PDA

View Full Version : 'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment'



Kansas Bear
19 Sep 07,, 05:07
Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

Syrian and Iranian Presidents, Bashar Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, listen to national anthems at the Ash-Shaeb presidential palace in Damascus, Thursday.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons - or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment' | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Stan187
19 Sep 07,, 15:56
Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

Syrian and Iranian Presidents, Bashar Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, listen to national anthems at the Ash-Shaeb presidential palace in Damascus, Thursday.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons - or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment' | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

And then people criticize the Axis of Evil speech. The only thing wrong with that was that he didn't include Syria in it.

heso10
13 Jun 08,, 14:35
And then people criticize the Axis of Evil speech. The only thing wrong with that was that he didn't include Syria in it.

So, Israel should be included in axis of evil just because it has Nukes ?, it is called balance of power, Israel got Nukes, then neighbor countries get chemical and biological weapons to defend themselves against possible nukes.

These weapons are not intend to be used in bombing, actually the existence of the weapon itself is the weapon, for threating and acquiring more political power in negotiations, non of Israel or Syria or Egypt or even Iran, will use its chemical or biological weapons, cause if any country did use its w.m.d, the other will its w.m.d, so it is pointless to use it, but its existence generates fear at the other country.

See it that way, if Egypt for an example did not have chemical or biological weapons, if anything happens in the future, Israel can use its nukes, without thinking twice, but since Egypt has stockpiles of both and means of delivery, then in any future war, they will think twice b4 using their nukes, and Egypt will think twice before using its ch./bio. weapons.

Stan187
13 Jun 08,, 15:39
So, Israel should be included in axis of evil just because it has Nukes ?, it is called balance of power, Israel got Nukes, then neighbor countries get chemical and biological weapons to defend themselves against possible nukes.

These weapons are not intend to be used in bombing, actually the existence of the weapon itself is the weapon, for threating and acquiring more political power in negotiations, non of Israel or Syria or Egypt or even Iran, will use its chemical or biological weapons, cause if any country did use its w.m.d, the other will its w.m.d, so it is pointless to use it, but its existence generates fear at the other country.

See it that way, if Egypt for an example did not have chemical or biological weapons, if anything happens in the future, Israel can use its nukes, without thinking twice, but since Egypt has stockpiles of both and means of delivery, then in any future war, they will think twice b4 using their nukes, and Egypt will think twice before using its ch./bio. weapons.


How a country behaves prior to attempting to get such weapons has a lot to do with it. Israel has never made a cause out trying to destroy any of its neighboring countries, while almost all of Israel's neighbors have done that, and some are still doing that.

Israel does think twice about using such weapons. It already had them while major conflict when on and while they were running the risk of being overrun. It didn't stop Egypt and Syria from trying, however. What would have made them really think twice is giving Damascus and Cairo a mushroom-flavored kiss.

heso10
13 Jun 08,, 22:49
How a country behaves prior to attempting to get such weapons has a lot to do with it. Israel has never made a cause out trying to destroy any of its neighboring countries, while almost all of Israel's neighbors have done that, and some are still doing that.

Does not mean either that Syria acquiring chemical or biological weapons are aimed to be used against Israel once they are produced, they are means of self-defense against another country's w.m.d


Israel does think twice about using such weapons. It already had them while major conflict when on and while they were running the risk of being overrun. It didn't stop Egypt and Syria from trying, however.

If you mean October 1973 war, then Egypt and Syria were not trying to overrun Israel as said by western press, the aim of the war was only getting back our land. and the proof, elsadat in 1971 offered peace but Israel refused.

Here is a part of his speech in front of the Knesset in 1977 :

I have shouldered the prerequisites of the historic responsibility and therefore I declared on Feb. 4, 1971, that I was willing to sign a peace agreement with Israel. This was the first declaration made by a responsible Arab official since the outbreak of the Arab- Israeli conflict. Motivated by all these factors dictated by the responsibilities of leadership, on Oct. 16, 1973, before the Egyptian People's Assembly, I called for an international conference to establish permanent peace based on justice. I was not heard.


The full speach: here (http://www.manticeye.com/article.php?id=666_0_6_0_C)


What would have made them really think twice is giving Damascus and Cairo a mushroom-flavored kiss.
:D , i do not think they will ever nuke Egypt if any war in the future occurred, unless their existence is threatened. besides as i said before, the fact that Egypt has chemical and biological weapons and means of delivery, will make Israel think twice b4 using nukes, anyway, that is not gonna happen anytime soon, both countries like peace that way.

Fatih1989
15 Jun 08,, 13:46
the Jews and Israels in this room likewise to yous to like you guys don't have a nuke and Chemical weapons

Stan187
17 Jun 08,, 08:06
Does not mean either that Syria acquiring chemical or biological weapons are aimed to be used against Israel once they are produced, they are means of self-defense against another country's w.m.d

Syrian intentions for Israel and for the region are very well expressed, and have been time and time again. Their goal is the same as the terrorist organizations that they support, the destruction of Israel.

If you mean October 1973 war, then Egypt and Syria were not trying to overrun Israel as said by western press, the aim of the war was only getting back our land. and the proof, elsadat in 1971 offered peace but Israel refused.

Here is a part of his speech in front of the Knesset in 1977 :


The full speach: here (http://www.manticeye.com/article.php?id=666_0_6_0_C)

Yeah, I guess its pretty easy to say he wasn't out for extermination since his armies failed to advance more than a few kilmoeters and then got surrounded. Had his forces been successful, we would be hearing a different story.

:D , i do not think they will ever nuke Egypt if any war in the future occurred, unless their existence is threatened. besides as i said before, the fact that Egypt has chemical and biological weapons and means of delivery, will make Israel think twice b4 using nukes, anyway, that is not gonna happen anytime soon, both countries like peace that way.

Luckily for the Israelis, they have enough heat to roast Egypt and its chemical and biological sites quite a few times over. I should hope in that case, for your sake, that when a new dictator comes to power in your country he does not try to threaten Israel's existance.

Stan187
17 Jun 08,, 08:08
the Jews and Israels in this room likewise to yous to like you guys don't have a nuke and Chemical weapons

You need some English lessons buddy, you're harder to comprehend than a monkey doing sign language.

heso10
17 Jun 08,, 09:23
Yeah, I guess its pretty easy to say he wasn't out for extermination since his armies failed to advance more than a few kilmoeters and then got surrounded. Had his forces been successful, we would be hearing a different story.

man, they already decided before the beginning of the war, that they will only advance 12 km in sinai then hold defensive positions and negotiate on peace again, Israel refused negotiations in 1971, so elsadat forced them to it, and he did, u can see the prove very well today as sinai is not occupied anymore , right...


Luckily for the Israelis, they have enough heat to roast Egypt and its chemical and biological sites quite a few times over. I should hope in that case, for your sake, that when a new dictator comes to power in your country he does not try to threaten Israel's existance.

Then, that gives Syria the motive to acquire chemicals and bios to defend herself against Israel's nuke.
Besides, underestimation is Israel's main problem, do not you think that they already know that Israel has nukes, of course they know and of course they put their plans according to it.

If you think Egypt did not threaten Israel before cause they have nukes, then you are mistaken, cause Egypt already threatened Israel couple of times in the past 7 years & i did not see nukes "roasting" Egypt.

Stan187
19 Jun 08,, 20:37
man, they already decided before the beginning of the war, that they will only advance 12 km in sinai then hold defensive positions and negotiate on peace again, Israel refused negotiations in 1971, so elsadat forced them to it, and he did, u can see the prove very well today as sinai is not occupied anymore , right....

Oh is that what they decided? I guess you had all of "them" under a polygraph and now you know it all, good stuff, you must be a pretty old guy then if you did all that while Sadat was still alive.




Then, that gives Syria the motive to acquire chemicals and bios to defend herself against Israel's nuke.
Besides, underestimation is Israel's main problem, do not you think that they already know that Israel has nukes, of course they know and of course they put their plans according to it.

Bullcrap, if Syria knew concretely that Israel had nukes prior to the Yom Kippur War then you must be calling their leadership pretty retarded if you think they would have just went along with their plans without a fear of getting nuked. In that case, they'd be better off attacking when Israel's forces are not stretched so thin in the north, because when they are, that makes the possibility of Israel using nukes just that much greater.



If you think Egypt did not threaten Israel before cause they have nukes, then you are mistaken, cause Egypt already threatened Israel couple of times in the past 7 years & i did not see nukes "roasting" Egypt.


Clarify what you're talking about here.

heso10
26 Jun 08,, 22:26
Oh is that what they decided? I guess you had all of "them" under a polygraph and now you know it all, good stuff, you must be a pretty old guy then if you did all that while Sadat was still alive.

nope, your guess is wrong, elsadat offered them a peace in 1971, and they refused it, then he switched to the force option, which was to advance in Sinai for 12 km only not to invade israel as said in western countries, if Egyptian army was going to advance for more than 12 km, then why only 80 thousand men out of 800 thousand men crossed the suez canal ?? and why after they destroyed barliev line, they held defensive positions ??, they could have continued marching forward, but they stopped marching even before israeli reinforcements arrived. i do not need to be old to understand things logically, cause it is logic, 1+1=2, can not be any other number.


Bullcrap, if Syria knew concretely that Israel had nukes prior to the Yom Kippur War then you must be calling their leadership pretty retarded if you think they would have just went along with their plans without a fear of getting nuked. In that case, they'd be better off attacking when Israel's forces are not stretched so thin in the north, because when they are, that makes the possibility of Israel using nukes just that much greater.

first, i am not talking about youm kipper war here, i am talking about acquiring biological and chemical weapons till today, and once again you are wrong, i am not calling there leadership pretty retarded, cause anyhow, israel could not have used her nukes, cause if they had used it in 1973, USSR would have erased them off the map. besides if israel nuked Damascus they will risk killing their own people and polluting their food source land by the fallout since israeli border is around 70 km from center of Damascus, and also killing their own soldiers who were even closer to Damascus since they were in gollan heights.
And if they had nuked Cairo, they would have also killed their own soldiers who were only 118 km away from the center of Cairo since 1967 to 1973, and were even closer in 1973 when an israeli division crossed the canal and stood at 101 km from the center of cairo, which means that at average they advanced 17 km from the canal.


Clarify what you're talking about here.

" By IsraelNationalNews.com

A senior aide to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Osama el-Baz, announced over the weekend that if Israel makes the "major mistake" and attacks Syria, Syrian would not stand alone.

Egypt announced it would come to Syria's side against Israel. El-Baz added that Israel better think twice before launching attacks against any Arab nations, especially Syria "that fulfills an important role in the peace process."

source: here (http://www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/793648-1.html)

"Egypt Threatens To 'Retaliate' Against Israel

By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 2, 2008

UNITED NATIONS As diplomatic tensions between Egypt and Israel escalated yesterday, Jerusalem struggled to find the delicate balance between applying pressure to get better security cooperation from Cairo, and the need to keep Egyptian-Israeli relations from deteriorating further."

rest of the report : here (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/egypt-threatens-to-retaliate-against-israel/68804/)

"Wednesday, June 18, 2008
From the memory hole: Egypt threatens Israel for criticizing their failure to stop the smuggling

Cairo: This is how we'll wreak diplomatic havoc against Israel
Diplomats: This is how Egypt will wreak diplomatic havoc
Damaged interests in Africa and having Livni declared persona non grata -
hours after Egypt's foreign minister threatens to use diplomatic muscle
against Israel, sources familiar with Israel-Egypt relations tell Ynet
exactly what kind of an impact Jerusalem can expect
Ali Waked YNET Published: 01.01.08, 02:01 / Israel News
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3488903,00.html"

source: here (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=39670)

may be first threat only implied using force, but at the end the 3 are threats, and in my opinion the last one is the most dangerous to israel.

one more thing, before accusing me of saying any crab AGAIN, kindly check the world wide web.

Triple C
27 Jun 08,, 08:01
The problem I have with the axis of evil speech is that Bush shouldn't have said it. Those are legitimate threats to global security, but that posture really tipped them off.

Stan187
27 Jun 08,, 12:30
nope, your guess is wrong, elsadat offered them a peace in 1971, and they refused it,

No, he did not, he wanted the winner's peace after loosing the war, which is a common Arab request, and its just as rediculous every time. Saying we won't attack you if you give us land is not an offer for peace, its blackmail and asking for payment. That's why land for peace makes no sense. Peace is for peace, nothing else.

then he switched to the force option, which was to advance in Sinai for 12 km only not to invade israel as said in western countries, if Egyptian army was going to advance for more than 12 km, then why only 80 thousand men out of 800 thousand men crossed the suez canal ?? and why after they destroyed barliev line, they held defensive positions ??, they could have continued marching forward, but they stopped marching even before israeli reinforcements arrived. i do not need to be old to understand things logically, cause it is logic, 1+1=2, can not be any other number.

That's crap. Complete and utter crap. There is no proof of that besides for his word after the fact. He tried to capture the Sinai passes, he advanced on them and he lost. Once he had consolidated a defensive line, he tried to strike out and get more gains.

Egypt only had 300.000 troops of those 800,000 deployed. They kept a lot of forces behind, quite obviously, in case things went bad for them, to prevent the Israelis from turning it around and establishing a foothold on the other side of the canal. Which, I might add, happened anyway.

The Egyptians could not keep advancing forward. The only reason the whole thing worked in the first place is because the IAF could not figure into the story with a dense SAM umbrella. In fact, they tried later, and they got chewed up, by both the IAF and the Israeli ground forces. Sure, sure, I've heard Egyptians yapping about how the whole attack happened to just help out the Syrians, as if they loved their Syrian bretheren more than life itself. I know its hard for an Egyptian to admit that they just got greedy, and you like to highlight the early success but not the endgame, which is that Egypt still lost, and that the heroic 3rd Army was saved by UN and superpower squabbles and not its own strength. I understand its probably embarrassing that this army had to be given food and water by the very people it was supposed to kill.


first, i am not talking about youm kipper war here, i am talking about acquiring biological and chemical weapons till today, and once again you are wrong, i am not calling there leadership pretty retarded, cause anyhow, israel could not have used her nukes, cause if they had used it in 1973, USSR would have erased them off the map.

Hmm, erased them off the map, eh? Sounds eerily familiar. We know from official released documents exactly the conversation that went on between the United States and the Soviet Union. The US told the Soviets that it was going to match every escalation. Soviet ships steamed towards Israel, US ships followed them. Soviets began resupply of their clients, so did the US. The Soviets were not dumb. They were willing to fight for Syria down to the last Syrian, but not risk their own tails. If Israel nuked Syria, it was still between them. If the Soviets nuked Israel, it was WWIII, because the US would nuke them. And at the time, there was no limited nuclear deployment plan. Which means, a full-scale nuclear confrontation between the US and Soviet Union. Knowing this, the Soviets relaxed a bit. If Damascus got nuked, they would have screamed about legality and vengence but at the same time kept really tight controls on those nuclear launch codes.

besides if israel nuked Damascus they will risk killing their own people and polluting their food source land by the fallout since israeli border is around 70 km from center of Damascus, and also killing their own soldiers who were even closer to Damascus since they were in gollan heights.

Quite alright, that's why there are different yield nukes, just for this kind of situation. If Syria breached northern Israel and started to drive down the coast, that would be the end game anyway, so pollution is the last thing Israel would be worried about.

And if they had nuked Cairo, they would have also killed their own soldiers who were only 118 km away from the center of Cairo since 1967 to 1973, and were even closer in 1973 when an israeli division crossed the canal and stood at 101 km from the center of cairo, which means that at average they advanced 17 km from the canal.

Again, not all nukes are the same size. If you think so, you obviously have never read about tac-nuke deployment and usage plans in a potential WWIII that would have been fought in Central Europe. Do read, it helps.

"

.................

Stan187
27 Jun 08,, 12:35
" By IsraelNationalNews.com

A senior aide to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Osama el-Baz, announced over the weekend that if Israel makes the "major mistake" and attacks Syria, Syrian would not stand alone.

Egypt announced it would come to Syria's side against Israel. El-Baz added that Israel better think twice before launching attacks against any Arab nations, especially Syria "that fulfills an important role in the peace process."

source: here (http://www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/793648-1.html)

"Egypt Threatens To 'Retaliate' Against Israel

By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 2, 2008

UNITED NATIONS As diplomatic tensions between Egypt and Israel escalated yesterday, Jerusalem struggled to find the delicate balance between applying pressure to get better security cooperation from Cairo, and the need to keep Egyptian-Israeli relations from deteriorating further."

rest of the report : here (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/egypt-threatens-to-retaliate-against-israel/68804/)

"Wednesday, June 18, 2008
From the memory hole: Egypt threatens Israel for criticizing their failure to stop the smuggling

Cairo: This is how we'll wreak diplomatic havoc against Israel
Diplomats: This is how Egypt will wreak diplomatic havoc
Damaged interests in Africa and having Livni declared persona non grata -
hours after Egypt's foreign minister threatens to use diplomatic muscle
against Israel, sources familiar with Israel-Egypt relations tell Ynet
exactly what kind of an impact Jerusalem can expect
Ali Waked YNET Published: 01.01.08, 02:01 / Israel News
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3488903,00.html"

source: here (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=39670)

may be first threat only implied using force, but at the end the 3 are threats, and in my opinion the last one is the most dangerous to israel.

one more thing, before accusing me of saying any crab AGAIN, kindly check the world wide web.

Yeah, lots of threats are nice, but what has Egypt actually done? Did they even raise national readiness levels?

Yeah, that's what I thought. They can posture about how much they love Syria all they want, but when it comes to doing something, the only thing Egypt is doing is trying to play negotiator between Israel and Hamas. Because it knows that in any non-conventional exchange, Israel might be hurt, but Egypt would for sure end up a wasteland.

Threats are real nice. I'm pretty sure Osama is still making some threats from inside a luxurious cave.

heso10
28 Jun 08,, 19:23
Yeah, lots of threats are nice, but what has Egypt actually done? Did they even raise national readiness levels?


neither did israel :D , and yup they raises national readiness levels always, and not only on israeli nukes or the whole problem in the region, but also about the food crisis, the fuel prices and many other problems in africa, just check the news, u will see for urself :)


Yeah, that's what I thought. They can posture about how much they love Syria all they want, but when it comes to doing something, the only thing Egypt is doing is trying to play negotiator between Israel and Hamas. Because it knows that in any non-conventional exchange, Israel might be hurt, but Egypt would for sure end up a wasteland.

saying that means that u really did not read the sources i put upthere, first, yup Egypt is playing the negotiator, and they succeeded, second, ending up as a wasteland, i am not even gonna discuss this with u, cause apparently u do not read much news, cause if this is the case, israel would not be so careful on keeping the peace with Egypt.


Threats are real nice. I'm pretty sure Osama is still making some threats from inside a luxurious cave.

Are u even comparing osama to Egypt, man, he does not even have a country or army or anything, all he has is a camera to send threats, and till now, u can not say that he really did 11 sept 2001, not cause he said so or usa said so, means he did it, right ??


No, he did not, he wanted the winner's peace after loosing the war, which is a common Arab request, and its just as rediculous every time. Saying we won't attack you if you give us land is not an offer for peace, its blackmail and asking for payment. That's why land for peace makes no sense. Peace is for peace, nothing else.

So you are the one who "had all of "them" under a polygraph and now you know it all,". remember man, israel is the one who attacked in 1967 and she is the one who was occupying Sinai till 1973 war, so land for peace, yea that is for sure, what did u expect, peace for just peace and keep the land !!, please....

Facts are facts, elsadat did offer israel a more generous offer in 1971, and they refused it, then he used force, and it worked, if they had accepted the offer, it would have been the same today, except that 1973 war would not have happened.


That's crap. Complete and utter crap. There is no proof of that besides for his word after the fact. He tried to capture the Sinai passes, he advanced on them and he lost. Once he had consolidated a defensive line, he tried to strike out and get more gains.

Egypt only had 300.000 troops of those 800,000 deployed. They kept a lot of forces behind, quite obviously, in case things went bad for them, to prevent the Israelis from turning it around and establishing a foothold on the other side of the canal. Which, I might add, happened anyway.

The Egyptians could not keep advancing forward. The only reason the whole thing worked in the first place is because the IAF could not figure into the story with a dense SAM umbrella. In fact, they tried later, and they got chewed up, by both the IAF and the Israeli ground forces. Sure, sure, I've heard Egyptians yapping about how the whole attack happened to just help out the Syrians, as if they loved their Syrian bretheren more than life itself. I know its hard for an Egyptian to admit that they just got greedy, and you like to highlight the early success but not the endgame, which is that Egypt still lost, and that the heroic 3rd Army was saved by UN and superpower squabbles and not its own strength. I understand its probably embarrassing that this army had to be given food and water by the very people it was supposed to kill.

well well well, another crap, that is the second time u say it.

in 5th October at night, special forces were droped at the 3 passes to capture them to stop the israeli reinforcements from obviously passing through them, let's say that Egypt was gonna continue taking Sinai and advancing into israel as the whole world think, can u till me how will an UNMECHANIZED army even reach the passes ???, walking maybe ??

U r right about something and by it u proved what i have been trying to tell u since the beginning, try to read about what happened since an israeli division passed the canal to the other side till they really stopped fighting. here is what u will find, and tell u what, do not trust my wrods, just look it up urself.
to make a long story short, sharon's division passed the canal despite of his superiors disapproval, he destroyed about 5 sam bases in the area, he tried to go every direction, but he was stopped, after the first cease fire, the division continued revolving around the 3rd army till they cut its supplies, and they said they blamed Egypt for breaking cease fire by destroying 9 tanks (yea, we broke cease fire to destroy 9 tanks), then the 2nd cease fire came, this time israel did not break it, cause they achieved their goal which was holding something to bargain with, they gave 3rd army water and food while 2nd cease fire was on, if Egypt really broke cease fire to destroy 9 tanks, would not it be more logical to break the cease fire by closing the few kilometers gap between 2nd and 3rd army ??, 2nd army could easily close the gap, and by closing the gap, supplies of 3rd army would have came through 2nd army (check a map), and by that also, the israeli division would have been cut-off completely from the rest of israeli army, then why we did not do it, simply because we respected the cease fire, unlike others.
bottom of the line, the cease fire saved the israeli division not the 3rd army, cause if we have broke the ceasefire or israel tried to "annihilate" 3rd army as they said, which was 20,000 only btw, the israeli division would have been totally trapped, and 2nd army would have got supplies through 2nd army.
and yup this is the short story.

btw, did i mention that israel was low on fuel ??, i doubt u knew that, but do not believe me in this too, just look it up urself.


Quite alright, that's why there are different yield nukes, just for this kind of situation. If Syria breached northern Israel and started to drive down the coast, that would be the end game anyway, so pollution is the last thing Israel would be worried about.

That only "IF" Syria ever tried to march into israel which i doubt cause all they want is their land back, same as we wanted and got our land back.


Hmm, erased them off the map, eh? Sounds eerily familiar. We know from official released documents exactly the conversation that went on between the United States and the Soviet Union. The US told the Soviets that it was going to match every escalation. Soviet ships steamed towards Israel, US ships followed them. Soviets began resupply of their clients, so did the US. The Soviets were not dumb. They were willing to fight for Syria down to the last Syrian, but not risk their own tails. If Israel nuked Syria, it was still between them. If the Soviets nuked Israel, it was WWIII, because the US would nuke them. And at the time, there was no limited nuclear deployment plan. Which means, a full-scale nuclear confrontation between the US and Soviet Union. Knowing this, the Soviets relaxed a bit. If Damascus got nuked, they would have screamed about legality and vengence but at the same time kept really tight controls on those nuclear launch codes.

Ohh wait here, ussr started supplying its clients way after usa's supply bridge to israel, it is not even a thing that u can not be sure about.
If what u r saying is true, then why israel stopped at the 2nd cease fire after ussr threaten ?? besides do not u think usa also fear on its people just like ussr ??, enough said i guess.


Again, not all nukes are the same size. If you think so, you obviously have never read about tac-nuke deployment and usage plans in a potential WWIII that would have been fought in Central Europe. Do read, it helps.

man u can control its size as much as u want, but at the end u can not control the fall out.


I do not know what are u still arguing about over and over again, i provided facts with proves, so let me till u that, i am only trying to show u somethings u did not know about, u can deny it or do not believe it, its ur choice, u can even believe that israel still owns Sinai if u want, but at the end we got our land back, and we got the peace that have been refused, that pretty much says it all.

Stan187
28 Jun 08,, 20:25
neither did israel :D , and yup they raises national readiness levels always, and not only on israeli nukes or the whole problem in the region, but also about the food crisis, the fuel prices and many other problems in africa, just check the news, u will see for urself :)

You have a point to prove, then you have to post sources, stop telling me to just look it up, I'm quite likely more well read on the subject than you are.

saying that means that u really did not read the sources i put upthere, first, yup Egypt is playing the negotiator, and they succeeded, second, ending up as a wasteland, i am not even gonna discuss this with u, cause apparently u do not read much news, cause if this is the case, israel would not be so careful on keeping the peace with Egypt.

Succeeded at what? There are still negotiations going on, it just depends on what your measure of success. Saving Hamas from being dismembered was your personal goal I take it?

How is Israel being "so careful" to keep the peace with Egypt any more than any other country that it keeps the peace with?

Are u even comparing osama to Egypt, man, he does not even have a country or army or anything, all he has is a camera to send threats, and till now, u can not say that he really did 11 sept 2001, not cause he said so or usa said so, means he did it, right ??

Same type of empty threat rhetoric, why not make the comparison.

As far as they second thing you tried to say about 9/11, I don't understand what you're asking, please rephrase it.

So you are the one who "had all of "them" under a polygraph and now you know it all,". remember man, israel is the one who attacked in 1967 and she is the one who was occupying Sinai till 1973 war, so land for peace, yea that is for sure, what did u expect, peace for just peace and keep the land !!, please....

This is been discussed thousands of times on this forum already. There was clear confrontational calls from Egypt, and it amassed troops in Sinai preparing to attack. If it did not want a fight, they should not have done that, because it is a clear threat to which Israel has to respond for the sake of its security. Egypt was also warned that Israel would consider the closing of the Straights of Tiran an act of war. Egypt then blockaded the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act of war under international law. I've attached a relevant link.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/israeli-palestinian-conflict/27481-olmert-puts-peace-table-free-soldier-3.html#post303802

So Egypt did not fire the first shot, but certainly started the war in 1967.

Facts are facts, elsadat did offer israel a more generous offer in 1971, and they refused it, then he used force, and it worked, if they had accepted the offer, it would have been the same today, except that 1973 war would not have happened.

The same type of offer, generous or not, he wanted Israel to bribe him out of war by giving him land. Sorry, winners dictate the terms.


well well well, another crap, that is the second time u say it.

in 5th October at night, special forces were droped at the 3 passes to capture them to stop the israeli reinforcements from obviously passing through them, let's say that Egypt was gonna continue taking Sinai and advancing into israel as the whole world think, can u till me how will an UNMECHANIZED army even reach the passes ???, walking maybe ??

What are you trying to say, that Egyptian commandos prevented Israeli reinforcements from coming through? Or are you trying to say that the Egyptian Army was unremechanized? You are making absolutely no sense.

The facts on the ground are simple, Egypt tried to strike out at the passes and it lost big. If it had no need to pass through the Sinai and had no offensive intentions, then Egypt would not have tried to venture towards the passes.

U r right about something and by it u proved what i have been trying to tell u since the beginning, try to read about what happened since an israeli division passed the canal to the other side till they really stopped fighting. here is what u will find, and tell u what, do not trust my wrods, just look it up urself.

I have looked it up myself, and read about it in depth. If you have relevant links or citations, do use them, do not tell me to go look it up, you're the one trying to prove something to me.

to make a long story short, sharon's division passed the canal despite of his superiors disapproval, he destroyed about 5 sam bases in the area, he tried to go every direction, but he was stopped, after the first cease fire, the division continued revolving around the 3rd army till they cut its supplies, and they said they blamed Egypt for breaking cease fire by destroying 9 tanks (yea, we broke cease fire to destroy 9 tanks), then the 2nd cease fire came, this time israel did not break it, cause they achieved their goal which was holding something to bargain with, they gave 3rd army water and food while 2nd cease fire was on, if Egypt really broke cease fire to destroy 9 tanks, would not it be more logical to break the cease fire by closing the few kilometers gap between 2nd and 3rd army ??, 2nd army could easily close the gap, and by closing the gap, supplies of 3rd army would have came through 2nd army (check a map), and by that also, the israeli division would have been cut-off completely from the rest of israeli army, then why we did not do it, simply because we respected the cease fire, unlike others.
bottom of the line, the cease fire saved the israeli division not the 3rd army, cause if we have broke the ceasefire or israel tried to "annihilate" 3rd army as they said, which was 20,000 only btw, the israeli division would have been totally trapped, and 2nd army would have got supplies through 2nd army.

I see a whole bunch of excuses, supplies would have come through, Egypt did not break the ceasefire it was those Israelis, bla bla, same usual BS. The Egyptians let their 3rd Army get surrounded and cut off. If they were capable of preventing that, they would have, but they could not and did not. And now we are here, with you making all sorts of excuses for them. They were cut off, that means not getting any supplies. During the ceasefires and withdrawal periods they were being provided humanitrian aid. They could have been annihilated, but why? A week without water would have killed them just as well.
and yup this is the short story.

btw, did i mention that israel was low on fuel ??, i doubt u knew that, but do not believe me in this too, just look it up urself.

Why don't you show me.

That only "IF" Syria ever tried to march into israel which i doubt cause all they want is their land back, same as we wanted and got our land back.

You have just your doubts, nothing else, certainly nothing that constitutes proof. Correction, you wanted and were given back your land, you didn't get anything back.

Ohh wait here, ussr started supplying its clients way after usa's supply bridge to israel, it is not even a thing that u can not be sure about.
If what u r saying is true, then why israel stopped at the 2nd cease fire after ussr threaten ?? besides do not u think usa also fear on its people just like ussr ??, enough said i guess.


Soviets began their resupply operations first, the Americans started afterwards.

This is where you can verify that:

William B. Quandt, Soviet Policy in the October 1973 War, Rand Corporation Report R-1864-ISA


man u can control its size as much as u want, but at the end u can not control the fall out.

Size largely determines fallout, genius.

I do not know what are u still arguing about over and over again, i provided facts with proves, so let me till u that, i am only trying to show u somethings u did not know about, u can deny it or do not believe it, its ur choice, u can even believe that israel still owns Sinai if u want, but at the end we got our land back, and we got the peace that have been refused, that pretty much says it all.

I'll again remind you that you were given your land back based on the good graces of someone else.

As far as what you've proved, you haven't proved a single thing, all you do is spout off some random crap that you made up or heard in some propaganda film and then tell me to go look it up. That's not proof of anything but an inability to argue based on facts. If you want to actually back anything that you've said up with facts, I'd welcome it. You have yet to do it, and I'm not holding my breath.

..............

heso10
29 Jun 08,, 01:06
Size largely determines fallout, genius.

well, as i said before, i gave u the facts, u can take it or leave it, but i will just comment in this one, since u r clearly insulting me, the only thing that controls the fallout, is the wind GENIUS.


As far as what you've proved, you haven't proved a single thing, all you do is spout off some random crap that you made up or heard in some propaganda film and then tell me to go look it up. That's not proof of anything but an inability to argue based on facts. If you want to actually back anything that you've said up with facts, I'd welcome it. You have yet to do it, and I'm not holding my breath.

hehe, it is you who does not want to see the prove :D , anyway, i do not really care if u believe it or not, as i said i gave u the facts.

So, since this is the last time i will replay in this thread, since argument is clearly going nowhere, here is what u have been saying from the start.

Israel pushed back Egyptian army to the other side of the canal, then passed through a gab between 2nd and 3rd army, then trapped the 3rd army then ussr pushed for a cease fire, and Israel lost so many soldiers and much money and weapons in protecting Sinai just to give it entirely back for a peace agreement they have already refused 2 years earlier.

Oh yes, and u said Egypt was actually trying to take whole Sinai with force and then go into israel with an unmechanized army.

Now who has been saying crab ??

Stan187
29 Jun 08,, 14:18
well, as i said before, i gave u the facts, u can take it or leave it, but i will just comment in this one, since u r clearly insulting me, the only thing that controls the fallout, is the wind GENIUS.??

So small tactical nuke will cause the same fallout as a 500 kiloton one designed to level cities? Keep going buddy, you are just making yourself look silly.




hehe, it is you who does not want to see the prove :D , anyway, i do not really care if u believe it or not, as i said i gave u the facts.

So, since this is the last time i will replay in this thread, since argument is clearly going nowhere, here is what u have been saying from the start.

Israel pushed back Egyptian army to the other side of the canal, then passed through a gab between 2nd and 3rd army, then trapped the 3rd army then ussr pushed for a cease fire, and Israel lost so many soldiers and much money and weapons in protecting Sinai just to give it entirely back for a peace agreement they have already refused 2 years earlier.

Oh yes, and u said Egypt was actually trying to take whole Sinai with force and then go into israel with an unmechanized army.

Now who has been saying crab ??

Israel did lose a lot of soldiers, but it is all relative. The numbers Israel lost pale in comparison to what Egypt lost in both men and material. I guess you stand proud of the fact that your country does not care about its people too much.

heso10
30 Jun 08,, 22:41
So small tactical nuke will cause the same fallout as a 500 kiloton one designed to level cities? Keep going buddy, you are just making yourself look silly.

heh, with zero wind, falout of 500 kiloton will fall in the same radius of explosion, with 100 km speed wind and a fallout of 1 kiloton, will definitely kill more, am i still silly ??


Israel did lose a lot of soldiers, but it is all relative. The numbers Israel lost pale in comparison to what Egypt lost in both men and material. I guess you stand proud of the fact that your country does not care about its people too much.

Egypt has lost more in 1967, and our lose of men was low in relative to the whole army, And actually, it is not the gov. that do not care about its soldiers, it is the soldiers who do not really care about their own life when it comes to defending our land or getting it back, tell u what, ask other Egyptians than me and u will see for urself.

Stan187
17 Jul 08,, 22:20
am i still silly ??

I'm afraid so.