Probably a bit of both, it's and incestuous little group.

Speaking of being disingenuous, that was a lovely bit of spin. Thanks for sharing, heard it all before and don't need to hear the official story again. Israel has no business in Syria anymore than Syria has any business in Israel. The 'civil war' as it is being called is a result of Israeli and American interference in Syria and Iraq, this is not a war that simply developed out of thin air, that rarely happens and this situation is no different. As for Israel never threatening anyone with their nuclear weapons, just having nuclear weapons is a threat, that's the whole point of weapons of mass destruction. Being coy about having them is just the icing on the cake and fools no one. Pakistan and India are also not signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and North Korea pulled out of the treaty, if it is just a piece of paper then sign on to it for the sake of global security or be branded a rogue state. Building a straw man argument around what Iran or Syria might do with a nuclear weapon should it ever get its hands on one is a nonstarter. If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle but she doesn't, that's why she's my aunt. Where a global nuclear war starts is hardly a matter of interest once it gets started you can't stop it so the end result is the same, regardless of where you are on the planet.

@Surfpirate - Syria has (unsuccessfully) ganged up on Israel a number of times, along with several other countries. Like with any other two states that share a border - not to mention, two enemies who never signed any kind of armistice - what happens in Syria, matters to Israel.

Israel certainly didn't start the war over there - in fact, it has a vested interest in the conflict ending asap. Please note: Israel doesn't want to "end the conflict". It wants the conflict to end. Israel isn't interested in supporting either side, it just wants stabilization on its northern border.

As for the nukes - frankly, mate, they're just a reason for you to bash Israel. Like you rightfully pointed out, Pakistan, India and North Korea are not signatories to the non proliferation agreement - but that doesn't seem to bother you. No, your problem, judging by this thread, is with Israel specifically.

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of good reasons to criticize Israel. This isn't one of them.

@Karnaph I do feel bad for the Israeli people but not at all for the Israeli government who could have signed off on those old wars long ago, signed up for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and stopped bombing its neighbours yesterday. Israel is a rogue state, just like India, Pakistan and North Korea but what is hard to understand is why it would want to be a rogue state when it clearly doesn't have to be. You're living in Israel, maybe you can be that positive change instead of enabling your country's Zionist agenda.

@Surfpirate I don't know what led you to the decision that it's "so easy" for Israel to just give up its nukes and live in peace with its neighbors, when over the last 70 years the neighbors in question repeatedly made it clear that they don't want any peace. Both Jordan and Egypt were basically forced to sign peace treaties with Israel at gunpoint - and, shockingly, the agreements are still in effect till this day. If Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the bazillion different factions in Syria and the Hamas in Gaza were to lay down their arms and stop warring with Israel, there would be peace next Tuesday...

I would love to hear your definition of "rogue state".

As for my country's Zionist agenda - "Zionism" is an ideology founded on the belief that Jews should live in (what today is) Israel, for cultural, historical, and religious reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're implying that having unconfirmed nukes is a part of that ideology, you either misunderstand the term "Zionism", or you're intentionally misusing it. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt

@Ringo6 You know, your response is a prime example of why it is so difficult to have a rational debate about Israel, and why the "You're just an antisemite" card gets thrown around way more often than it should.

The OP attempted to make a point about Israeli nukes and Syria. The connection he was trying to make is, from my personal perspective, asinine. On my end, it just scans like the guy is simply looking for reasons to justify his hate towards Israel (rogue state, hurr hurr). But hey, I gave it an honest go and tried to discuss only the Israeli nukes and Syria, without explicitly calling the OP out on general Israel-bashing. Then you come along with "But stolen land, but Palestinians, but 1948, but Trump" and now, instead of staying on topic, I'm supposed to defend Israel just for being. When the point about the nukes didn't cross over, it changed to "Oh yeah?! Well Israel steals land! Don't even deny it!"

That's your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. Just don't get your knickers in a twist about it.

@Surfpirate Your post had no effect on my "knickers". You're confusing a clear con response with frustration. I am fully capable of explaining to you that you are and you're wrong without getting heated over the subject because once again, this is clearly an emotional topic for you but not everyone.

In addition, no that is not my opinion as you can't back up most of what you stated with any actual facts. "Seems to be driving the agenda" is an opinion, "rogue nuclear state" is an opinion, "not being addressed by the media anymore" is an opinion, and lastly "human rights abuses it is perpetrating against Palenstine" is also an opinion.

These are two nations that have been at odds for longer than any of us have been alive with more history and engagements than you are bringing to the table and you walk in claiming one side is good and the other is evil. You are hindering proper debate by using only selective facts that support your preconceived notion.

You've clearly made a judgement and want to drive an agenda with your post by gathering others to your cause without fully versing them on the topic. That is I can state that it is a fact that you have begun an emotional discussion. You did what a lot of people do and think you're doing something useful when you're really just proving that you can't engage in a non-biased discussion based on all facts.

@mattersauce a good many people can separate fact from fiction and still have an opinion, but you seem to think otherwise. Killing people is a fact and emotional issue, and I am against shooting into a crowd of people on both accounts!

@mattersauce the comment about your knickers was just a friendly suggestion, to be honest I don't care what you do with them or even if you are wearing any. I have to wonder how clinical your approach would be if it were you child bleeding out in your arms from an Israeli sniper's bullet. Maybe it wouldn't change a thing and that's your right.

@Freedompath First off you've not come even close to understanding what I've written so I suggest you go back and try again. I said nothing about "fiction" but I did point out an argument based on a specific selection of facts while conveniently leaving others out.

Secondly the statement "a good many people can separate fact from fiction and still have an opinion" is absurd. These items are first off, not contradictory and also greatly preferred that people can separate fact from fiction and then form an opinion. Nobody said otherwise, argue what I said not what you think I said and we'll make a lot more progress.

@Surfpirate My approach is much more clinical that is correct. Answer me this, based on your premise of "an Israeli sniper's bullet taking the life of my child" how would you feel if it was a Palestinian sniper?

Please explain to me how emotions haven't destroyed that entire region for years upon years. You are advocating for continuing that path. People who have not been able to remove emotion from the equation are the reason the conflict still exists today. People just like you, who repeatedly choose "shooting back" over "not shooting". My approach is not the problem in that area, it's yours.

@mattersauce I simply don’t care to argue...it looked as if it is ‘your way or the highway!’ So be it...

Absolutely and pipelines in particular, at least for 3 of the parties involved, the 4th has a separate agenda all its own.

Generally very effective in silencing dissent or even rational discussion.

Spoken like a true company grade line officer.

Fair enough but just as an FYI, in that group of 4 only Israel isn't a signatory to Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and won't confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons or even how many it has. Everybody knows that Israel has at least 100 nuclear weapons, plenty to start a global nuclear war if it hits the right targets.

@bigpawbullets. Lol...

@bigpawbullets, @Surfpirate ok.

@Surfpirate so, you mean they are literally the only one using nuclear weapons as a clear deterant. Honestly It is rather foolish to confirm, or deny nuclear capability, as the whole point is to make nations afraid to use them against you, for fear of repercussions. It's thier choice to participate, or not, in the treaty. that doesnt make them a 'rogue nation' thats patently absurd.