became casualties as they cut their colleagues
down.
What would have been a reasonable response, if what Israel is doing is
reasonable?

Killing every Stern Gang member captured on sight, and pursuing them
even after Israel became a state. And yes, I know who Britain should
have killed on that theory, and I think he deserved death for that.

What, you thought I was in favor of _Israeli_ terrorists? But simply
because Britain wimped out against Israeli terrorists in the late
1940's does not mean that Israel must wimp out against Arab terrorists
today.

- Jordan

[Dan]

Post by Jordan

Post by Dan
What would have been a reasonable response, if what Israel is doing is
reasonable?

Killing every Stern Gang member captured on sight, and pursuing them
even after Israel became a state. And yes, I know who Britain should
have killed on that theory, and I think he deserved death for that.
What, you thought I was in favor of _Israeli_ terrorists? But simply
because Britain wimped out against Israeli terrorists in the late
1940's does not mean that Israel must wimp out against Arab terrorists
today.
- Jordan

Jordan if you take that line consistently I am happier to agree with
you, though we would probably still disagree on the details of tactics.

What I can not abide is some of your countrymen who seem to defend
Israel under all circumstances but spent 30 years refusing to extradite
convicted murders back to these shores if they had an Irish accent,
allowed fundraising for terrorists to go on for a centuary or more,
looked the other way while gun smuggelling went on and would have had a
fit if a single UK soldier had been caught in the South never mind what
their reaction would have been if we had sent 300 sorties a day to blow
the crap out of Dublin. or their fundraisers in Boston or New York.

I am totally opposed to terrorism against Israeli civillians,
what I am also opposed to is the implicit racism of allowing Israel a
free pass in their response as
Bomb Hezbullah office in Beiruit and unintentionally kill children OK
as colateral damage are only Muslims
Bomb Sinn Fein office in Dublin unintentionally kill children
unacceptable as they are white and catholic!

Again I have no problem Israel taking out the rocket launchers in
Southern Lebanon but do have a problem with them destroying Beiruit and
further north based on it is part of the Hezbullah logistic
infrastructure as on the IRA comparison the logistic infrastructure
stretched to US.

The true underlying cause of the crisis is Israel wants the impossible,
by wanting the 3 things below, of which it can only have any 2 out of
the 3.

It wants all the land between the Jordan River and the Sea
It wants to be a democratic State
It wants to be a Jewish state.

If it keeps all the land it keeps all the people and 2-3 million extra
non Jewish citizens who get a vote and the state is no longer Jewish or
it keeps all the land and they have 2-3 million second class citizens
with no vote and less rights, thus not democratic (but where we have
been since 1967) or they get out of the occupied territories and we
have a 2 state soloution, or Israel expels or executes the Palisinian
population.