PDA

View Full Version : Report: Assad threatens to attack Tel Aviv in case of NATO strike



Rockntractor
10-04-2011, 11:25 PM
In meeting with Turkish FM, Syrian president discusses possibility of NATO strike, says 'I won't need more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets to Golan to fire at Tel Aviv'

Ynet Published: 10.04.11, 19:15 / Israel News









Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday threatened to set fire to the Middle East, and especially to Israel, if NATO attacks Syria, the Iranian Fars news agency reported.



In a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Assad said: "If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv."

Davutoglu reportedly conveyed a message of warning from the US to Assad. The Iranian report has not been verified by other sources.



According to the Fars news agency, the Syrian president stressed that Damascus will also call on Hezbollah in Lebanon to launch a fierce rocket and missile attack on Israel, one that Israeli intelligence could never imagine.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4131259,00.html

KhrushchevsShoe
10-06-2011, 05:37 PM
Well if NATO attacks them they are entitled to retaliate, and we know the only reason NATO would attack them is more Israeli bullshit, so they are probably a viable target for that retaliation.

Rockntractor
10-06-2011, 10:46 PM
Well if NATO attacks them they are entitled to retaliate, and we know the only reason NATO would attack them is more Israeli bullshit, so they are probably a viable target for that retaliation.

You're pretty sharp, I'm surprised some government think tank hasn't snatched you up!:rolleyes:

Odysseus
10-08-2011, 02:44 PM
You're pretty sharp, I'm surprised some government think tank hasn't snatched you up!:rolleyes:

Yeah, with a butterfly net.

Most NATO countries are only marginally less hostile to Israel than the Arabs. Does anyone really expect Germany or France to act on Israeli interests?

NATO won't act, because unlike Libya, Syria has serious air defenses and enough standing forces to put up a real fight. The only NATO member that has the resources to take out Assad, and the transportation capability to get them there, is the US, and Obama isn't about to go there.

djones520
10-08-2011, 02:55 PM
Well if NATO attacks them they are entitled to retaliate, and we know the only reason NATO would attack them is more Israeli bullshit, so they are probably a viable target for that retaliation.

Yeah... because it wouldn't be that Syria is perpetrating worse crimes on it's own citizens then Libya was when NATO attacked them. But Ody quite clearly explained why we wouldn't go there.

You fucking tard. :rolleyes:

Israel doesn't need our help to kick Syria's ass anyways. They've done it so many times they've got an SOP written on it.

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Well if NATO attacks them they are entitled to retaliate, and we know the only reason NATO would attack them is more Israeli bullshit, so they are probably a viable target for that retaliation.

What? You should clarify this post.

AmPat
10-08-2011, 05:59 PM
Report: Assad threatens to attack Tel Aviv in case of NATO strike
Or:

If you hurt my feewings, I'm gonna kick this sleeping bear.:rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
10-08-2011, 06:16 PM
You're pretty sharp, I'm surprised some government think tank hasn't snatched you up!:rolleyes:


Or septic tank.

AmPat
10-09-2011, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=KhrushchevsShoe;455376]
Let us see what resident retard has for us.

Well if NATO attacks them
Unlikely:rolleyes:

they are entitled to retaliate,
Something about Sherlock.:rolleyes:

and we know the only reason NATO would attack them is more Israeli bullshit,
Another asinine assumption and completely unfounded opinion by a liberal.

so they are probably a viable target for that retaliation.
Wait! I thought the "retaliation" was Syria after a (fantasy) NATO attack? Would you please take your meds and re-do this mess?:confused::rolleyes:

Hansel
11-08-2011, 06:30 PM
[QUOTE]
Let us see what resident retard has for us.

Unlikely:rolleyes:
,
Something about Sherlock.:rolleyes:
,
Another asinine assumption and completely unfounded opinion by a liberal.

Wait! I thought the "retaliation" was Syria after a (fantasy) NATO attack? Would you please take your meds and re-do this mess?:confused::rolleyes:

I think he is saying that Israel would be the target.

There are a number of ways to attack a country, such as special ops people or even the CIA. I would not put it past the US to do so.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-09-2011, 03:24 PM
What? You should clarify this post.

It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.

Bailey
11-09-2011, 03:44 PM
It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.

Yes against those attacking you not someone who isn't, dumbass

Zathras
11-09-2011, 03:59 PM
It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.

You're the last one who should be talking about ethics. You have none.

djones520
11-09-2011, 05:37 PM
It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.

Israel is not a member of NATO. So please tell me how that is "ethically permissible".

Odysseus
11-09-2011, 05:58 PM
It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.


Israel is not a member of NATO. So please tell me how that is "ethically permissible".

Apparently, it is ethically permissible to attack the nearest Jew is you are attacked by somebody beyond your power to hurt. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
11-09-2011, 06:04 PM
It is ethically permissible to fight back if attacked.

You left out a step.

djones520
11-09-2011, 06:07 PM
Apparently, it is ethically permissible to attack the nearest Jew is you are attacked by somebody beyond your power to hurt. :rolleyes:

Ahhh... I must have skimmed through that part when I did my LOAC training last week.

Wei Wu Wei
11-09-2011, 06:32 PM
Yes against those attacking you not someone who isn't, dumbass

Like with Iraq?

or is Vietnam a better example?

Guatemala? Honduras?

djones520
11-09-2011, 06:35 PM
Like with Iraq?

or is Vietnam a better example?

Guatemala? Honduras?

I seem to recall they all fought back against the people attacking them. They didn't just start lobbing missiles against a country not involved.

Well, Iraq did, back in the Gulf War. Silly me.

Hansel
11-09-2011, 07:11 PM
Yes against those attacking you not someone who isn't, dumbass

There is more to it than one country versus another. It is the Muslim community versus the western world.

Odysseus
11-09-2011, 10:36 PM
Like with Iraq?

or is Vietnam a better example?

Guatemala? Honduras?
South Vietnam was invaded by the North and requested our help. Iraq had invaded an ally, Kuwait, and then after that war, had violated the terms of the truce repeatedly, including an assassination attempt on a former president. We never went to war with Guatemala or Honduras.

There is more to it than one country versus another. It is the Muslim community versus the western world.

That's what Syria is trying to pull of. Assad is afraid that if he is attacked by NATO, he will end up like Qaddafi. His only hope in that case would be to try to turn his personal fight for survival into a jihad against Israel, counting on the culturally ingrained antisemitism of the Arab/Muslim world and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the western leftist intelligentsia to create support. Fortunately for him, Obama would never attack an ally of Iran.

Hansel
11-12-2011, 08:25 PM
South Vietnam was invaded by the North and requested our help. Iraq had invaded an ally, Kuwait, and then after that war, had violated the terms of the truce repeatedly, including an assassination attempt on a former president. We never went to war with Guatemala or Honduras.


That's what Syria is trying to pull of. Assad is afraid that if he is attacked by NATO, he will end up like Qaddafi. His only hope in that case would be to try to turn his personal fight for survival into a jihad against Israel, counting on the culturally ingrained antisemitism of the Arab/Muslim world and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the western leftist intelligentsia to create support. Fortunately for him, Obama would never attack an ally of Iran.

We need a good reason to do so before attacking anyone.

Odysseus
11-13-2011, 01:42 AM
We need a good reason to do so before attacking anyone.

Syria was responsible for the deaths of over 200 Marines in Beirut.

AmPat
11-30-2011, 08:25 AM
Syria was responsible for the deaths of over 200 Marines in Beirut.

We will look back one day and realize we missed our chance to roast these bastards when we could, damn the leftists and their media. We need to wake up and recognize that our enemy is waging a very dangerous game. It is the combination of an insidious attack from within by open infiltration by thousands of their own. Gaining sympathy from major organizations that masquerade as reasonable groups like CAIR who use our laws as cover. They also use direct attacks against us to weaken our resolve.

noonwitch
11-30-2011, 12:03 PM
Yeah... because it wouldn't be that Syria is perpetrating worse crimes on it's own citizens then Libya was when NATO attacked them. But Ody quite clearly explained why we wouldn't go there.

You fucking tard. :rolleyes:

Israel doesn't need our help to kick Syria's ass anyways. They've done it so many times they've got an SOP written on it.


They don't need our help in battle, but they need our (US and UK) help diplomatically, to keep the Euro-weenies from taking Syria's side afterward.


If Assad is that stupid, he deserves to have his own people do him like the Libyans did Khaddafy.

THE Gypsy
12-13-2011, 07:44 PM
Scary game they're playing...Do you suppose this is a direct result...

US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

A former official from within the ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is reporting that US and NATO forces have landed outside of Syria and are training militants to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, formerly a translator with the FBI, wrote over the weekend that American soldiers are among the NATO troops that have mysteriously and suddenly landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border. According to her, several sources internationally have confirmed the news, although the US media has been instructed to temporarily censor itself from reporting the news.

Additionally, Edmonds says that American and NATO forces are training Turkish troops as well, to possibly launch a strike from the north of Syria.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-nato-syria-edmonds-709/

djones520
12-13-2011, 09:11 PM
They don't need our help in battle, but they need our (US and UK) help diplomatically, to keep the Euro-weenies from taking Syria's side afterward.


If Assad is that stupid, he deserves to have his own people do him like the Libyans did Khaddafy.

He already deserves it.

DumbAss Tanker
12-14-2011, 11:03 AM
Yeah, with a butterfly net.
Does anyone really expect Germany or France to act on Israeli interests?



And really, why should they? They don't have a dog in the fight going on in Syria, nor do we;, they have no political stake at all in Israel, though we do.

As you quite correctly point out, it would not be an arcade shooting gallery game like Libya. Covert support is a sensible option to screw with Assad, while overt intervention is more likely to arouse nationalist opposition to foreign interference and bolster Assad than it is to turn the tide and topple him.

DumbAss Tanker
12-14-2011, 11:09 AM
Syria was responsible for the deaths of over 200 Marines in Beirut.


Thank God Gator's gone, or you'd have drawn the lecture on why the US should attack Israel for the USS Liberty with that one.

:popcorn:

djones520
12-14-2011, 02:20 PM
Thank God Gator's gone, or you'd have drawn the lecture on why the US should attack Israel for the USS Liberty with that one.

:popcorn:

I kinda miss kicking his ass around the place on that topic. Except this time I'd be the one who could ban him for no reason at all. :D

DumbAss Tanker
12-14-2011, 02:46 PM
I kinda miss kicking his ass around the place on that topic. Except this time I'd be the one who could ban him for no reason at all. :D

:rotfl:

Well said, well said!