• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

Y

youknowwho

Active member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
255
Reaction score
157
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC News - Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria

Russia has expressed concern at an alleged Israeli attack on Syria, saying such a strike would be an unacceptable violation of the UN Charter.
Click to expand...

The Russian Foreign Ministry said: "If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it."
Click to expand...

Tensions seem to be rising in the middle east. now the Syrian civil war is involving its neighbors into it which is a dangerous escalation in my opinion. I wonder what would US's reaction be?
 
Managed to keep away from this one for quite a while.
 
I would say that moving advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems from Syria to Hez constitutes provocation. Syria was actively arming a terrorist organization in Lebanon.

Russia was obviously obligated to register this complaint as an ally of Syria, and the existence of provocation will end any question. Anyone who actually believes that Israel struck a convoy of weapons for no reason is not paying attention.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I would say that moving advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems from Syria to Hez constitutes provocation. Syria was actively arming a terrorist organization in Lebanon.
Click to expand...

the attack happened inside Syria, so at best, it was speculated that it is going to Lebanon. there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of that.
 
youknowwho said:
the attack happened inside Syria, so at best, it was speculated that it is going to Lebanon. there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of that.
Click to expand...

For all you know, Israel had eyes-on and had identified the receiving unit. They might have had the names of the people receiving the weapons. They might have conversations between the two units establishing the transfer of weapons. They may have had spies on the ground that confirmed what was going on.

For you to presume that Israel did this merely on a hunch or guess is staggeringly ignorant and borders on blantant slander against Israel.
 
ecofarm said:
For all you know, Israel had eyes-on and had identified the receiving unit. They might have had the names of the people receiving the weapons. They might have conversations between the two units establishing the transfer of weapons. They may have had spies on the ground that confirmed what was going on.

For you to presume that Israel did this merely on a hunch or guess is staggeringly ignorant and borders on blantant slander against Israel.
Click to expand...
excuse me, but since when objecting to an attack on a sovereign country which is not at war with Israel is blatant slander?

for you to presume anything is absolutely not logical since no document supporting your argument has been released. as far as I remember, the burden of proof is on the side which is presenting an argument.
 
youknowwho said:
excuse me, but since when objecting to an attack on a sovereign country which is not at war with Israel is blatant slander?
Click to expand...

You're claiming that it was done on a guess. That's ridiculous. That's absurd. That's disconnected from reality. That's slander against Israel.

for you to presume anything is absolutely not logical
Click to expand...

You're presuming that Israel did this on a guess. That is not logical. In fact, it's a stupid presumption and the agenda behind it is obvious enough.
 
Last edited:
All I got to say to Israel is, "Hey man, nice shot!"

But, even if the attack was unjustified, (which I feel it WAS justified going on what we know,) make no mistake, the US would back Israel. The Israeli lobby is stronger than the NRA. No matter what Israel does, the US backs them. That is one of the main reasons we are always in the sights of these Islamic terrorists.
 
ecofarm said:
You're claiming that it was done on a guess. That's ridiculous. That's absurd. That's disconnected from reality. That's slander against Israel.
Click to expand...
just saying that it's ridicolous doesn't mean that it in fact is. there's something called proof which needs to be presented.
 
Captain America said:
All I got to say to Israel is, "Hey man, nice shot!"

But, even if the attack was unjustified, (which I feel it WAS justified going on what we know,) make no mistake, the US would back Israel. The Israeli lobby is stronger than the NRA. No matter what Israel does, the US backs them. That is one of the main reasons we are always in the sights of these Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a nice shot. actually, if it can prevent further bloodshed it was a good shot. but this is just a bad kind of strategy to bomb your neighboring countries whenever you want. that really is a provocative act.
 
youknowwho said:
there's something called proof which needs to be presented.
Click to expand...

So? That doesn't excuse your staggeringly ignorant presumption that Israel did this on a guess.
 
Captain America said:
The Israeli lobby is stronger than the NRA. No matter what Israel does, the US backs them. That is one of the main reasons we are always in the sights of these Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...

We object to the settlements and call for them to be stopped, officially.
 
ecofarm said:
So? That doesn't excuse your staggeringly ignorant presumption that Israel did this on a guess.
Click to expand...

I have no presumption. the default position in a logical debate is to be cynical.
 
Russia is taking an anti-Israel position? Who woulda thunk that the country responsible for the pogroms against Jews and which created the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would do such?!

Next, somebody will tell me that the Greeks and the Turks really aren't getting on that well.
 
ecofarm said:
You're claiming that it was done on a guess. That's ridiculous. That's absurd. That's disconnected from reality. That's slander against Israel.



You're presuming that Israel did this on a guess. That is not logical. In fact, it's a stupid presumption and the agenda behind it is obvious enough.
Click to expand...

now you're presuming that I have an agenda.
 
youknowwho said:
I have no presumption. the default position in a logical debate is to be cynical.
Click to expand...

Don't lie.


youknowwho said:
the attack happened inside Syria, so at best, it was speculated that it is going to Lebanon. there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of that.
Click to expand...

Because the strike occured in Syria, you PRESUME that Israel has no intel to back it up and did so on speculation. That's a ridiculous presumption. Obviously, Israel is capable of gathering intel and evidence about the transfer even if it is happening in Syria. The premise of your assumption is as false as the assumption itself:

Because the strike occured in Syria, Israel must have been guessing.

Both parts of that are dumb.



Now, let's consider another thing. You claimed "at best" it was speculation. So, what's your "at worst" scenario. Why do you include "at best" and then do not explain what else might have occured - please do, we await further presumptions. Because, really, leaving a PRESUMPTION unstated is even more weak than your false premise and wild accusation.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Russia is taking an anti-Israel position? Who woulda thunk that the country responsible for the pogroms against Jews and which created the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would do such?!

Next, somebody will tell me that the Greeks and the Turks really aren't getting on that well.
Click to expand...

Russia has a long history of anti-Israeli stance in the region and it's a powerful player too. the problem is that this was the harshest comment yet about the escalation of the war in the region. imagine Israel and Russia joining a civil war which includes Iran and all arab nations already. it's becoming a full blown proxy war, and I am really concerned about that.
 
youknowwho said:
now you're presuming that I have an agenda.
Click to expand...

I think that's obvious.

1. You presume that because the strike in Syria, Israel has no intel.
2. You claim that the strike was, AT BEST, a speculation.
3. One can infer that that "at worst" side of your presumption involves war crimes.

So, now... just because the strike was in Syria you conclude that Israel was speculating at best and perhaps commiting war crimes.

To present things in a false light, use a false premise and leave unstated accusations on the table is clearly and undeniably anti-Israel. It's dumb and it's lame, no doubt - it's embarrassing. But, nonetheless, it's anti-Israel.
 
ecofarm said:
Don't lie.
Click to expand...
I'm not.

Because the strike occured in Syria, you PRESUME that Israel has no intel to back it up and did so on speculation. That's a ridiculous presumption. Obviously, Israel is capable of gathering intel and evidence about the transfer even if it is happening in Syria. The premise of your assumption is as false as the assumption itself:

Because the strike occured in Syria, Israel must have been guessing.
Click to expand...

if the strike was happened in lebanon, it meant that the missiles were delivered to hesbollah, so the claim that syria meant to deliver the missiles to hesbollah was a self-sufficient fact. but since it was in syria, there must be evidence to support that in fact it was headed to lebanon. unless we are presented with that evidence the burden of proof falls on israel and my claim is logically true.

Both parts of that are dumb.
Click to expand...
that's your opinion.

Now, let's consider another thing. You claimed "at best" it was speculation. So, what's your "at worst" scenario. Why do you include "at best" and then do not explain what else might have occured - please do, we await further presumptions.
Click to expand...

the logical worst case in this case would be that israel had evidence that it was in fact not headed for lebanon. every first year philosophy student can tell you that.
 
ecofarm said:
I think that's obvious.

1. You presume that because the strike in Syria, Israel has no intel.
2. You claim that the strike was, AT BEST, a speculation.
3. One can infer that that "at worst" side of your presumption involves war crimes.

So, now... just because the strike was in Syria you conclude that Israel was speculating at best and perhaps commiting war crimes.

To present things in a false light, use a false premise and leave unstated accusations on the table is clearly and undeniably anti-Israel. It's dumb and it's lame, no doubt - it's embarrassing. But, nonetheless, it's anti-Israel.
Click to expand...

so because you think I have an agenda, so I must have an agenda. nice thinkin'.
 
youknowwho said:
I'm not.
Click to expand...

You lied. You made presumptions. You presumed that because the strike occured in Syria that Israel had no intel. You presumed that, lacking intel, Israel did it anyway (based on speculation, "at best"). You then presumed (your third presumption) that there could be an "at worst" scenario.

That's 3 false presumptions - that you made. You can't deny it.
 
ecofarm said:
You lied. You made presumption. You presumed that because the strike occured in Syria that Israel had no intel. You presumed that, lacking intel, Israel did it anyway (based on speculation, "at best"). You then presumed (your third presumption) that there could be an "at worst" scenario.

That's 3 false presumptions - that you made. You can't deny it.
Click to expand...

so, you have no intention of stopping your ad hominem attacks and debate the issue?
 
youknowwho said:
so, you have no intention of stopping your ad hominem attacks and debate the issue?
Click to expand...

Debate what issue?

That you think Israel cannot gather intel on stuff in Syria?
That you think Israel, being incapable of gathering intel in Syria, did this on speculation?
That you think Israel may have committed a war crime?

That's all not debatable. That's all crap. I've already blown it out of the water.

If you wanna debate something, you're gonna have to present something that is not just invented (and ignorant) presumptions.
 
Last edited:
youknowwho said:
BBC News - Russia concern at Israeli 'air strike' on Syria





Tensions seem to be rising in the middle east. now the Syrian civil war is involving its neighbors into it which is a dangerous escalation in my opinion. I wonder what would US's reaction be?
Click to expand...

Really? Russia is concerned about a "violation of the UN Charter"? That's a good one.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Israelis bomb the beginnings of a suspected nuclear site within Syria about a decade ago? Didn't Russia within the last decade "invade" its sovereign neighbor Georgia during the Bush Presidency because it wanted to protect its citizens from attack?

The UN Charter is a joke and its only purpose is to shield the world's bad actors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom