'karine A'

[G-Man]

Two days ago an Israeli commando unit, in a combined assault of the airforce and the navy, took over the ship 'KARINE A' - a ship owned by the PA - that carried 50 tons of weapons, including:
- 83 floating tubes developed in Iran that were supposed to send the weapons to the shores of Gaza while floating 1m below sea level
- Katyushas
- Mortars
- LOW missiles that were given to Iran by the US before 1979
- Sagger missiles
- RPGs
- Advanced mines
- Dragunov sniper rifles
- Kalachnikovs
- Commando equipment that can be used by terrorists to cross the border below sea level

These weapons were sent from Iran to Gaza. On board the vessel were Iranian sailors, a Hizzbalah man and Palestinian navy officers, including the captain, a lieuttnenet (spelling...) general.
This raises many questions:
- Should the US concentrate on Iran as it's next target in it's war against terror?
- If not, should the US atleast bomb Iran's nuclear reactors before they're complited?
- Can Israel trust Arafat when he says there's a cease fire but at the same time buys weapons for his terrorists?
- Should Israel attack Iran?
- Should Israel take over Palestinian areas in order to reduce the areas under the threat of their katyushas (Areas that include Timrat)?
- Should Israel make a naval blockade near Gaza'a shores to prevent more deliveries like this one?
- Should Israel allow the PA to get money from other countries when they use this money in order to buy weapons?
- Is Arafat really good for his people (Reduces spendinngs on education but spends 15 million dollars on this operation)?

Some of the captures weapons. Sagger missiles, behind them mortars and in the back you can see the ship

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

- Should the US concentrate on Iran as it's next target in it's war against terror?
- If not, should the US atleast bomb Iran's nuclear reactors before they're complited?
- Should Israel attack Iran?

All that for just an arms sale? Isn't that a bit over the top?
I din't think Iran will make a easy target ,a contraire i think that Iran is the most powerfull Muslim country's in the world. (After Indonesia i think)
You yourself said:

- If not, should the US atleast bomb Iran's nuclear reactors before they're complited?

Well ,as far as i know these nuclear reactor's are already completed.I remeber reading in 1998 that it was anticipated that the first four of these facility's would be completed in 2000.
So as far as i know Iran IS nuclear capable already.And that all for a Arms sale?
Knowing that the sale also included Katuscha's and Kalashnikov's ,these weapons must have originated from Russia.So if Russia sell's arms to country's like Iran ,wich Russia has done for years already (including the selling of Su35 and Mig 29/27 Flanker's and even some cruiser's and destroyers) ,then must we attack russia to because they support terrorist's?

I have seen some Hamas militants recently on tv, running around with American's rifle's. The American's themself's have sold ton's of weaponry to not so very clean organization's or country's.Something they feared a lot in Afhanistan was that they suspected the Taliban to have Stinger's (hum ,american weapons).In fact ,those thing's are findable all over the place.

As i think ,the biggest supporter's of terrorism (financialy and with millitary equipment) over all time were eventually the U.S.

What you should do now? Hide! (if you have a bunker)

No ,this catch will again present a good reason for the Israeli's to retaliate with full force.So don't worry to much ,eventually it are not the israeli that are threathend with extinction.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Although one is not as blase as Ducky about the event and associated issues, one does not think that all out war is the appropriate response.

"- Should the US concentrate on Iran as it's next target in it's war against terror?
- If not, should the US atleast bomb Iran's nuclear reactors before they're complited?
- Can Israel trust Arafat when he says there's a cease fire but at the same time buys weapons for his terrorists?
- Should Israel attack Iran?
- Should Israel take over Palestinian areas in order to reduce the areas under the threat of their katyushas (Areas that include Timrat)?
- Should Israel make a naval blockade near Gaza'a shores to prevent more deliveries like this one?
- Should Israel allow the PA to get money from other countries when they use this money in order to buy weapons?
- Is Arafat really good for his people (Reduces spendinngs on education but spends 15 million dollars on this operation)? "

In order then:
1.) No, but it should maintain pressure on Iran in various ways to encourage the moderates over the extremists
2.) This would upset a lot of Islamic states, and the copious individuals who would yell at anything. There are ways and ways of doing these things, and an Osirak style response is only one of them
3.) At the present, an operation of this type would present at the minimum a large logistical challenge and risk that may not be concommitant with the results. It depends what is meant by "attack", and what the consequences would be.
4.) Yes, missile threats are an issue that cannot be ignored
5.) Yes, in combination with intelligence operations
6.) No
7.) No. This has been proven thoroughly in the past years, and is increasingly reinforced with every day. He cannot adapt to operate within peace; but, there is no stable option to replace him.

In short, this recent event will not result in all out war, but rather a raising of tensions, and further proof of the non-pacific intentions of the PA.

 

[admiralspock]

I do not beleive a couple of RPG's would pose a threat to Israel since it is armed to the teeth by the US with the latest technologies. And since Israel uses them on civilians it is the one who should be on a arms embargo. Since Israel does violate the Olso agreement by going to "Area A" than the treaty should be considered void and any arm agreements in the treaty is also void.
Israel would not dare attack Iran since it has the second strongest airforce in the ME, it even manfactures it's own advance fighter-bomber called the Azarakhsh. Also I read on a Janes article which said Iran has already smuggled nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan, so even though it does not have nuclear capabalities yet, it does have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
US will not attack Iran because Iran has the capabalities to close the Persian gulf to oil which would be disastrous. Also Iran has a lot of sympathies in Europe.

 

[atawa]

Q: Isnt it kinda illigal to capture a ship in international waters?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Atawa, war is illegal.

 

[atawa]

Good point, but does that mean then that you are officialy at war with the PA?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Q: Isnt it kinda illigal to capture a ship in international waters?"

(cough! Achille Lauro cough!)

When it is smuggling arms, or other contraband, it is different from other cases. I'll have to ask my brother, who specializes in the Law of the Sea convention.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by atawa
Good point, but does that mean then that you are officialy at war with the PA?

I believe that the best way to describe their relations is that they are at war, with a shaky truce pending peace treaty negotiations.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders


All that for just an arms sale? Isn't that a bit over the top?
I din't think Iran will make a easy target ,a contraire i think that Iran is the most powerfull Muslim country's in the world. (After Indonesia i think)
You yourself said:

Well ,as far as i know these nuclear reactor's are already completed.I remeber reading in 1998 that it was anticipated that the first four of these facility's would be completed in 2000.
So as far as i know Iran IS nuclear capable already.And that all for a Arms sale?

...

No ,this catch will again present a good reason for the Israeli's to retaliate with full force.So don't worry to much ,eventually it are not the israeli that are threathend with extinction.

Iran didn't sell this weapons, they gave them to the Palestinians authority in order to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an all out war. Israel won't wait to be destroyed before retaliating. If thip sheepment would come to it's destintion it would've allowed the Palestinians to attack major Israeli cities from their own areas. This situation would force Israeli to take over all Palestinians areas and would've been the end of the oslo agreement.

I do not beleive a couple of RPG's would pose a threat to Israel since it is armed to the teeth by the US with the latest technologies. And since Israel uses them on civilians it is the one who should be on a arms embargo. Since Israel does violate the Olso agreement by going to "Area A" than the treaty should be considered void and any arm agreements in the treaty is also void.

There are over 500,000 weapons on that ship. This is a major threat to Israelis, both soldiers and civilians.
Also, Israel isn't using any weapons against civilians.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Although one is not as blase as Ducky about the event and associated issues, one does not think that all out war is the appropriate response.

Uh ,thank's.
Anyway ,i'm not profilating myself as mister intelectual here ,i just give you my oppinion.I guess here in my country most people think that way about such things.Anyway i accept the critisism.My aims are not to build a reputation here on the 'high intellectual grade"of my words here.

Arm's sale's ,they happen all over the world ,between various faction's.The American's have sold ton's of weaponry to the israeli ,and that's all considerd normal sale's.But the concept of an Arm's sale is only "wrong" when the weapons themself's are sold to "terrorists".
Although i'm a pacifist defacto ,i understand arafat's position to buy such arm's.if i was a leader of a country that was constantly invaded by a foreign army ,i would do the same.the Israeli have one of the most modern army's in the world ,So why must it be forbidden fo Arafat to have (with this material included) only yet a small army?

While there is a arm's embargo against Sierra leone ,there still fight with a international collection of weapon's around there.
Ever been to Congo? Call it the dumping country of old world war material.Even my country sels weapon's around there.
But no arm's embargo against Congo ,i guess the Congo is far more profitable in a state of civil war than in a state of peace.

 

[IceBlaZe]

ducky duck, on one end arafat says the palestinien authority is not a terror organization, on the other he buys weapons for terrorists on european money. on one end he says he looks for peace, on the other in the middle of the process of a cease fire he buys 50 tons of weaponry.
on one end you say sharon is a butcher near arafat... on the other you say you understand arafat buying weapons to organizations that intentioally and solely kill innocent citizens.
on one end you are pacifict, on the other you quotate "terrorist" like it is not really that.
I really wish I could understand you duck, you confuse me so much.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Arm's sale's ,they happen all over the world ,between various faction's.The American's have sold ton's of weaponry to the israeli ,and that's all considerd normal sale's.But the concept of an Arm's sale is only "wrong" when the weapons themself's are sold to "terrorists".
Although i'm a pacifist defacto ,i understand arafat's position to buy such arm's.if i was a leader of a country that was constantly invaded by a foreign army ,i would do the same.the Israeli have one of the most modern army's in the world ,So why must it be forbidden fo Arafat to have (with this material included) only yet a small army?

There's a difference between buying weapons for an army and buying weapons for attacking civilians. Israel provided Arafat with hundreds of M-16 but he rarely uses them for anything, yet he can find non-terroristic uses for 900 unguided rockets with the range of 30km? Give me a break...
Also, Israel isn't invading PA areas as an aggression but as self defence. If he would use some of his weapons for stoping terrorists Israel wouldn't have to arrest them.

PS
IceBlaZe - I believe you ment "on one hand".

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

ducky duck, on one end arafat says the palestinian authority is not a terror organization, on the other he buys weapons for terrorists on european money. on one end he says he looks for peace, on the other in the middle of the process of a cease fire he buys 50 tons of weaponry.

Now ,i'm not stating that im so much pro Arafat as i know that he run's a corrupt gouverment.I doubt that he has bought these weapons to give to Hamas or other terrorist organization's.Rather he may be preparing for a full out war scenario ,as if it isn't like that already.
And even then defending with these weapons against the Israeli army won't be easy.

Afcourse the isreali's concern lies in the fact that somebody may use these weapons to terrorize the israeli people.But then i ask you ,what's the difference between the "terrorism" and war.
because when these "terrorist" unit's are used on a relative small scale ,then they will be considerd terrorists ,but when used on a big scale ,then they are just a tool of war.Consider the suicide bomber of the vietcong ,or the Japane kamikaze's.could we consider these troop's "terrorists" to or were they just another form of cheap but effective weaponry used in combination of war?
what's the difference with a palestinian running with a bomb attached to his body into a israeli checkpoint and a vietcong soldier running with a bomb attached to his body into the Headquarter's of an American base?

So if these palestinian "terrorists" would use these weapon's to bomb israeli infrastructure on a relatively low scale ,what's the difference between that being terrorism or being an act of war done in a random and relatively low frequency?
When israel uses it's millitary force to "retaliate" against that "terrorism ,how big is the difference itself then between "retaliation" by using their millitary force and "terrorism" on a high scale and low frequency?

In my view ,the Israeli and Palestinian's are at war.but some people don't see this conflict as an exact form of war ,as the conflict is partly fought out by on one side a form of warfare that has a very debated defition.therefore their is no clear debated analisys of the justification's by the 2 party's in their part of this "conflict" wich i call a war ,because when "terrorism" is used by a certain fraction that itself would have to justify every form of retaliation against these people.

When looked at the conflict itself as a war ,then the justification's of both side's is questionable IMO.

 

[G-Man]

The difference between terrorism and war is that terrorism is against civilians while war is against an army. Shooting rockets on Tel Aviv won't stop the IDF from arresting terrorist but it will kill civilians. On the other hand, Israeli tanks don't shoot at Palestiians is they didn't shoot them first and even then only if there aren't any civilians around them.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

The difference between terrorism and war is that terrorism is against civilians while war is against an army.

So in that perspective the attack against the USS Cole was no terrorist act but an act of war?

Shooting rockets on Tel Aviv won't stop the IDF from arresting terrorist but it will kill civilians. On the other hand, Israeli tanks don't shoot at Palestiians is they didn't shoot them first and even then only if there aren't any civilians around them.

Odly enough ,if you take into account the number of civilian's killed
on both side's you will notice that there are significantly more casualties on the palestinian side than on the Israeli side.

 

[Maj]

Atawa, war is illegal.

Since when?

 

[IceBlaZe]

I believe war is an official regime taking military steps against civilians and army, while terror is individual and grouped civilians using non-conventional and conventional weapons against civilians and army.

does that answer your question duck?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders


So in that perspective the attack against the USS Cole was no terrorist act but an act of war?


Odly enough ,if you take into account the number of civilian's killed
on both side's you will notice that there are significantly more casualties on the palestinian side than on the Israeli side.

The attack against the USS cole was an accident

Also, where did you get this data? From the Palestinians? There were much more Israeli civilians killed then Palestinians civilians.

 

[Cylore]

Originally posted by G-Man


The attack against the USS cole was an accident

How was two guys bringing a boat up along side a ship and setting off a bomb an accident? They didn't know they had a bomb? Maybe they were just pulling up to ask if the fish were biting?

Also, where did you get this data? From the Palestinians? There were much more Israeli civilians killed then Palestinians civilians.

Well, if you count the terrorists as "civilians" I think more Pals have been killed than Isrealis. Isreali reprisals are generally more "effective" than the Palestinian terror attacks.