Israeli Air Force practices for Iranian strike
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr fish
Certainly and Israel was amongst them. Ask any survivors, if you can find them in Isreal, how they were treated when they arrived. One of the nicknames was "Ash". Auschwitz survivors knew what the reference was. "Exodus" was an absolute fabrication. The US didn't want a huge influx of Jews, Russia and the eastern bloc was still actively anti-semitic and Israelis blamed them for staying in Germany etc.
I do still know survivors, though they are a shrinking group and by and large they are disgusted by those who wrap themselves in the Holocaust banner just as we all know those of our lost and maimed mates who are horrified at the flag wrappers who use their sacrifice for their own ends. I am stretching the analogy a bit but I am a bit raw about it at the moment.
Anyone who listens to Iranian rhetoric must ask who the intended audience is. In common with insecure regimes throughout history, they are speaking to their own population.
I do not want Iran or anyone else to have "The Bomb" but they would almost be derilict in their duty not to acknowledge the fact that almost every border is with someone who already has one or has a mate who has.
Not many did really but this is trotted out daily about anyone we don't like.
Many think the persecution of jews (and others of course) ended with the defeat of germany, sadly this was not the case and pogroms continued against jews returning from death camps and slave labour sites well into the late 40s.
I do still know survivors, though they are a shrinking group and by and large they are disgusted by those who wrap themselves in the Holocaust banner just as we all know those of our lost and maimed mates who are horrified at the flag wrappers who use their sacrifice for their own ends. I am stretching the analogy a bit but I am a bit raw about it at the moment.
Anyone who listens to Iranian rhetoric must ask who the intended audience is. In common with insecure regimes throughout history, they are speaking to their own population.
I do not want Iran or anyone else to have "The Bomb" but they would almost be derilict in their duty not to acknowledge the fact that almost every border is with someone who already has one or has a mate who has.
Many dismissed Hitler's rants in the 1930's as empty, impotent rhetoric.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dinnerjacket. My my, how amusing.
My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915),
By the way, it's not that uncommon a degree to possess (hint, look at the pprune name). And how it'd work out for you as an aviation writer? By this logic, you are not qualified to comment on fighters, helicopters, ASW platforms, tankers, et al, the procurement and use thereof, yet you do so.
And for a living.
by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.
Or is it possible to arrive at a different conclusion based on the same set of facts? Hmm, different understanding of scholarship. Must be a translation thing.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than you'd get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
This couldn't be another case of starting something in the Middle East some years back - Balfour, UN Mandate, etc, then just walking away. Again. Wonder how Zimbabwe is progressing?
Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.
There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.
And to continue the 'fair' theme, you know, as a journalist, the one you're supposedly a fan of, then why if Israel makes a show of force with no harm to anyone and says it will protect itself, you condemn it? After all, it's just rhetoric, isn't it?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick,
I freely admit I have never been a great fan of your's or Westies rather slanted vision of the world we all live in, however your last missive is nothing short of childish, crass and extremely rude to boot.
If you are going to argue with the grown up's then please have the decency to act like a grown up
I freely admit I have never been a great fan of your's or Westies rather slanted vision of the world we all live in, however your last missive is nothing short of childish, crass and extremely rude to boot.
If you are going to argue with the grown up's then please have the decency to act like a grown up
As long as you did in the IDF/AF, I'd imagine, Nige, since VR service doesn't count. How exactly did your own long years on the Herc force (for which I respect and commend you) give you special insight into Middle Eastern affairs? That's a rhetorical question, Nige, as I would respect your view, as an intelligent chap who may have done staff college, and who must know the region, whether I agreed with it or not.
But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?
In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?
Brick,
I don't recall having condemned Israel's latest bout of sabre rattling. I just question the neocon view that Iran represents a 'clear and present danger' to Israel, based solely on the lunatic ramblings of the Iranian President, which are (as someone pointed out) intended for domestic consumption, and which are part of a long tradition of Iranian empty rhetoric.
I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat (as existed in Afghanistan, but as arguably did not exist in Iraq in 2003).
Otherwise the USA would be lining up to bomb North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and that would be fine and dandy.
As to your anti-British tirade and cheap points about 'walking away' from the Mandate (League of Nations, not UN) and Rhodesia, they're beneath you. Or perhaps you think we should take lessons from the US example of disengagement, as demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia and the Lebanon - or even Iran? And that's not beneath me, as you don't sink lower than a journo.
That's a rhetorical question, Nige, as I would respect your view, as an intelligent chap who may have done staff college, and who must know the region, whether I agreed with it or not. But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?
In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?
Brick,
I don't recall having condemned Israel's latest bout of sabre rattling. I just question the neocon view that Iran represents a 'clear and present danger' to Israel, based solely on the lunatic ramblings of the Iranian President, which are (as someone pointed out) intended for domestic consumption, and which are part of a long tradition of Iranian empty rhetoric.
I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat (as existed in Afghanistan, but as arguably did not exist in Iraq in 2003).
Otherwise the USA would be lining up to bomb North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and that would be fine and dandy.
As to your anti-British tirade and cheap points about 'walking away' from the Mandate (League of Nations, not UN) and Rhodesia, they're beneath you. Or perhaps you think we should take lessons from the US example of disengagement, as demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia and the Lebanon - or even Iran? And that's not beneath me, as you don't sink lower than a journo.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 24th Jun 2008 at 10:52.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN, no worries, just thought you were wearing your history degree a little too obviously on the thread. Nothing particularly wrong with snideness and derision used in low doses!
I am acquainted with an Iraqi Shia, who supported the Iraq invasion but also understands the great game being played out by Persia. Don't think Dinner Jacket is playing it too smartly myself and you could argue that US foreign policy has brought on what could turn out to be a nuclear arms race in the region.
I always have a sneaking admiration for Israeli cojones though!
Cheers,
Nige
I am acquainted with an Iraqi Shia, who supported the Iraq invasion but also understands the great game being played out by Persia. Don't think Dinner Jacket is playing it too smartly myself and you could argue that US foreign policy has brought on what could turn out to be a nuclear arms race in the region.
I always have a sneaking admiration for Israeli cojones though!
Cheers,
Nige
Guest
Posts: n/a
jacko,
exactly. Which is why
struck me as not your usual approach.
The US walking away? Absolutely. I claim no moral high ground for my country. edited to add: Only self-interests, just like any other nation.
I say Israel isn't entitled to moral superiority either. But to exist, yeah, I kinda think they have that right.
Iran seems to think otherwise and, by all accounts, is acquiring the means to carry out the rhetoric.
And the thread is back full circle.
But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?
In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?
In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?
My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915), by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.
The US walking away? Absolutely. I claim no moral high ground for my country. edited to add: Only self-interests, just like any other nation.
I say Israel isn't entitled to moral superiority either. But to exist, yeah, I kinda think they have that right.
Iran seems to think otherwise and, by all accounts, is acquiring the means to carry out the rhetoric.
And the thread is back full circle.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Politics apart militarily I don't doubt that the Israelis have the skill and fire power to carry out the raid into Iran and destroy that nuclear facility. I'm not at all sure they would advertise their intentions in such an obvious way. I think it is a smokescreen for an attack closer to base (Syria ?). The Israelis are cunning and shrewd ( and perhaps a little stealthy) having visited Iraq and Uganda to protect their interests in the past. Why advertise their intentions in this manner. The Iranians can do the maths they know the range of an F-16I ITIRC about 1500 nm with conformal tankage max. Unless the IDF/AF has a stunning trick up its sleeve they are going to require tanking some where along the way and that mitigates against surprise.
Perhaps the stunning trick is a Lavi / Lampyridae hybrid project based on the missing Lavi number 3. Didn't a significant number of MBB technicians from the very top drawer join IAI some years ago. Lavi 1 is in a museum 2,4 & 5 were scrapped. 1 & 2 were stripped to complete number 3 as a technology demonstrator, where is it now? Not too sure on just how the timelines fit for this but it is a thought.
Just my thoughts.
Your comments and observations much appreciated.
Be lucky
David
Perhaps the stunning trick is a Lavi / Lampyridae hybrid project based on the missing Lavi number 3. Didn't a significant number of MBB technicians from the very top drawer join IAI some years ago. Lavi 1 is in a museum 2,4 & 5 were scrapped. 1 & 2 were stripped to complete number 3 as a technology demonstrator, where is it now? Not too sure on just how the timelines fit for this but it is a thought.
Just my thoughts.
Your comments and observations much appreciated.
Be lucky
David
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bible produces some interesting insights into the Arab/Israeli conflict. They appear to have been fighting each other for centuries. Both trace their lineage to Abraham. Abraham had a son with the servant girl Hagar and he was called Ishmael. He then had a son with his wife Sarah and he was called Isaac. The Jews were descended from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. It was said of Ishmael, “He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man and every man’s hand against him.” Ishmael and Isaac have been fighting ever since. In AD 135ish the Romans joined the province of Judea/Samaria together with Galilee to form a new province Syria Palaestina. The word “Palaestina” was a reference to the Philistines, the arch enemies of the Israelites from the days of Moses. Rome had been fighting Jewish rebels and named Judea “Palaestina” as a sleight to the Jews.
I doubt that Carter or Blair will solve a problem that has several centuries of history behind it.
On the question of Iran, I do not believe that the current bout of sabre rattling will develop into conflict. The Iranians are not Arabs. However, history suggests that another Arab Israeli war is inevitable.
I doubt that Carter or Blair will solve a problem that has several centuries of history behind it.
On the question of Iran, I do not believe that the current bout of sabre rattling will develop into conflict. The Iranians are not Arabs. However, history suggests that another Arab Israeli war is inevitable.
Jacko
How does all that edumakation qualify you to know if an individual is slewing innocent enough death threats or real, to be believed death threats? You're damning a country based on what you learned a long ago time in Uni, surely between protesting a cause de jour.
I guess I don't understand how knowing some Prof's in academia as you trumpet somehow allows you a greater insight.
It really is black and white. Either he's bluffing or he's not. You, me and Israel differ in how we assess verbalized threats of destruction.
You can be wrong in your analysis all day long without consequence, Israel can only be wrong once.
How does all that edumakation qualify you to know if an individual is slewing innocent enough death threats or real, to be believed death threats? You're damning a country based on what you learned a long ago time in Uni, surely between protesting a cause de jour.
I guess I don't understand how knowing some Prof's in academia as you trumpet somehow allows you a greater insight.
It really is black and white. Either he's bluffing or he's not. You, me and Israel differ in how we assess verbalized threats of destruction.
You can be wrong in your analysis all day long without consequence, Israel can only be wrong once.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people seem to be able to spell Iran properly, but then it's a four-letter word, so that's easy. To those who cannot spell Palestine,Gaza,etc. correctly, I would ask - why? Presumably you have read about this in newspapers and magazines (where they are spelt correctly)
The Western world's interpretation will always be a bastardised version.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avgas Dinosaur
Take a look here.....
J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com
Perhaps acquired for a bit of reverse engineering?
J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com
Perhaps acquired for a bit of reverse engineering?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)
What would one expect from that institution, anyway? They are, by their own admission, a bunch of Jew-hating pinko lefties, afterall.... BBC confesses bias on religion, politics
JN,
No, it would not be illegal. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence has long been enshrined into international law. This was done specifically to counter exactly the kind of threat ArmyDinnerjacket has made. In fact, IMHO, this is the most clear-cut case in modern times of justification for a pre-emptive strike. Let's summarise:
1. ArmyDinnerjacket says "Israel will be wiped off the map".
2. ArmyDinnerjacket starts building nuclear weapons.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
You (and many others) claim that "Oh well, he didn't really mean it" - that IMHO is a bogus argument; whether he meant it or not is irrelevant, he said it, and that's all that counts. Under English law, one can be given a custodial sentence for making "Threats to Kill" - there is no requirement to prove that the threat is real, or to wait and see if it is carried out, just that it was made. In fact, the pivotal point is whether or not the victim believes the threat, since the true intentions of the threatener are, in a legal sense at least, indeterminable.
One last point - if it were your country, and your children he was threatening, would you be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt?
What would one expect from that institution, anyway? They are, by their own admission, a bunch of Jew-hating pinko lefties, afterall.... BBC confesses bias on religion, politics
JN,
I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat
1. ArmyDinnerjacket says "Israel will be wiped off the map".
2. ArmyDinnerjacket starts building nuclear weapons.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
You (and many others) claim that "Oh well, he didn't really mean it" - that IMHO is a bogus argument; whether he meant it or not is irrelevant, he said it, and that's all that counts. Under English law, one can be given a custodial sentence for making "Threats to Kill" - there is no requirement to prove that the threat is real, or to wait and see if it is carried out, just that it was made. In fact, the pivotal point is whether or not the victim believes the threat, since the true intentions of the threatener are, in a legal sense at least, indeterminable.
One last point - if it were your country, and your children he was threatening, would you be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt?
Last edited by TheInquisitor; 27th Jun 2008 at 17:48.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
A valid point..... If S Ireland were threatening us with armageddon and we were not 100% sure it was a bluff, what would we be saying now?
The Israelis are certainly not innocents in the art of aggressor, but the constant threat of an enemy who would not be satisfied with simple defeat, eradication only please, certainly concentrates the mind. My viewpoint is simple here, but the Israelis see their options as simple also......
The Israelis are certainly not innocents in the art of aggressor, but the constant threat of an enemy who would not be satisfied with simple defeat, eradication only please, certainly concentrates the mind. My viewpoint is simple here, but the Israelis see their options as simple also......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A Year to Stop Iran
Guardian: Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle
......What is clear is that the push inside the Israeli establishment for a strike is not being driven by the timetable of Iran's mastery of the technical aspects alone, but by geopolitical considerations. That point was reinforced by Bar last week when he identified a window of opportunity for a strike on Iran - ahead of the November presidential election in the United States which could see Barack Obama take power, and possibly engage with Syria and Iran. An Obama presidency would close that window for Israel, says Bar.
'The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent. I don't think there is anybody within Israel who sees Iran's threats as rhetoric. So the question is, when do we reach that bridge?' he said, adding that the West is naive to believe that any kind of negotiation will work. 'The only thing that can stop Israel's intent [to bomb] would be extremely robust steps on the part of the West - a blockade of Iranian refined oil, something that would indicate that steps were meant to force regime change. Since that is not on the cards, only bombing Iran will work.
'If it's an Israeli attack they will put pressure on Iran's Arab neighbours to respond to the problem also. It will be counter-productive for Iran to launch a major attack on Israel.
'So they will launch a few rockets at us; that is not devastating for Israel,' he said with a shrug. Israel's case, as put by Bar, is that 'most of the Arab Middle East will side with the hope that Israel does the job and not the US. And make no mistake that they all want the job done. They will condemn it in public of course and then get on with their lives,' he said.
Har added that there would probably be another war with Lebanon - 'a month or two months, that is as long as the Middle East has wars for. We can easily cope with that. That's the nature of life in this region. We will set the Iranian programme back and yes, then we will need to come and take it out of existence again after that timeline. There will be no total conclusion, I hesitate to call it the "final solution", but there are no such solutions.'........
Guardian: Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle
......What is clear is that the push inside the Israeli establishment for a strike is not being driven by the timetable of Iran's mastery of the technical aspects alone, but by geopolitical considerations. That point was reinforced by Bar last week when he identified a window of opportunity for a strike on Iran - ahead of the November presidential election in the United States which could see Barack Obama take power, and possibly engage with Syria and Iran. An Obama presidency would close that window for Israel, says Bar.
'The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent. I don't think there is anybody within Israel who sees Iran's threats as rhetoric. So the question is, when do we reach that bridge?' he said, adding that the West is naive to believe that any kind of negotiation will work. 'The only thing that can stop Israel's intent [to bomb] would be extremely robust steps on the part of the West - a blockade of Iranian refined oil, something that would indicate that steps were meant to force regime change. Since that is not on the cards, only bombing Iran will work.
'If it's an Israeli attack they will put pressure on Iran's Arab neighbours to respond to the problem also. It will be counter-productive for Iran to launch a major attack on Israel.
'So they will launch a few rockets at us; that is not devastating for Israel,' he said with a shrug. Israel's case, as put by Bar, is that 'most of the Arab Middle East will side with the hope that Israel does the job and not the US. And make no mistake that they all want the job done. They will condemn it in public of course and then get on with their lives,' he said.
Har added that there would probably be another war with Lebanon - 'a month or two months, that is as long as the Middle East has wars for. We can easily cope with that. That's the nature of life in this region. We will set the Iranian programme back and yes, then we will need to come and take it out of existence again after that timeline. There will be no total conclusion, I hesitate to call it the "final solution", but there are no such solutions.'........
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Jun 2008 at 07:34.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Inquisitior
Well of course we all experience the resources available to us in different ways. For my part I tend to read and listen to almost anything I can in order to get an idea of what is going on in the world. However I think that if you had indeed listened to the program, you may have found that the contributors are quite varied and eminent in their fields. I have heard fairly right wing US academics there explaining the neocon view.
Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)