Dome of the Rock blown up April 1982

Okay, never mind, I'm reminded of why I need to stay out of this. Sorry guys.:eek:

Why sorry? You came with your views, based on your understanding and previous knowledge. You were convinced by another argument, and hopefully learned a bit of history. I see a healthy discussion here. :)
 
Why sorry? You came with your views, based on your understanding and previous knowledge. You were convinced by another argument, and hopefully learned a bit of history. I see a healthy discussion here. :)

True.

I'm not entirely convinced, however I'm going to wait and see with this one.
 
why? really all you guys keep saying is "The Dome is a big deal" there for Arab/Muslim states will drop all past thinking and logic and do... what you guys haven't clearly said, so give me something more logical than "Iran-Iraq peace based on Muslim unity!"

so what do you guys believe the nations around Israel will do? and why will they do these things?

Once again you seem to be either hard of hearing or completely and willfully missing the point I'm raising. I'm saying that militant Islamism, the kind of ideology behind Al-Qaeda, will shift from Saddam Hussein and the USSR to Israel. This has nothing necessarily to do with all of Islam. If you're this ignorant about the global ramifications of blowing up the third holiest site in Islam when the Iranian army is on an upswing, then it's a fair question as to why you even asked a question when you think Israel can get away with anything it wants whenever it wants without the least hint of consequences, as evidently Terrorism up to 11 and the reaction of global Islamists of the Al-Qaeda sort doesn't mean anything. More dead Israelis and the start of Israel's total global isolation and the end of any peace with any of the Arab states has zero impact because Israel. :rolleyes::mad:

I don't think Islam and Muslims think with one mind, my stand is that the attack would wipe clean the whole context of the middle east and change the whole views of those governments around Israel, I think that such an attack could change the history of Islamic Terrorism, maybe we see Arab Mujahideen not going to Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and others not fighting in Afghanistan, but in the West Bank and Lebanon, but maybe not, ObL hated than and latter secular socialist arabs like the PLO who in the 1980s were still out in front of the Palestinian issue.

Sigh, obviously it's a waste of time to pretend to have some kind of discussion when the other person isn't the least bit capable of understanding the global ramifications of an act and shows a completely naive view of what this would actually mean. Obviously you're not in the least bit able to see what kind of impact this'd have on Ayatollah Khomeini. Obviously, too, you don't see that Islamists would do this whether the Arab dictators or PLO wanted them to do so or not. You're assuming that in the middle of negotiations where a vital matter of Israel's overall security is in progress, the third holiest site in Islam is blown up because the Israelis can't police their own extremists. You assume that this, which shows Israel's word to be as worthless as the PLO's has no impact whatsoever, enabling Israel to be wanked as per the usual discussions about it here without any consequences. :rolleyes:
 
it is the single most important site in all of Judaism, in the 19 years Jordan held it didn't let any Israelis go to it (though they agreed to) they also desecrated the Mount of Olives (the oldest Jewish grave yard on Earth over 3,000 years old) using its tombstones to pave roads and public bathrooms, also Jordan had agreed to let Israelis go there, Jordan blew up the synagogues of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and planed before 1967 to knock down the Quarter and make it a park, none of this lead to a war or attacks from Israel on Jordan or the wider Muslim world

Jordan didn't blow up the Western Wall in 1967, which is what this amounts to. You're also missing major, obvious points that differ in the 1940s and 1980s, not least that early Israel was founded by secular socialists, the religious fanatics didn't move in until after 1967. Obviously a bunch of atheists wouldn't treat desecrating religious sites the way Ayatollah Khomeini would. I repeat that I'm not sure you're serious, because if you are then you really don't have any understanding of what you're talking about and the enormous differences between 1980s and 1940s here.

it was during the first 19 years of Israel, part of the 1949 "peace" Jordan agreed to let Israelis go to the Wall and the Mount, Israelis were never able to go
yes they did, but not over issues of faith and holy sites, its not something most people go to war over

All of this requires citations, BTW, but the reality is that in those first 19 years Israel was run by atheist socialists who organized themselves in Kibbutzim. Naturally if you're atheists you're not going to see desecrating religious sites as a casus belli. We're not talking the 1980s, and the global variant of Islamism that's showing up here is not the secular first generation founders of Israel. The analogy is completely, utterly, totally, and fully irrelevant.
 
A decleration of war by a group of half a dozen guys, who would either die during the attack or captured right after? The OP did not say the state of Israel destroyed the Dome, rather a fringe group of religious nut-jobs.

Technically Hamas and Islamic Jihad are fringe nut jobs, too, but it never stops people treating them as all of the Palestinians. The reaction here is from the kind of people who went to Afghanistan to wage Jihad on the USSR. They're not going to be thinking in terms of rational differentiation here, especially with this happening just as Israel's trying to actually get a peace. These people will rationalize it as a conspiracy and no amount of evidence otherwise would ever be relevant to them. You're talking something equivalent to Al-Hakim's destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, here. What the Arab dictators owned by the Soviets and the USA around Israel do doesn't matter to these people.
 
First of all, drop the tone. Second, we were talking about Arab states. Not Terror organizations. The reasoning that Israel couldn't stop the attack on the Dome is enough to never negotiate again, is flawed. That's like saying that Israel should resume hosilities with Egypt after the cross-border incidents.

Um, I'm going to ask the same thing of you. Are you serious in not seeing the reality that Arab states in the 1980s are not the end-all be-all of the global ramifications here? And that the MUSLIM WORLD IS NOT JUST ARAB? Evidently not, as when Israel detonates sensitive sites which have GLOBAL, not merely MIDDLE EASTERN ramifications, with the kind of behavior that GAVE THE PLO A DESERVEDLY BAD NAME Israel can get away with this consequences-free because people are this incapable of viewing the gap between the dawn of Islamism and this act and analogies reliant on the secular monarchies of the Hashemites in the far more mutually secular 1940s.

But I forget, Israel can do anything it wants whenever it wants because Israel is just that awesome. :rolleyes:
 
sadly I have to take my ball and go home, as I think every one else should Snake isn't willing to be even basically polite to people who disagree, to the point in his last post to say the number of people who don't agree with him are some how part of a pro-Israeli cabal or something, any more posting it this thread will clearly only draw out more rudeness from him which is a shame.
 
sadly I have to take my ball and go home, as I think every one else should Snake isn't willing to be even basically polite to people who disagree, to the point in his last post to say the number of people who don't agree with him are some how part of a pro-Israeli cabal or something, any more posting it this thread will clearly only draw out more rudeness from him which is a shame.

Well, to put it bluntly I keep asking simple questions you don't even acknowledge, preferring instead to handwave entire issues and either not understanding or not listening to what I'm saying. After the sixth straight time of that in a row, why am I going to be polite asking the same questions for the same non-answers?

I never said anything about a pro-Israeli cabal, and I don't know where you got that. I'm asking why people genuinely think in the year in the Iran-Iraq War when the Iranian Army is in the upswing and the Soviet-Afghan War's already built the building block of modern Al-Qaeda Israeli extremists blowing up the Dome of the Rock in a territorial exchange of one of Israel's many "defensive" land grabs is going to possibly end in some kind of peaceful situation for Israel? You keep making statements that indicate you've not thought this scenario through, I keep asking you to do that, you keep refusing.

It has nothing to do with a pro-Israeli cabal, it has to do with Eurofed-style logic where Israel's actions and everyone else's reactions are concerned. My comments about Israel stem from its inability to stop these extremists, not saying all of Israel agrees with them or wanted this to happen. Treating what I said like I meant that is a strawman. The idea that I'm treating people as part of some pro-Israeli cabal for asking them if they understand obvious differences like that between the global Islamist movements and the secular dictatorships of the Cold War era is not that. I'm asking if people realize the likes of Sadat and Mubarak are not the same type of people as Khomeini and Osama bin Laden. This is simple geopolitics here, and this is going to have much bigger butterflies than merely Israel's peace negotiations getting torpedoed in the brisket. If I keep asking simple questions and getting non-answers or evasions, I will be wondering sooner or later why people won't answer ultimately simple questions. Or mistake irrelevant non-answers in terms of what's actually going on here for answers.
 
Okay, as an Arab and a Muslim, let me clarify one thing.

The Dome of the Rock is not the Third Most Holy Site. Al-Aqsa Mosque is. They're just rather close. The Dome was built in the early Omayyad era, while Al-Aqsa is the structure that existed right around the time Islam came to be as a religion.

Don't worry, a lot of people make that mistake. Arabs and Muslims included ;)

However, that said, I'll say it as an Arab and a Muslim.

It's still a very bad idea to blow up the Dome of the Rock. As in "massive political shitstorm" bad. Israel's either going to have to face international condemnation and a stalling peace process and weakening economy (the peace with Egypt saved Israel billions, plus it allowed them a cheap source of natural gas), or the anger of its own people for hunting down the ones responsible for destroying a major Muslim holy site and dragging them to court.

And for the record, if said terrorists had blown up Al-Aqsa? They might as well have marched to Mecca and blown up Al-Kaa'ba while they're at it. It's going to be even worse than just the Dome.

And I know this is belated, but: red1? Thanks again for proving why we should be on our hands and knees thanking whatever cosmic or divine forces we believe in that you're not the head of a nuclear state. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, meaning Israel uses them in two situations; if someone drops a WMD in Israel, or if the Arab armies somehow managed not to utterly suck, and their armored columns are making a direct charge for Tel Aviv. Neither of which are remotely possible in this scenario. So knock it off with the nuclear insanity.
 
Well, in that case I concede the point about the third holiest site in Islam and withdraw that point. :eek: However most of the argument still stands, in that in this case it's more likely to see the likes of Hamas show up much earlier and much more violently than IOTL.
 
For God's sake, we're talking a war fought by armies intent on spreading radical Islamism, when they're actually kicking the ass of a secular dictatorship, intent on spreading regional terrorism. THE THIRD HOLIEST SITE IN ISLAM IS BLOWN UP. DURING THIS WAR. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan's already creating a hardened cadre of irregulars. And you really fail to see how blowing up the third holiest site in Islam might possibly relevant to the kind of people who sent teenagers through minefields over much less from an ISLAMIC POV?

Again,
Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Settle down and stop posting retarded image macros.
 
Black Angel: What are you talking about? He countered your points with evidence about early Israel not being affected by the Wall, he's not simply countering with, "more rudeness." Answer his critiques, don't just dance around the question.

Snake: Told you with the meme.:(
 
Black Angel: What are you talking about? He countered your points with evidence about early Israel not being affected by the Wall, he's not simply countering with, "more rudeness." Answer his critiques, don't just dance around the question.

*sigh* the wall thing is grade A BS, the Israelis weren't atheists, some were sure, but it wasn't a national thing, secular sure, though The National Religious Party was a key member of government for all 19 years, and they were doves on the war issue, and even Socialist members of government were over joyed in 1967 when the wall was taken, many rushed to see it and pray there, so the idea that Israel from 1948-1967 were a bunch of atheists who didn't care at all is silly
 
Technically Hamas and Islamic Jihad are fringe nut jobs, too, but it never stops people treating them as all of the Palestinians. The reaction here is from the kind of people who went to Afghanistan to wage Jihad on the USSR. They're not going to be thinking in terms of rational differentiation here, especially with this happening just as Israel's trying to actually get a peace. These people will rationalize it as a conspiracy and no amount of evidence otherwise would ever be relevant to them. You're talking something equivalent to Al-Hakim's destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, here. What the Arab dictators owned by the Soviets and the USA around Israel do doesn't matter to these people.

Technically Hamas IS the elected government in Gaza. So your point is kinda moot. Also, again you are talking about a massive wave of terrorists from around the Muslim world. I did not disagree on that. But how does it have anything to do with Arab armies?

Um, I'm going to ask the same thing of you. Are you serious in not seeing the reality that Arab states in the 1980s are not the end-all be-all of the global ramifications here? And that the MUSLIM WORLD IS NOT JUST ARAB? Evidently not, as when Israel detonates sensitive sites which have GLOBAL, not merely MIDDLE EASTERN ramifications, with the kind of behavior that GAVE THE PLO A DESERVEDLY BAD NAME Israel can get away with this consequences-free because people are this incapable of viewing the gap between the dawn of Islamism and this act and analogies reliant on the secular monarchies of the Hashemites in the far more mutually secular 1940s.

But I forget, Israel can do anything it wants whenever it wants because Israel is just that awesome. :rolleyes:

Unless you mean to say that there is a Muslim country with enough power projection to reach Israel without sharing a border with it, or that every Muslim nation on earth will declare war on Israel, I fail to see your point.

But I forget, you have already told me that you have an anti-Israel bias, and so any discussion with you about this matter has no real chance of changing your mind.

Well, in that case I concede the point about the third holiest site in Islam and withdraw that point. :eek: However most of the argument still stands, in that in this case it's more likely to see the likes of Hamas show up much earlier and much more violently than IOTL.

No one said otherwise. I just don't agree with your statement that this will lead to wars agains Arab armies, state-vs-state. You keep mentioning Iran as if it has some capacity to teleport it's army to the Israeli border.
 
Technically Hamas IS the elected government in Gaza. So your point is kinda moot. Also, again you are talking about a massive wave of terrorists from around the Muslim world. I did not disagree on that. But how does it have anything to do with Arab armies?

For reasons that have nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Fatah's government by theft. It doesn't have anything to do with them, but you're under the impression that the will of Arab dictators in trying to stop them would be relevant.

Unless you mean to say that there is a Muslim country with enough power projection to reach Israel without sharing a border with it, or that every Muslim nation on earth will declare war on Israel, I fail to see your point.

But I forget, you have already told me that you have an anti-Israel bias, and so any discussion with you about this matter has no real chance of changing your mind.

I said I have a bias in favor of the Palestinians. How does this, strictly speaking, translate into being anti-Israeli? Does being for something mean that I must be against something else? As defenders of reprehensible concepts in AH love to say, it's just ALTERNATE HISTORY. IOTL, of course, the Palestinians have been screwed by their leaders as bad as they have by everyone else.

No one said otherwise. I just don't agree with your statement that this will lead to wars agains Arab armies, state-vs-state. You keep mentioning Iran as if it has some capacity to teleport it's army to the Israeli border.

Iran does have Hezbollah and its component militias, as well as other weapons it can use here. Israel will also be facing a much smaller resource base than IOTL and the start of a prolonged oil embargo by Arab states who will be glad to trade with other states, and in a way to protect them against Islamist fanatics may decide as the USA's obviously incapable of stopping its allies from throwing firebombs in rooms full of fine dust that the Soviets at least will give them weapons which would enable them to put a lid on the rise of local Islamism that won't like their new approaches to the USSR.
 
*sigh* the wall thing is grade A BS, the Israelis weren't atheists, some were sure, but it wasn't a national thing, secular sure, though The National Religious Party was a key member of government for all 19 years, and they were doves on the war issue, and even Socialist members of government were over joyed in 1967 when the wall was taken, many rushed to see it and pray there, so the idea that Israel from 1948-1967 were a bunch of atheists who didn't care at all is silly

The founders of the Israeli state who agreed to hand over the "Palestinian state" to Jordan with full respect for the terms of the British partition :)rolleyes:) certainly were atheists and socialists. Most of the actual religious Jews looked on the state of Israel as a blasphemous abomination. This only changed after Israel carved huge chunks off its neighbors by starting a war that they won in six days, purely for defensive purposes. :rolleyes: As though gaining huge territories guaranteed to be permanently hostile money traps is going to *help* security by some strange logic.
 
For reasons that have nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Fatah's government by theft. It doesn't have anything to do with them, but you're under the impression that the will of Arab dictators in trying to stop them would be relevant.

Are you saying that the armies will march off on thier own?

I said I have a bias in favor of the Palestinians. How does this, strictly speaking, translate into being anti-Israeli? Does being for something mean that I must be against something else? As defenders of reprehensible concepts in AH love to say, it's just ALTERNATE HISTORY. IOTL, of course, the Palestinians have been screwed by their leaders as bad as they have by everyone else.

No, you said you have a bias against Israel, Palestinians were not mentioned in that conversation. But never mind that, I'll go with this.

Iran does have Hezbollah and its component militias, as well as other weapons it can use here. Israel will also be facing a much smaller resource base than IOTL and the start of a prolonged oil embargo by Arab states who will be glad to trade with other states, and in a way to protect them against Islamist fanatics may decide as the USA's obviously incapable of stopping its allies from throwing firebombs in rooms full of fine dust that the Soviets at least will give them weapons which would enable them to put a lid on the rise of local Islamism that won't like their new approaches to the USSR.

Hezbullah does not exist yet ITTL. And what "other weapons"?
 
The founders of the Israeli state who agreed to hand over the "Palestinian state" to Jordan with full respect for the terms of the British partition :)rolleyes:) certainly were atheists and socialists. Most of the actual religious Jews looked on the state of Israel as a blasphemous abomination. This only changed after Israel carved huge chunks off its neighbors by starting a war that they won in six days, purely for defensive purposes. :rolleyes: As though gaining huge territories guaranteed to be permanently hostile money traps is going to *help* security by some strange logic.

From a quick glance at the list of parties in the first Israeli government I see at least 25% of the parties were religious or "light" religious. So history fail there.
 
Are you saying that the armies will march off on thier own?

No, I'm saying that the Islamists in them will start making demands those armies do this and the demands are ignored, producing general destabilization that both Iran and the OBL types will seek to exploit.

No, you said you have a bias against Israel, Palestinians were not mentioned in that conversation. But never mind that, I'll go with this.

Link me to the post in this thread where I said that.

Hezbullah does not exist yet ITTL. And what "other weapons"?

It does now ITTL. As to the other weapons, its secret ties with Israel that were instrumental in say, things like Osirak being revealed (and blamed no doubt on remaining Pahlavist elements) in order to discredit Israel's ties with Rogue states.......things like that.

From a quick glance at the list of parties in the first Israeli government I see at least 25% of the parties were religious or "light" religious. So history fail there.

I'd like to see a list of those parties, preferably not from Polonipedia.
 
Top