DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 04, 2010, 10:18:37 PM
-
Egyptian sources: Israel prepares to strike Iran from Gulf and N. Iraq
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
February 3, 2010, 10:12 PM (GMT+02:00)
Debkafile's military sources report that not only are Syrian leaders beating war drums - Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem said in Damascus: "Israelis, do not test the power of Syria since you know the war will move into your cities" - but Egyptian military sources have put out information purporting to outline Israel's preparations to strike Iran.
They report that the Israeli Navy together with the US Fifth Fleet have for some weeks been charting Persian Gulf waters and Iranian shorelines in preparation for attacks by Israeli naval and special operations forces.
IDF intelligence and special forces officers, they also say, have been marking out routes for their air and ground forces to drive into Iran and hit its nuclear installations.
According to these Egyptian sources, Saudi Arabia has demanded clarifications from Washington about reported US-assisted Israeli preparations to strike Iran and asks why they were not brought to the notice of Riyadh and the Gulf Arab governments.
The Saudis added that several Gulf intelligence and naval units had tracked Israeli movements and gathered documentary evidence.
Some of this information was leaked in Cairo Wednesday night to Shorouk, a publication which Egyptian intelligence often uses as an outlet for information held to be credible.
Shorouk was first out with the story of the Israeli Air Force attack on Iranian arms convoys in Sudan in January 2009.
-
Iranian missile airlift stiffens Syrian war talk,
tops up Hizballah, Hamas
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
February 5, 2010, 9:22 AM (GMT+02:00)
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2010/02/05/big/SyriaM.jpg)
Syrian missile
Debkafile Iranian and military sources report the war threats from Damascus this week were backed by massive Iranian airlifts for boosting Syria's missile arsenal. Fresh supplies also reached the Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas in Gaza. Wednesday, Feb. 3, Syrian president Bashar Assad accused Israel of seeking war, while his foreign minister Walid Moallem boasted: "You know that war at this time will come to your cities." They spoke after taking delivery of 100 new medium-range surface-to-surface missiles from Iran in January.
Moallem's threat was comprehensive: ??.Syria calls on Israel to halt directing threats once against Gaza, another against South Lebanon, then Iran and now Syria.? His message that all four extremist allies had formed a mutual defense pact against Israel raised temperatures to a dangerous level in the region. Syria will not stand by idly next time round if Israel goes to war against Iran's nuclear program or an aggressive Hizballah or Hamas, but go for Israel's cities.
This was public confirmation for the first time of debkafile's disclosure that on Dec. 17, Iranian defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi signed a secret military pact with his Syrian opposite number Gen. Ali Habib in Damascus, with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah appending his signature later.
Within days, Iran began shipping missile supplies by air to Damascus, Syria stepped up the pace of its smuggled rocket supplies to Hizballah in South Lebanon and both pumped hardware to Hamas by serpentine routes.
Syrian leaders used the visit to Damascus of Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos as the stage for their heightened stridency. US Middle East envoy George Mitchell heard a similar harsh threatening tone against Israel when he called on Bashar Assad in Damascus on Jan. 20. Neither Washington nor Jerusalem were caught by surprise.
Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented nonchalantly that he does not understand what the Bashar Assad wants, confiding to his aides that his goal is to gain international goodwill before Israel decides to attack Iran.
Next day, Feb. 4, hardline foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was more outspoken: "Assad must be told bluntly," he said, "that in the next war, not only will Syria be beaten but he and his family will lose power. You will not remain in power, and neither will your family."
While his words were widely reported, the doves of the Labor party, the opposition Kadima and the left found his tone outrageous and called on the prime minister fire him.
-
I hope they all learned better last time.
It won't be any better from the practice.
-
Lucy (Debkafile) propos up the football.
Here comes Charlie Brown (Christians), a-running down the field.
*SNATCH!* Lucy grabs the football away!
* WHUMP!* Charlie Brown lands on his back!
(repeat as many times as are necessary).
-
FWIW
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/36-17277.aspx (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/36-17277.aspx)
-
Those are from 2004, BT, which is probably one of the reasons for the "FWIW."
Given the general unpredictability of Middle Eastern events, I don't think the issue should be "is DEBKA likely to be right or wrong?" but, assuming the ZioNazi sources the publication hooks into, "WHY is DEBKA saying this now?"
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7017951.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7017951.ece)
One door closes, another opens.
If the Russians aren't going to give Iran the anti-missile defence system they purchased, looks like China might have some goodies for them. And something for Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria as well. Geeze, maybe Uncle Sam doesn't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dyke at the same time after all.
Tough shit for the world's most hated bully. They might be about to punch somebody who can punch right back, for a change. Now THAT would be interesting.
-
They might be
about to punch somebody who can punch right back, for a change. Now THAT would be interesting.
I pray that happens!
I pray Iran unleashes all they got so it will be VERY VERY VERY clear what Obama and Israel would have to do.
The sooner this invitable clash happens the less lives will be lost....if we would have done it 15 years ago....
they wouldnt have as many weapons as they do today....it would have saved lives.....delay allowing an enemy to get stronger
is not the "high moral ground".
No more hiding behind Hezbollah....no more hiding behind Syria.
Throw your best and we cant wait to throw ours!
We all know who wins if each side throws everything they got.
Read it and weep Michael Tee!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/3e0468a8.jpg)
-
On second thought . . .
Thanks, CU4, that is an excellent argument for Iran's need to develop nuclear weapons and the appropriate delivery vehicles. Until they develop a counter-threat to US nuclear blackmail, they will always be reduced to having to follow U.S. orders now and in the foreseeable future.
-
Once again the Canadian can of shit supports terrorist regimes against the US. Over and over again he supports terrorists and mass murderers who's only goal is the death of Americans.
But hey, let's be nice to the guy because we don't have anybody to replace him.
Fuck you Mike. Fuck you and your entire fucking family. Here's hoping you get colon cancer and can't get treatment in Canada. Then you try and come to the US only find you're on the no fly list.
Poetic justice asshole.
-
On second thought . . .
Thanks, CU4, that is an excellent argument for Iran's need to develop nuclear weapons and the appropriate delivery vehicles. Until they develop a counter-threat to US nuclear blackmail, they will always be reduced to having to follow U.S. orders now and in the foreseeable future.
They need a deterant to prevent us from do ing what ?
They are not likely to grow a deterant better than the USSR had and we struggled with the USSR for fifty years waveing our Atomic deterants at each other.
We still have thousands of warheads left over from that , so do the Russians .
What does our deterant deter them from?
Aren't they just as sure that they will never use these wepons as we are?
-
<<They need a deterant to prevent us from do ing what ?>>
It's a good question. I'm not sure. Maybe it's just to stiffen their own backs, like sometimes in the middle of the night you hear a noise in the kitchen and you get up to investigate and here (in non-gun-owning Canada) you might think, Jeeze, wish I had a gun in my hand right now. They might just feel more confident standing up to the U.S. in their dealings with them if they had a nuclear arsenal.
The conventional answer is often used. I'm not sure if it's correct or not. But the conventional answer is: to deter the U.S. from invasion or some lesser form of aggression. The argument is buttressed by the fact that North Korea, which had nukes, was not invaded or attacked by the U.S., while Iraq and Afghanistan, which did not, were both invaded and occupied.
<<They are not likely to grow a deterant better than the USSR had and we struggled with the USSR for fifty years waveing our Atomic deterants at each other.>>
Well, in the eyes of the U.S.S.R., the deterrent worked because the U.S. was not able to take advantage of its nuclear monopoly to launch a first-strike nuclear attack. When the monopoly was broken, the U.S. was not able to use nuclear blackmail against the Soviets.
<<We still have thousands of warheads left over from that , so do the Russians .
<<What does our deterant deter them from?>>
I think you're confusing who's got the deterrent and who hasn't. The U.S. bomb was not developed as a deterrent to anybody. It was developed and used as a weapon of war. It was the Russian bomb that was the deterrent.
<<Aren't they just as sure that they will never use these wepons as we are?>>
Who is "they?" Russians or Iranians?
I think it's undeniable that the Iranian bomb will be a comfort factor, they'll feel better and more secure with it than without it, just like me in the kitchen at 3:00 AM investigating a suspicious noise, I'd feel more secure with a gun in my hand. Rational? No. Effective? Yes.
The contrasting examples of North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan are also very instructive. You can ask all the questions you like, would the U.S. do A if Iran did B? and so on, but at the end of the day, nobody can answer the hypotheticals with any real assurance, but one thing everybody DOES know and that is that North Korea, with nukes, told the U.S.A. to go fuck itself, and nothing happened, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan, without nukes, both got invaded and occupied. That in itself would be good reason for Iran to get nukes, the bigger the better, and as fast as they can, deterrence or no deterrence.
-
>>Maybe it's just to stiffen their own backs, like sometimes in the middle of the night you hear a noise in the kitchen and you get up to investigate and here (in non-gun-owning Canada) you might think, Jeeze, wish I had a gun in my hand right now.<<
Hey asshole. If you hear a sound in the middle of the night it's more than likely either you wife's lover sneaking in, or your entire family sneaking out.
American agression ... you know, those American soldiers terrorizing Iraqi women and children at night. Right Schmidt? Isn't your son one of those people Mike likes to see die whenever possible?
But by all means, entertain him while he's humping the television and your son is being shot at by the folks he supports.
For Christ sake man. This is you?
-
We did not invade non nuclear North Korea , and the jury is still out on what is best to do with Nuclear North Korea.
Invadeing them looks expensive and painfull , perhaps we ought to simply stop feeding them.
-
<<We did not invade non nuclear North Korea . . . >>
Of course not, you can't invade every country on earth at the same time. You were otherwise occupied and North Korea clearly thought, while you were otherwise occupied, that the sooner it got nukes, the safer it would be.
<< . . . and the jury is still out on what is best to do with Nuclear North Korea.>>
Yes and the jury will take a lot more time to figure out what the U.S. can safely get away with because North Korea has nukes. The lesson to any country that values its independence and fears U.S. aggression is that they're safer with nukes than without.
<<Invadeing them looks expensive and painfull , perhaps we ought to simply stop feeding them.>>
China will feed them. Other countries will feed them. They will arm other countries in return. Their strength is their primary guarantee of survival and independence.
-
>>That in itself would be good reason for Iran to get nukes, the bigger the better, and as fast as they can, deterrence or no deterrence.<<
There you go. Once againt the Canadian can of shit supports a terrorist country getting nuclear weapons. Weapons they've pledged to us again Israel, Americas allie, and given the chance they will use against America.
Let's hope the bomb goes off somewhere near Mike's trailor and kills his entire fucking family. Poetic justice no?
Unless of course you care more to have his disgusting ass here shitting on America all day, and fiogure any amount of dead American women and children is well worth havinf someone, ANYONE, around to play with here.
Pathetic fucking losers.
-
As far as I can tell MT is discussing bombs , not building bombs.
I like haveing him here where I have a chance to contradict him.
I think it is quite satisfying when I can find a logical fallicy to peirce , since dueling is illeagal in Georgia that is about the best satisfaction I can leagally get.
Thinking of it , it might be even more satisfying to peirce his logic than it would be to bust his tripes , any fool can be strong , but it hard to pretend to be witty.
-
I understand you love him.
Eh, fuck it, you can have him. What a bunch of pathetic losers.