@mustafa9516, is this your video?

For reference, that last huge explosion was about 2 miles from where they were standing. Must've been terrifying.

*nochannel *Military *Islam *Dark

This video has been removed from all channels (Asia, Military, Hip Hop, Islam, Commercial, Dark, Africa) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by kulpims. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Dark, Islam, Military) - requested by kulpims.

No comments, no votes, joined today and submits a vid with 500ish youtube views. Hrrrmmm.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'al, manar, israeli, Damascus, Governorate, Syria, israel syria, israil suriye' to 'al, manar, IDF, israeli, attack, explosions, Damascus, Syria, Israel, war' - edited by kulpims

Israel is completely within its rights to attack another sovereign nation because....

*Insert any other nation* is completely within its rights to attack another sovereign nation because...

This is as outrageous and unjustified as Israel's last attack in September 2007 in Syria. You remember, the one Syria denied even happened for several months. The one the UN IAEA inspectors confirmed in 2011 almost certainly did destroy a nuclear reactor under construction there.

Israel considered it within it's rights to stop North Korean weaponry being delivered to Syria then, and today, stopping Iranian weapons reaching Hezbollah.

Can you honestly say Israel has no legitimate right to concern over Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah? Do you honestly believe that Israel should be expected to simply take on faith and trust that Assad, or elements in his military, won't ship chemical weapons to Hezbollah?

You make this point but I am guessing that you are not willing to accepts its inverse, which was the point Kofi was alluding to.

By your logic:
Syria is well within its rights to attack the US because they are actively aiding rebels.
Iran is well within its rights to attack Syrian rebels because they are undermining a client state.
Syria is well within its rights to bomb Israel because they are housing US weapons.

Or as Glenn Greenwald put it :

One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we're immune, because we're superior. So much of the pseudo-high-minded theorizing emanating from DC think thanks and US media outlets boils down to this adolescent, self-praising, tribalistic license: we have the right to do X, but they do not.

Beautifully put aaronfr. The justifications for violent action are always justified in the minds of the perpetrators. Seldom and always after the fact does anyone admit the partisan and asymmetrical moralising one uses in such justifications.

The truth of the matter is that the USA and, by extension, Israel do what they do because they have the power to do so. Moral considerations are merely a way of feeling comfortable about using that power in the name of national interest which itself assumes a certain moral objectivity that their opponents also purport to have.

aaronfr and Kofi,

You both seem to have the notion that Israel is, has and always will be the aggressor in it's relationship with it's neighbours. If you want to talk about unjustified acts of aggression between Israel and neighboring arab states, you can't decide to only look at the time frame which supports your position.

What is your view on Israel's declaration of independence? Even Al Jazeera describes the events as the culmination of a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians, in which the Jewish Palestinians were the minority. The Jewish Palestinians were largely victorious, and declared independence within the the territory they held. Immediately, all neighboring Arab states declared war on them and proceeded to promise a cleansing that would drive the Jews into the sea. They even encouraged an extensive temporary mass exodus of all Arab Palestinians for the expected short duration of the conflict. After all, each individual Arab state vastly outnumbered Israel by itself. To their great consternation, Israel survived and has been in constant conflict ever since.

Don't come out pretending that nobody ever attacks Israel when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah launch attacks into Israeli territory every week. Don't claim you support Syria's or Iran's 'peaceful', position in this when they promise the destruction of Israel and continually provide funding, training and weapons to groups directly launching attacks on Israel.

You cry double standard, and that Israel's attacks are unjustified. Where are you similar cries against Syria and Iran when weapons made by them, and deployed by people they have trained hit Israel?

The point is that violence against and from Israel has been a two way street since before it's declaration of independence, and demanding Israel just take it's lumps and do nothing but file complaints at the UN in it's own defense is naive in the extreme.

I know my Middle East history and have no illusions about who is and is not the aggressor. My point is that there is ALWAYS a double standard. That you took this as an attack on Israel's moral standing simply highlights your own double standard.

By the way, the extensive temporary exodus is now 65 years temporary with no talk about right of return, at least not to the people born in pre-Israel Palestine. And any talk of right of return by the Palestinian Authority has been used as grounds for abandoning peace/settlement talks by the Israeli government. Just a little fact check, not a sign of partisanship.

Yes, double standards can be found anywhere and everywhere you look in geopolitics, astute observation there. Are you interested in adding anything more than that to the discussion though?

There is an actual real world behind all of this. People are dying during our discussion. I've lost patience for people decrying an action without being willing to put forward and defend an alternative. The burden of proof lies as much on those championing inaction as it does on those championing action. Do you believe Israel should not intervene while arms are shipped to Hezbollah? Would you prefer that? It's a simple enough position, but unless you are gonna stand behind it or something else then you're not taking things as seriously as they deserve to be.

Yeah Chomsky rips that crap apart, but as of now for the last say 38 years or so Israel and the US have been obstructing the two state solution and supporting Israels brutal occupations. So whatever leg Israel may have HAD to stand on, they don't anymore.

Go challenge your views instead of just reading statist doctrine.

You're mistaking me for someone that figures Israel can do no wrong.

The video is about Israel bombing what they claim to be arms shipments from Syria to Hezbollah. I think the story is more than credible, considering Hezbollah's repeated use of Syrian weapons against Israeli territory.

Care to explain exactly how Syrian missiles and weaponry being sent over to Hezbollah contributes to a two state solution? Or do you also refuse to actually hold any position on the matter?

By this logic Japan was justified in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, since the planes there were touted as able to burn Japanese cities to the ground.

You're right I did judge you a bit harshly I apologize, but I don't agree Israel is right here.

But where does it stop? As I asked before, is Syria now completely justified in attacking Israel? Is it justified to attack the United States since the US is transferring weapons to a state that constantly attacks Syria?

All of these scenarios and actions are and would be justifiable in a state of declared war. Perhaps your position is that Israel is in effect in a state of constant war with its neighbors, in which case all attacks against Israel are fair and any response is also justified (although even the just war doctrine doesn't allow for asymmetrical responses). However, that hawkish position definitely impedes any peaceful settlement.

A war ends when one side wins or one side decides it is not worth fighting anymore. Nobody is going to "win" this conflict. Instead, I would rather like to see Israel, the stronger side militarily and economically, be that harbinger of peace and accept the inherent security risks of its position by deciding it doesn't want this fight. It is because of that stance that I am always so deeply disappointed by acts like this and feel the need to push back against those who claim that Israel is justified in whatever it does (even if you are not exactly that person).

By in large, Japan was. It was the aggressor, but not exactly without justifiable self defense as a cause.

The American military build up was absolutely intended to at the very least be prepared to attack Japan. The hardware destroyed in Pearl Harbor was very likely to be used against Japan.

Now, the Japanese policy of conquest throughout Asia and it's genocidal treatment of those areas it conquered is another matter. It is those horrific acts which, to me, shift Japan from aggressor to 'bad guy' if we must use such cheap descriptions.

It ends as you say, when one side decides it not worth fighting anymore. Whether in time is deemed one of peace or war is political paperwork. The reality is any nation that sees advantage in fighting will, 9 times in 10, fight.

I disagree with what the expected results are if Israel simply stands aside militarily. Economically, I absolutely wish they'd pursue the framework for 'unilaterally' instituting a two state solution. Stopping the constant expansion of settlements into occupied territory being a big one.

I do not believe history shows that Israel simply ignoring Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks, and military build up will lead to a situation where those nations are less likely to escalate their attacks. I do not believe Syria or Iran will stop funding, training and arming those groups for any amount of good will shown by Israel. The truth is, those groups see inaction on Israel's behalf as signs of weakness, and weakness is an invitation to push the advantage and escalate further. Tell me I'm wrong in that, but the evidence is pretty widespread.

Two words: Golan Heights.

It does symbolize things a bit doesn't it?

Seized by Israel when Syria and Egypt jointly launched an attack on Israel. Israel offering it in exchange for a peace treaty. It doesn't seem to purely exhibit one sided aggression from Israel, does it?

I do believe that Israel started that particular war.

1948 - Arabs
1957 - Israel, Britain and France
1967 - Israel
1973 - Arabs
1982 - Israel

Correct me where I am wrong please.

Moving this video to mustafa9516's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Without getting too detailed, the Golan Heights were captured in 1973. To grossly oversimplify, Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel in a war that Syria 'started'.

*promote

Allah Akbar, my balls.

Much rather live on a planet with folks who have less of their collective heads shoved up each others asses.

I like Israel for her policy of continually keeping nuclear power out of the hands of neanderthals.
I get a warm fuzzy every time they use their air force to wrench nuclear facilities out of the hands of any developmentally-disabled children....

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by chingalera.

I must admit that Israel, in my humble opinion, is damaging herself in the long run. We are aggressors. we have this "kill before get killed" way of thinking for the past I don't know how many years. We are doing basically whatever we like, running around with a hall pass from our big brother the U.S., knowing that almost nothing will be done to us due to the severe consequences. I can assure you that people in Israel have a distorted view of things, due to the long standing feud in the middle east. Oh, and another example, you will not see students been taught that Israel started any war. The arabs were always the aggressors.

I can only imagine what acts will be taken if Syria decides to attack a missile shipment from the U.S. coming to Israel...

Meh, assholes vs nutjobs. Fuck 'em both.

I think we need to get detailed. Israel captured and occupied the Golan Heights in the 1967 war in which they "pre-emptively" struck Egypt decimating their air force and in turn Syria and their Arab allies declared war on Israel for this aggression.

"As Israel's neighbors prepared to destroy the Jewish state, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the South, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the East and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the North.

At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula, and the Golan Heights under Israel's control."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/History/pages/HISTORY-%20The%20State%20of%20Israel.aspx

Facts matter.

If I can speak past the foot in my mouth, when you're right, you're right.

I have to ask though, what does it demonstrate? I don't see it making a clear distinction between 'defensive' arab states trying to appease an aggressive Israel. It more show cases that Israel has and still is surrounded by aggressive Arab states, and has survived/existed by being similarly aggressive in turn. Israel's pre-emptive attack in the 67 was just the first strike while BOTH sides were escalating things, no different from Egypt's pre-emptive attack in the 70's was just the first strike while BOTH sides were escalating things.

If I side toward Israel in the balance of most things, it's for two reasons. First off, on the whole they treat their own citizens better than most of their neighbours(a low bar, I know). If I have to pick between regime change in Israel or Syria, it's Assad I'm happier to see gone. Secondly, I think it can pretty emphatically be stated that Israel has, since it's formation, had it's very existence under attack by forces that badly outnumber it. In that scenario, I have to give some extra credence to the considerations of self defense.