# Why Arabs lost all its wars to Israel despite outnumbering Israel in weapons and manpower?



## M.SAAD

Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??


Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???




What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.


So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

better commanders and soldiers.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## nang2

Because those wars were not a matter of Arab's own life or death. But they were certainly a matter of Israeli's life or death.

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well it was due to resupply of weapon and heavy weaponry / planes from US and other countries.
Technological advance updates about impending attack made defenses more potent

Not due to any miracle of human spirit

Lack of proper transport structure in arab units , driving by land allowed airforce to destroy incoming columns

Example Day 1 :
Team A has 100 Tanks and 20 jets
Team B has 200 Tanks and 20 Jets (Defending)

If Team b loses 10 jets then get resupply of 300 more tanks and 50 jets


Day 2:
Team A has 60 Tanks and 10 Jets
Team B has 500 Tanks and 70 Jets (Defending)

So the machine / numerical advantage resulted in better fortification/ defence of Territory

So due to this reason Israel managed to evade defeat

It would not be suprising that they were able to intercept communication between Arab Troops due to "compromised" communication com devices


Egypt wanted to drive into Israel , which allowed their Tank divisions to be destroyed due to lack fo Anti Air Support for these columns


If you have one force with Bow and arraw 50000 soliders and one force with laser weapon 
with range of 20 km only 100 soliders chances are the 100 soldier force will win provided people are walking and the range distance is maintained

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

*They lost because they were too much in love with themselves being progressive and modern. They lost because they thought suckularism was the solution to their problems. They lost because of their corrupt, power hungry, suckular leaders. When individuals behave like a monkey they cannot fight like warriors, they become dependent and weak.*

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
2 | Like Like:
1


----------



## M.SAAD

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Well it was due to resupply of weapon and heavy weaponry / planes from US and other countries.
> Technological advance updates about impending attack made defenses more potent
> 
> Not due to any miracle of human spirit






Israeli airforce achieved 20:1 kill ratio over Arabs in 6 day war and dented the Arab air force (Egyptian, Jordanian,Syrian etc.) speaks volumes for the Israeli pilots and their dog fighting skills .

and only USA was supporting Israel, the Arab countries were united as one being heavily backed by USSR , all factors aside Israel humiliated the Arabs (specially in the air) and it wasn't even close.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## litman

poor training of arabs and full US support for israel

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M.SAAD

Also add to the topic: Why Iraq (the strongest Arab army of that time) fell like a house of cards in front of the US troops and couldn't even put up a decent fight ?? What is wrong with the arab armies?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiannKall

Who said that they lost all wars? Only the 1967 war can be considered a victory for Israel. The 1948 war ended in stalemate. The 1956 war ended with Israel winning with the help of British and French but withdrawing back. And the 1973 war ended with Israel giving back Sinai

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Pakistani E

There's always a similar thread such as this being recycled on PDF every few months. I am not a big fan of Arab regimes, but this needless Arab bashing needs to stop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Not due to any miracle of human spirit


Are you sure about that or are you trying by mere assertion to rule it out? 

After all, in the Independence War the Jews were fighting both the British and the Arabs and suffered from an arms embargo. In 1967 the armor of the combined Arab armies exceeded Israel's both in numbers and quality. In 1973 the Arabs had the advantage of surprise, both in timing and in such technological innovations as newly-effective SAMs, water cannons to dissolve Canal barriers, and man-portable anti-tank missiles.

A little nation, dispossessed for millennia, suddenly re-establishes itself in its ancient homeland against the combined armed might of its neighbors, despite their enemies being better-armed and more willing to kill civilians than they are. Why shouldn't one use the word, "miracle"?

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Just technological difference and better weapons / airforce - resupply

If local columns had comparitive weapons / tech , likely would give 5-6 days to Israel before defences fall

Just a small tiny area

Not that I am promoting a war , but proper solution is may be 2 state for Palestine and Israel and Just live in your own zone with large housing schemes (buildings etc)

Some jews obviously have some claim for religious reasons and constant war is not a full solution and that is why Egypt normalized ties long time ago and hopefully a 2 state solution is found

Jeruslam's only future is international city monitored and governed by UN perhaps, rest of territory can be divied by people so they can build stuff build economy move on

Jews in general had better ties with Muslim nations thru out long term history (to which I was suprised as I never learned it in school , only when I reached high education levels I was made aware of such relations)

Making Villas is not ideal perhaps large metro style building is best for reason after 2 state break up , so that popuation from both parties can live in large numbers and share resources

May be create a reconciliation day for both nation celebrated equally on both side 

(In an idealistic world)

Other paths unfortunately are , full of conflict and long term pain where no one is happy


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

litman said:


> poor training of arabs and full US support for israel



The U.S. only started to support Israel until after the Six-Day 
The Soviet Union, while providing some materiel before the Yom Kippur War,
was not really interested in an escalation to full war, so the Arab Air Forces were not as good.
Key however is motivation.
I doubt the average Arab soldier sees any big benefit in winning a war against Israel.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M.SAAD

GiannKall said:


> Who said that they lost all wars? Only the 1967 war can be considered a victory for Israel. The 1948 war ended in stalemate. The 1956 war ended with Israel winning with the help of British and French but withdrawing back. And the 1973 war ended with Israel giving back Sinai





Lol sure, the 1973 war ended with Israel taking back all its lost territory occupying sixteen hundred square kilometers of territory on the southwestern coast of the Suez Canal, within 100 km from Cairo and hundreds of KM's land in Syria, the Sinai was returned to Egypt following the Camp David Accords in 1978 when Egypt offered Israel peace and Israel returning them Sinai to normalize the relations .



Pakistani Exile said:


> There's always a similar thread such as this being recycled on PDF every few months. I am not a big fan of Arab regimes, but this needless Arab bashing needs to stop.






This is by no means a thread of Arab bashing, I'm just stating reality here and trying to find out the reasons for the abysmal performance of Arab armies in the last few decades or so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 19887

M.SAAD said:


> Israeli airforce achieved 20:1 kill ratio over Arabs in 6 day war and dented the Arab air force (Egyptian, Jordanian,Syrian etc.) speaks volumes for the Israeli pilots and their dog fighting skills .
> 
> and only USA was supporting Israel, the Arab countries were united as one being heavily backed by USSR , all factors aside Israel humiliated the Arabs (specially in the air) and it wasn't even close.


The fuc%ing usa always put ambargo on us in 48,56,67,73
In 1973 they sent us weapons only when we exposed the ballistic missiles ready for use
They told us to keep on Arab honor
There are many such cases
They were really good allies (sarcasm)
In 1948 they put ambargo on us and they say 12 hours and no more israel,even the fuc&ing brits backed the arabs,only stalin helped us
In 1967 another ambargo by the west
In 1969-1970 again ,our westren allies betraid us when the soviet came to help the arabs send them weapons,russian pilots flew their planes,and more ....



Faravahar said:


> What do you define as "arabs"? Hezbollah is technically arab, but Iranian created and trained and they raped Isreal in 06. Their soldiers were crying like little b-itches.


how exactly?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Faravahar

Mountain Jew said:


> how exactly?



Zionists were occupying Lebanese territory and were spanked and kicked out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

GiannKall said:


> . And the 1973 war ended with Israel giving back Sinai


It is not true at all
1973 ended when the world pressure on us to stop fighting, the Americans asked not hurt Arab dignity because then they start another war in retaliation
Sinai was returned to Egypt following a peace agreement years later

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kuwaiti Girl

The Arabs were caught off guard in the Six-Day War, not to mention the fact that many Arab leaders, particularly King Hussein of Jordan, accused the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser of betrayal. Plus, there was (and still is) a lot of corruption and mismanagement in the Arab World.

In the end, the Israelis were more hungry for survival (and expansion) than the Arabs were for the liberation of Palestine. Jordan was arguably more serious about the Palestinian cause than Egypt ever was, but it's still debatable to this day.

Anyway, in truth, the Arabs only have themselves to blame for losing against Israel.

Also, size doesn't always matter. Israel is a miracle worker when push comes to shove.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 19887

Faravahar said:


> Zionists were occupying Lebanese territory and were spanked and kicked out.


And you think that israel invade to lebanon to stay and take the land?
israel invade to the area where all the rocket were stored

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Faravahar

Mountain Jew said:


> And you think that israel invade to lebanon to stay and take the land?
> israel invade to the area where all the rocket were stored



Keep peddling fantasies kid. Regardless, what happened in 06 is that Isreal got a spanked by a small group of arabs. Only zionists pretend not to believe that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> ...Some jews obviously have some claim for religious reasons -


 The correct formula is that Jews are a people, Judaism is their religion, and Israel is their National Home. This is illustrated by the fact that the test of immigrants for citizenship is if they are Jewish by descent, not their religious practice.

I know it's constantly mis-taught in Pakistan. The purpose of doing that, apparently, is to reduce Jews from a people (which they have been considered to be by the world for over 2,000 years) to a mere religious group, and thus deny a moral basis of the Jewish State.



> and constant war is not a full solution and that is why Egypt normalized ties long time ago -


It's been more of a cold peace, but that may slowly change. I



> Jeruslam's only future is international city monitored and governed by UN perhaps -


It's clear that Jerusalem has never been so prosperous, nor its faiths so free to worship, as under Israeli rule - though access to the Temple Mount for Jews needs to be improved.



> Jews in general had better ties with Muslim nations thru out long term history (to which I was suprised as I never learned it in school , only when I reached high education levels I was made aware of such relations)


For over a hundred and fifty years nations like France and Britain have worked at displacing the millennia-long focus of Muslim-nonMuslim conflict from European Christians to Jews. Their benefits have been increased trade, cheap imported Muslim labor, and a phony image of comparative sanctity they treasure after the horrors of the World Wars. The Jewish State was seen as a kind of bulwark, with hostility between Arab and Jew serving as assurance that Asia would not become a world power again. The fact that admitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants could mean putting the asp to their breast was not something these Europeans considered.


----------



## 19887

Faravahar said:


> Keep peddling fantasies kid. Regardless, what happened in 06 is that Isreal got a spanked by a small group of arabs. Only zionists pretend not to believe that.


brainwashed alert

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jhungary

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??




You want a tactical analysis or a political analysis??

Tactically, the Arabs have committed a major mistake during the 67 and 73 war, and that is they fed into Israel piecemeal.

In short (It's 4 am here)

in 67, the responsibility to destroy Israel is not shared within the Arab alliance, it's basically an Egyptian led operation, Jordanian and Syrian (Also other minor player) are in a supporting mode. Israel saw that and they simply destroy the Egyptian Air Force, which formed the backbone of Egyptian military might, and once that is gone, the Egyptian ground force would simply raped by IAF.


in 73, Egyptian improved the communication, and was actually winning in the first stage of Yom Kippur War, but what the Israel do is simply put the Sinai front on hold, and focus on their eastern neighbour, defeated Syria first , then Jordan, Iraq and Other minor player in Golan, only then they force Egyptian hand and engage and destroy the Egyptian and reverse their fortune.

In short, Egyptian should use the strategy they use in 73 to fight the 67 war, and the 67 strategy to fight the 73 war.

Politically, the Arab alliance does not quite trust each other, Egyptian was not in a way of trusting the Syrian to fill their promise in after they conquer Israel in 6 days war, which Syrian were to only occupied Golan Height and part of Jerusalem, they want to go in first and thus they decided to engage the Israeli even tho their Air Force in that region were almost completely destroyed.

In Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian stance changed, and they fought overcaution even when they are winning the war. Thus they let the Israeli to have a breather and they allow the Israeli to neutralise their eastern threat first, and rushed into battle once the eastern flank are in danger of collapsing.

That is a nutshell, and if you want, I can give you a more detail analysis tomorrow.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LeGenD

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??


I'll make this simple for you: superior tactics and timely initiative.


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??



Stranger things have happened. Look at how Britain took on much larger nations.


----------



## LeGenD

M.SAAD said:


> Also add to the topic: Why Iraq (the strongest Arab army of that time) fell like a house of cards in front of the US troops and couldn't even put up a decent fight ?? What is wrong with the arab armies?


Bro,

American war-machine became most powerful and resourceful in the world during 1980s and will remain unparalleled in the aspects of firepower, mobility and situational awareness for years to come.

In the aftermath of disastrous Vietnam War, Americans pioneered the Network-centric warfare doctrine to defeat modern threats (specially the Red Army). Network-centric warfare doctrine is based on the theory that combination of vastly superior mobility, firepower and coordination among the units on the ground, makes it nearly impossible for an hostile force to hold its ground, prolong a conflict and make it more costly for the aggressor in the long-term. As computing technologies matured, Network-centric warfare seemed possible. This doctrine came into effect during 1980s and it was put into effect during Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq was not in the position to do much in this scenario just like any other Asian country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M.SAAD

jhungary said:


> You want a tactical analysis or a political analysis??
> 
> Tactically, the Arabs have committed a major mistake during the 67 and 73 war, and that is they fed into Israel piecemeal.
> 
> In short (It's 4 am here)
> 
> in 67, the responsibility to destroy Israel is not shared within the Arab alliance, it's basically an Egyptian led operation, Jordanian and Syrian (Also other minor player) are in a supporting mode. Israel saw that and they simply destroy the Egyptian Air Force, which formed the backbone of Egyptian military might, and once that is gone, the Egyptian ground force would simply raped by IAF.
> 
> 
> in 73, Egyptian improved the communication, and was actually winning in the first stage of Yom Kippur War, but what the Israel do is simply put the Sinai front on hold, and focus on their eastern neighbour, defeated Syria first , then Jordan, Iraq and Other minor player in Golan, only then they force Egyptian hand and engage and destroy the Egyptian and reverse their fortune.
> 
> In short, Egyptian should use the strategy they use in 73 to fight the 67 war, and the 67 strategy to fight the 73 war.
> 
> Politically, the Arab alliance does not quite trust each other, Egyptian was not in a way of trusting the Syrian to fill their promise in after they conquer Israel in 6 days war, which Syrian were to only occupied Golan Height and part of Jerusalem, they want to go in first and thus they decided to engage the Israeli even tho their Air Force in that region were almost completely destroyed.
> 
> In Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian stance changed, and they fought overcaution even when they are winning the war. Thus they let the Israeli to have a breather and they allow the Israeli to neutralise their eastern threat first, and rushed into battle once the eastern flank are in danger of collapsing.
> 
> That is a nutshell, and if you want, I can give you a more detail analysis tomorrow.








Thanks Bro, nice post


----------



## guest11

*Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.*

1948 - Arabs lost the war. Bad leadership and lack of proper strategies. If the objective of war is to end occupation of land by Jews and you fail to uproot them, then its a defeat not a stalemate.

1967 - Good planning, superb intelligence, better training and some luck on Israel's side. People moaning about the US supplying arms to Israel is incredibly ironic considering they will be the very first to deny that the same thing happened in 1971 is this part of the world (offtopic). Soviet Union did the same for Arabs, plenty of articles around to support that.

1973 - Some lessons learned by Egypt and a good initiative in Sinai. Using the SAM coverage to advance was indeed an excellent idea, stepping out of it was not.

2006 - Same principal as 1948. If you fail to achieve your objectives, you have a defeat at your hands. This time it was Israel's.

@jhungary , please post a detailed analysis of 2006 if you can. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## flamer84

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??




God is an Israel groupie.First the pharaoh,now the Arabs


----------



## Falcon29

flamer84 said:


> God is an Israel groupie.First the pharaoh,now the Arabs



God isn't real, God wasn't there when the Romans ran them over or when Hitler man handled them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## flamer84

Falcon29 said:


> God isn't real, God wasn't there when the Romans ran them over or when Hitler man handled them.




Truth be told,I was just trolling ,knowing that many religious idiots creep around this forum.Just baiting the internet mullahs.



Mountain Jew said:


> The fuc%ing usa always put ambargo on us in 48,56,67,73
> In 1973 they sent us weapons only when we exposed the ballistic missiles ready for use
> They told us to keep on Arab honor
> There are many such cases
> They were really good allies (sarcasm)
> In 1948 they put ambargo on us and they say 12 hours and no more israel,even the fuc&ing brits backed the arabs,only stalin helped us
> In 1967 another ambargo by the west
> In 1969-1970 again ,our westren allies betraid us when the soviet came to help the arabs send them weapons,russian pilots flew their planes,and more ....
> 
> 
> how exactly?





LOL...Are you really complaining of the US as an Israel ally ?

Now I've seen it all.......

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Assadynasty

Modern Jews are Europeans. Very effective in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## flamer84

Mountain Jew said:


> But not:
> When the Assyrian empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Israel
> When the Babylonian Empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Judah
> When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
> When the Spaniards killed deported and converted Jews
> When the Germans burned and choked the Jews
> etc etc....




Sometimes He goes on a break...watch yourselves during commercials.


----------



## Falcon29

Mountain Jew said:


> But not:
> When the Assyrian empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Israel
> When the Babylonian Empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Judah
> When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
> When the Spaniards killed deported and converted Jews
> When the Germans burned and choked the Jews
> etc etc....



Good point, although I want to add, these are events that were common in that age, at least the local wars that is. So it really can't do anything for you today, or be used as guilt trip.


----------



## django

Solomon2 said:


> Are you sure about that or are you trying by mere assertion to rule it out?
> 
> After all, in the Independence War the Jews were fighting both the British and the Arabs and suffered from an arms embargo. In 1967 the armor of the combined Arab armies exceeded Israel's both in numbers and quality. In 1973 the Arabs had the advantage of surprise, both in timing and in such technological innovations as newly-effective SAMs, water cannons to dissolve Canal barriers, and man-portable anti-tank missiles.
> 
> A little nation, dispossessed for millennia, suddenly* re-establishes itself in its ancient homeland *against the combined armed might of its neighbors, despite their enemies being better-armed and more willing to kill civilians than they are. Why shouldn't one use the word, "miracle"?


Dear Solomon just to go off on a tangent from the theme of the thread, you stated the Jews reestablished themsleves in their ancient homeland, I ask you as I am no expert in the ancient history of the Holy land, was their any population residing their before the Jewish presence and if so what happened to them, and are today's Palestinians largely descended from that ancient tribe if indeed their was a tribe before the Jewish sons of Israel arrived.Kudos


----------



## Falcon29

flamer84 said:


> Next step is to bulldose Al Aqsa and rebuild the Temple.



Or make museum out of all of them, if world wants to win ideological war against religion, it needs to do away with all of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

flamer84 said:


> Next step is to bulldose Al Aqsa and rebuild the Temple.


One earthquake and is down

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flamer84

Mountain Jew said:


> One earthquake and is down




"earthquake"

good thinking.


----------



## 19887

flamer84 said:


> "earthquake"
> 
> good thinking.


Or a failed missile test
If you understand me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flamer84

Mountain Jew said:


> Or a failed missile test
> If you understand me




roger that ...stranger things have happened

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Falcon29

^^^

These two losers trying to get their swag on....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## flamer84

Falcon29 said:


> ^^^
> 
> These two losers trying to get their swag on....



Now,don't get jelly just6 because we have a country of our own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiannKall

Mountain Jew said:


> It is not true at all
> 1973 ended when the world pressure on us to stop fighting, the Americans asked not hurt Arab dignity because then they start another war in retaliation
> Sinai was returned to Egypt following a peace agreement years later



Americans saved Israel from a disaster in 1973. Militarily speaking they were in a bad position. Its true that they had advanced inside Egypt but Egyptians holded positions behind their lines and Israelis had absolutely no idea what to do next. Egypt reclaimed Sinai some years later without firing a single shot

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 19887

GiannKall said:


> Egypt reclaimed Sinai some years later without firing a single shot


Yes, but there is no connection between the 73 war and the return of Sinai to Egypt.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## flamer84

GiannKall said:


> Americans saved Israel from a disaster in 1973. Militarily speaking they were in a bad position. Its true that they had advanced inside Egypt but Egyptians holded positions behind their lines and Israelis had absolutely no idea what to do next. Egypt reclaimed Sinai some years later without firing a single shot




You're as Greek as Khomeini.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GiannKall

flamer84 said:


> You're as Greek as Khomeini.



Learn not to judge from nationalities. Fact is that Israel was in a very difficult situation in 1973 and was saved by US through ceasefire. War on Sinai proved that Israel could not occupy Sinai indefinitely at least not easily. So they made a secret agreement to abandon it without firing a shot in exhange of Egyptian recognision. Someone could say that the war on Sinai was a military stalemate but in the end it was a victory for the Egyptians

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fenku

smarter vs spiritual...


----------



## Hellfire

GiannKall said:


> Who said that they lost all wars? Only the 1967 war can be considered a victory for Israel. *The 1948 war ended in stalemate.* The 1956 war ended with Israel winning with the help of British and French but withdrawing back. And the 1973 war ended with Israel giving back Sinai



The bold part: Wasn't a stalemate ... Israel was born, don't distort history.

1956: The reversal of Suez blocking took place for commercial shipping as also Israel gained access to Tiran. The military victory was lost politically by Brits and French. Israelis got away with their objectives.

1973: It was Anwar al Saddat whose forces got stuck on the other side of the Suez inspite of being the one with initiative. And it was he, who took the initiative to bring peace to the Egypt Israeli equation ... a great but costly decision by him.

The aim of Egyptians in the war was to re-capture Sinai, and they failed.

Please first read Anwar Sadat's Biography .... to get your facts a bit in line

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## flamer84

GiannKall said:


> Learn not to judge from nationalities. Fact is that Israel was in a very difficult situation in 1973 and was saved by US through ceasefire. War on Sinai proved that Israel could not occupy Sinai indefinitely at least not easily. So they made a secret agreement to abandon it without firing a shot in exhange of Egyptian recognision. Someone could say that the war on Sinai was a military stalemate but in the end it was a victory for the Egyptians




It was an Israeli crushing victory.The Egyptians were saved by the US as they had an entire army surrounded and the road to Cairo open


----------



## Darth Vader

Few things 
Arabs Didnt have any proper command system if all the allied arabs were had formidable commanders and unite.
They didn't trust other allies

Israeli soldiers better trained and 
well use of there resource
Superior command and control
Home defence advantage


As for modern weapons both side have some modern goodies for both world powers of that time



M.SAAD said:


> Also add to the topic: Why Iraq (the strongest Arab army of that time) fell like a house of cards in front of the US troops and couldn't even put up a decent fight ?? What is wrong with the arab armies?



They bought commanders of iraqi forces
Incompetent Iraqi generals
Superior modern tech

Soldiers cant fight when they don't have officers to follow

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fitpOsitive

All christian world wants Jesus to return, and for that Dajjal or anti-Christ is a must. So all Christian world, when they support Israel, then they want Jews to fulfill all the conditions necessary for the return of anti-Christ as soon as possible(specially destruction of Olive trees in Syria, Restoration of Temple of Solomon, Plantation of Gharqad trees and much more). And both parties know it very well. For doing that either Israelis kill, plunder, destroy, bombard, nothing worries Christian world, as for them this is all fair.
America in those days was very powerful(from 1900s to around 1970s). In fact USA won two great wars single handedly. France provided nuclear technology to Israel. America provided world best Air hardware to them, Germany provided them with best scientists and engineers(Even Uzi rifle was designed by a German Jewish engineer). They all nourished that cancer in arab land. So, Israel was never alone.
So never ever think that Israel is a small innocent country. Its basically a dagger, stabbed in arab land, handle of which is in Christian world's hand.


----------



## KAL-EL

Falcon29 said:


> Good point, although I want to add, these are events that were common in that age, at least the local wars that is. So it really can't do anything for you today, or be used as guilt trip.



Armin Van Buuren

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Emperor_of_Mankind

I wrote an essay about this in college, Israel had conviction, courage and better leaders while the Arab forces weren't resolute.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## flamer84

Rana of Heryana said:


> All christian world wants Jesus to return, and for that Dajjal or anti-Christ is a must. So all Christian world, when they support Israel, then they want Jews to fulfill all the conditions necessary for the return of anti-Christ as soon as possible(specially destruction of Olive trees in Syria, Restoration of Temple of Solomon, Plantation of Gharqad trees and much more). And both parties know it very well. For doing that either Israelis kill, plunder, destroy, bombard, nothing worries Christian world, as for them this is all fair.



When muslims knowledge is like the one I quoted,is there any surprise the Isrealis steamrolled them ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 19887

Saitama 69 said:


> To say that Israel belongs to the Arabs is naught but folly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1050 BCE–930 BCE
> *
> I see no arabs coming for over 1000



*Israel 1200 BCE by tribes at Joshua era






kingdom of israel at king david era (980 BCE)*





Kingdom of israel at king solomon era (930BCE)





Kingdon of king herod(2000 years ago)






All Arab towns and villages in Israel and the West Bank were built on Jewish towns and even the name of Arab cities, named after the city's previous name was Jewish, and is similar to the Jewish name.
Apart from Ramla that was the capital of the Arabs who ruled in Israel
***** Not Jerusalem but Ramla(think why)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bharat Muslim

T-Rex said:


> *They lost because they were too much in love with themselves being progressive and modern. They lost because they thought suckularism was the solution to their problems. They lost because of their corrupt, power hungry, suckular leaders. When individuals behave like a monkey they cannot fight like warriors, they become dependent and weak.*


Logical or not... It makes an amusing read. Don't you agree?


----------



## Brutas

Comparing semitic kingdom of Israel of the past to present day Israel is preposterous. Jews in Israel today are European (Ashkhenaz) Jews from Russia, Poland, Ukraine ...etc and not mid eastern. These are people of Europe who converted and accepted judaism. In a way it's an extension of Europe !

Bedouin, dis-organized, tribal folks(not to mention busy killing each other !) of the region won't be a match for them anytime soon!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Natan

nang2 said:


> Because those wars were not a matter of Arab's own life or death. But they were certainly a matter of Israeli's life or death.





A.P. Richelieu said:


> Key however is motivation.
> I doubt the average Arab soldier sees any big benefit in winning a war against Israel.


These two answers, given by non-Israelis, summarize everytynig.

Arabs knew very well that Jews aren't going to kill all their men, fvck all their women, or take all ther sheep anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

1. The 67 war was Israeli deception on stating that Arabs were going to take it out. Essentially they were the aggressors and knew certain victory because despite being outnumbered; they possessed both a qualitatively superior and much more trained force with years of combat experience. 

2. The 73 war had the Americans jumping in to save Israel, without US intervention; Israel was going to resort to nuclear weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Djinn

If Egypt had not attacked in 1973 then Sinai could have been part of present day Israel. So how Exactly Israel won is beyond normal comprehension. Whatever Egypt did, it got Sinai back...........That is exactly what a win is.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Solomon2

Oscar said:


> 1. The 67 war was Israeli deception -


Oz, how is it you can be a senior mod but still spout off without citing even _one_ source? Do you consider yourself an example for your fellow Pakistanis to follow? Or is this an attempt at humor and I'm just missing it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

@Solomon2 ......never ask this interesting question ...why arab lost all wars against Israel. flaws in their war strategy ?


----------



## SQ8

Solomon2 said:


> Oz, how is it you can be a senior mod but still spout off without citing even _one_ source? Do you consider yourself an example for your fellow Pakistanis to follow? Or is this an attempt at humor and I'm just missing it?



I am going to stick with the CIA's own assessment of the war.
I could have agreed with your assessment and you would hold me in higher praise than Ben Gurion himself.
Please do not consider your opinion as gospel I should follow, and I would caution my fellow Pakistanis to be cautious of opinion in general. 

My opinion is my opinion and I consider it unshakeable, please feel free to try and post Pro-Israel site arguments, wikipedia pages or otherwise to contest it; but be kind and not quote or tag me in them as I have zero interest in debating a Zionist on matters of Israel.. better uses of my time.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 19887

Oscar said:


> 1.
> The 73 war had the Americans jumping in to save Israel, without US intervention; Israel was going to resort to nuclear weapons.


In 73 the Egyptians didn't moved away from the Suez Canal to stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries 
To stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries
Eventually, they decided to move forward and then the Israeli air force pounded them.
Only then, the Americans remembered to send us arms.
The Egyptian plan was to break the Bar-Lev line and begin negotiations with Israel as they hold the advantage.
But they made a mistake and exposed themselves to the Israeli air force and to counterattack, that surrounded all their army, and all the way to Cairo was open until the Americans pressured Israel to stop fighting.
The Americans also prevented from Israel to occupy Damascus in Syria sector.


----------



## SQ8

Mountain Jew said:


> In 73 the Egyptians didn't moved away from the Suez Canal to stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries
> To stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries
> Eventually, they decided to move forward and then the Israeli air force pounded them.
> Only then, the Americans remembered to send us arms.
> The Egyptian plan was to break the Bar-Lev line and begin negotiations with Israel as they hold the advantage.
> But they made a mistake and exposed themselves to the Israeli air force and to counterattack, that surrounded all their army, and all the way to Cairo was open until the Americans pressured Israel to stop fighting.
> The Americans also prevented from Israel to occupy Damascus in Syria sector.


That is an Israeli viewpoint , and not the fact or ground reality. An opinion, an opinion can be represented as fact just as water dropping on stone will eventually leave a hole. As I requested earlier, I have no wish to be quoted or mentioned in opinions. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 19887

Djinn said:


> If Egypt had not attacked in 1973 then Sinai could have been part of present day Israel. So how Exactly Israel won is beyond normal comprehension. Whatever Egypt did, it got Sinai back...........That is exactly what a win is.


Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians offered to Israel a peace treaty.
If the Egyptians were offering peace before it, then they would have prevented the war in 73.
But of course the Egyptians spread propaganda that they won.



Oscar said:


> That is an Israeli viewpoint , and not the fact or ground reality. An opinion, an opinion can be represented as fact just as water dropping on stone will eventually leave a hole. As I requested earlier, I have no wish to be quoted or mentioned in opinions. Thank you.


These are the facts on the course of the fighting


----------



## Djinn

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians offered to Israel a peace treaty.
> If the Egyptians were offering peace before it, then they would have prevented the war in 73.
> But of course the Egyptians spread propaganda that they won.


Yes i am sure they would have returned like they have returned the other stolen lands . Egypt got its territory back that is a win from all angles, off course the Israeli's will concoct excuses for losing Sinai now. Egyptians don't have to say anything, things are pretty simple and obvious. They wanted something and either by hook or crook they got it.The notion that Israel won is both absurd and amusing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khanz

because arabs are f uckin useless treacherous camel jockeys.Israel must be so happy it's bordered by these weak people if it fought against someone competent let's say hypothetically an alliance of pakistan/iran/turkey if they were next to israel - who are also the real "powers" of the muslim world it might have been different.


----------



## omega supremme

Solomon2 said:


> ancient homeland




When in the past did you live in this ancient homeland of your's where you have returned


----------



## ADIL SHERDIL

In all the wars Isreal had to put everything because it was there last chance. Collation of arab countries needed to coordinate there attacks and hit them but they always did what suited them.
Dont blame USA for everything which has happened to MUSLIMS its our own puddle. If USA was supporting Isreal USSR was supporting Arabs. Isreal believed on one thing* best defense is best offence. *If arab could only have choked there oil supply and laid a siege just long enough to know they are running short on ammunition and oil they could easily have won and they should never have underestimated their enemy.
Arabs have huge ego and they think they are better than everyone. when this sort of mentality is removed and they are united then they can achieve anything.


----------



## Hell NO

hellfire said:


> The bold part: Wasn't a stalemate ... Israel was born, don't distort history.
> 
> 1956: The reversal of Suez blocking took place for commercial shipping as also Israel gained access to Tiran. The military victory was lost politically by Brits and French. Israelis got away with their objectives.
> 
> 1973: It was Anwar al Saddat whose forces got stuck on the other side of the Suez inspite of being the one with initiative. And it was he, who took the initiative to bring peace to the Egypt Israeli equation ... a great but costly decision by him.
> 
> The aim of Egyptians in the war was to re-capture Sinai, and they failed.
> 
> Please first read Anwar Sadat's Biography .... to get your facts a bit in line


Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai as it would be impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ghazi768

Mountain Jew said:


> In 73 the Egyptians didn't moved away from the Suez Canal to stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries
> To stay within the anti-aircraft defense batteries
> Eventually, they decided to move forward and then the Israeli air force pounded them.
> Only then, the Americans remembered to send us arms.
> The Egyptian plan was to break the Bar-Lev line and begin negotiations with Israel as they hold the advantage.
> But they made a mistake and exposed themselves to the Israeli air force and to counterattack, that surrounded all their army, and all the way to Cairo was open until the Americans pressured Israel to stop fighting.
> The Americans also prevented from Israel to occupy Damascus in Syria sector.



American were in bed with Israel from start..


----------



## flamer84

Saitama 69 said:


> not really surprised now am I? Just another case of Arab distortion of history. How very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that Israel belongs to the Arabs is naught but folly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1050 BCE–930 BCE
> *
> I see no arabs coming for over 1000 years.





Why have you posted a picture of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu,leader of the Romanian Iron Guard ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

ghazi768 said:


> American were in bed with Israel from start..



The October War started October 6, and this document is from October 22.
U.S. support for Israel started to grow about 1970, and that is not news...
The document shows a couple of thing.

1. Israel is winning, at a cost.
2. Both Israel and the Arabs are beeing resupplied.
3. As a result of the failure, the Arabs are finally open to negotiations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MICA

GiannKall said:


> Americans saved Israel from a disaster in 1973. Militarily speaking they were in a bad position. Its true that they had advanced inside Egypt but Egyptians holded positions behind their lines and Israelis had absolutely no idea what to do next. Egypt reclaimed Sinai some years later without firing a single shot



Finally a guy know what he talks about , let me tell one thing guys if israel had a full control on Sinai and "won" the war in 1973 no international pressure would have gave us sinai back , Just like the Golan Heights 

what was the Objective behind 1973 war = Sinai , and we Got it = Victory 
Simple

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 19887

Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians agreed to recognize Israel and maintain peace with Israel
Israel offered the Gaza Strip to Egypt, but the Egyptians refused.
Even with Jordan, Israel offered the West Bank to Jordan,
In return for recognition and peace, the Jordanians refused to take the West Bank.
Israel proposed to Syria the Golan in exchange for peace and recognition.
Arabs think that in war they'll get it, not realizing that if they want to return the territories that Israel occupied, they should make peace not war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

MICA said:


> Finally a guy know what he talks about , let me tell one thing guys if israel had a full control on Sinai and "won" the war in 1973 no international pressure would have gave us sinai back , Just like the Golan Heights
> 
> what was the Objective behind 1973 war = Sinai , and we Got it = Victory
> Simple


Or - when Egypt found out they could not beat Israel, they decided to negotiate, instead of engaging in a new war.
The only thing the war changed, was the perception Egyptians had of themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Hell NO said:


> Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai as it would be impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.



As per a history book you wrote?

The primary objective was always to regain the Sinai, Gaza in conjunction with Golan for Syrians. You got your backsides handed to you in spite of a brilliant canal crossing operation!!!!
So this theory now?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Frogman

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Or - when Egypt found out they could not beat Israel, they decided to negotiate, instead of engaging in a new war.
> The only thing the war changed, was the perception Egyptians had of themselves.



The goal was never to defeat the Israelis in a total war. The Egyptian Armed Forces even with the support of other Arab nations didn't have the capability to do that.

The entire point was to advance (20km) into the Sinai and in doing so causing the Israeli occupation to falter. That was achieved. The surge later on in the war was Sadat's decision (overruling Shazli who knew it was a terrible idea) and eventually lead to the thaghra which was only exploited due to US recce flights. However this doesn't really change anything.

A good example I can give is the Battle of Jutland in WWI. Pound for pound the German fleet sank more British ships and secured a* tactical* victory but they ultimately failed to break the British naval siege in order to disrupt supply lines in the North Sea and in doing so they lost the strategic battle, and the war. The World Wars are littered with battles in which the Germans did very well tactically (often against a superior opponent) but ultimately failed in securing their strategic goals.

The Israelis may have secured a tactical victory but I think I'm far more satisfied with achieving *our* strategic goal of recapturing the Sinai through war and negotiation.



Oscar said:


> 1. The 67 war was Israeli deception on stating that Arabs were going to take it out. Essentially they were the aggressors and knew certain victory because despite being outnumbered; they possessed both a qualitatively superior and much more trained force with years of combat experience.



Ultimately Egypt gave the Israelis the excuse they wanted to attack by making rather stupid hawkish statements (Gamal Abdel Nasser) and blocking Israels naval passageways. In essence we gave them Casus Belli.

The Egyptian military was not in fighting shape in 1967 having just come off the disastrous Yemen campaign. Several vital areas were not funded (early warning installations for instance) due to funds being diverted to useless programs among other things. There's a whole list of reasons why what happened happened but it's a bit OT. Suffice to say the Israeli line of taking on the entire might of the Arab world and beating it in six days is trumpet blowing bullshit.

The Israelis have always bleated on about being outnumbered but they always tend to inflate numbers by adding reserves from other nations or partners that were never used in combat either due to them arriving late or being in poor technical shape. In some areas not only were they qualitatively superior but numerically as well.



Oscar said:


> 2. The 73 war had the Americans jumping in to save Israel, without US intervention; Israel was going to resort to nuclear weapons.



Without Soviet intervention Egypt and the Arabs could not have reformed entire battalions of armour and mechanised infantry either. Although the Soviets weren't as forthcoming as the Americans in terms of ISR for Egypt.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Frogman said:


> The goal was never to defeat the Israelis in a total war. The Egyptian Armed Forces even with the support of other Arab nations didn't have the capability to do that.
> 
> The entire point was to advance (20km) into the Sinai and in doing so causing the Israeli occupation to falter. That was achieved. The surge later on in the war was Sadat's decision (overruling Shazli who knew it was a terrible idea) and eventually lead to the thaghra which was only exploited due to US recce flights. However this doesn't really change anything.
> 
> A good example I can give is the Battle of Jutland in WWI. Pound for pound the German fleet sank more British ships and secured a* tactical* victory but they ultimately failed to break the British naval siege in order to disrupt supply lines in the North Sea and in doing so they lost the strategic battle, and the war. The World Wars are littered with battles in which the Germans did very well tactically (often against a superior opponent) but ultimately failed in securing their strategic goals.
> 
> The Israelis may have secured a tactical victory but I think I'm far more satisfied with achieving *our* strategic goal of recapturing the Sinai through war and negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Egypt gave the Israelis the excuse they wanted to attack by making rather stupid hawkish statements (Gamal Abdel Nasser) and blocking Israels naval passageways. In essence we gave them Casus Belli.
> 
> The Egyptian military was not in fighting shape in 1967 having just come off the disastrous Yemen campaign. Several vital areas were not funded (early warning installations for instance) due to funds being diverted to useless programs. There's a whole list of reasons why what happened happened but it's a bit OT. Suffice to say the Israeli line of taking on the entire might of the Arab world and beating it in six days is trumpet blowing bullshit.
> 
> The Israelis have always bleated on about being outnumbered but they always tend to inflate numbers by adding reserves from other nations or partners that were never used in combat either due to them arriving late or being in poor technical shape. In some areas not only were they qualitatively superior but numerically as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Without Soviet intervention Egypt and the Arabs could not have reformed entire battalions of armour and mechanised infantry either. Although the Soviets weren't as forthcoming as the Americans in terms of ISR for Egypt.



I think this is a fairly good summary.
Peace between Egypt and Israel creates a win-win situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hell NO

hellfire said:


> As per a history book you wrote?
> 
> The primary objective was always to regain the Sinai, Gaza in conjunction with Golan for Syrians. You got your backsides handed to you in spite of a brilliant canal crossing operation!!!!
> So this theory now?


You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.

why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions????? 
Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.

again not my opinion but facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

Hell NO said:


> *You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
> Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.*
> 
> why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions?????
> Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.
> 
> again not my opinion but facts.



Firstly, the bold part!

What is worse is not a person who knows little but speaks as if he gets it all (to quote you) but who knows nothing and claims to be speaking to intelligence community all across and then trying to define the political objectives from everyone other than the guy who defined the political objectives as the President of the belligerent nation! That is what is worse.

Secondly, you butted in to quote me, when I specifically said Israel didn't loose the war (militarily it not only checked the Egyptian attack but also regained the Suez banks and crossed it to move towards Cairo in the process encircling the Egyptian Third Army) to a poster who was declaring 1973 as a victory.

Please do not presume to obfuscate facts ----- A war is always an extension of a foreign policy and the objectives are politically defined. War is, as per Clausewitz, an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.

When Sadat's objectives were as earlier mentioned by me that is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza, you reallllyyyyyy think that the above mentioned personalities are the ones dictating the agenda then?

Post war analysis will give you hundreds, nay thousands of objectives, each with its own logical importance


Let me sum it up, how it probably would have gone in as a flow chart in the mind -----

Primary Aim:

To win back all territories lost to Israel in 1967.

(what is not written as a political directive - there were two ways - achieve a military breakthrough and force the negotiations of conclusion of war from a position, or achieve enough military momentum with concomitant diplomatic push and offence that the same can be achieved in case the military is not able to achieve the objectives required. This is because after 1967, Israel is in no mood to negotiate as it knows militarily it is strong; so perhaps it is required to force them to negotiations.)

We also achieve the additional aim of opening up Suez (an attractive option for West to give us diplomatic support)

so this is secondary objective

Just what could possibly have been in his (Sadat's) head ...


Coming back to what you say, that the aim was to force Israelis to negotiations ......

Were the aims achieved by Sadat?

No.

Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass

Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....

Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.

Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.

And the rest is history ....

But after the Camp David accord, when for a quid pro quo of recognition of Israel for vacation of Sinai, peace was achieved, one can say that Sadat won .......!!!!

So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......


----------



## Frogman

hellfire said:


> is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza



Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.



hellfire said:


> Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass





hellfire said:


> Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....









Sharm Al Shaikh and both passes were never part of the plan.

The crossing occurred across the entirety of the Canal and there were no such plans for crossing the Gulf or deploying troops from the Canal crossing to Southern Sinai (to capture Sharm) deep into Israeli territory.

Mitla and Gadi were beyond the 20km zone which was to be occupied and out of Egyptian SAM range. When Egyptian forces did eventually surge into those areas to face Israeli armour basically the entirety of the 21st Armoured was lost. Although a Battalion did venture to claim the passes several days into the war also against Shazlis wishes, that as well didn't end well.



hellfire said:


> Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.
> 
> This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.








From the 6th of October to the 13th Egypt was in a militarily strong position across the Eastern bank. Initial Israeli counter attacks were repelled causing large losses to Israeli armour (3 battalions) and fast air.

However, the Syrians were struggling and to lessen the pressure Ismail and Sadat ordered the 4th Armoured to secure Mitla and Gadi against Shazlis wishes (who was exiled from the war cabinet for that).

Israeli forces were only able to start crossing onto Egypt's Western bank from the *14th* of October (small in scale and number) with Sharon's forces eventually crossing onto the bank on the 16th. This was thanks due to US recce flights.

The Israelis were not having a cushty time on Egypt's Western Bank either! They were unable to capture Suez or Ismalia and were pretty much bogged down in the Deresiviour and the area they occupied while also being spread quite thinly with their limited supply lines constantly being harassed and cut by SF. They lost their most valuable asset, momentum.

Any talk of them advancing towards Cairo is utterly preposterous! In between them and Cairo was the Egyptian and Arab reserve which included the 4th Armoured Division supported by an Algerian Armoured Battalion and a Republican Guard Battalion. Quite a sizable force to go through one would imagine!



hellfire said:


> Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.



At this point I would like to mention that the Israeli forces on Egypt's Western bank were in some trouble themselves had UN ceasefire negotiations not held up. I would like to refrence the state of the Israeli forces on the Western Bank here again as it's important.

The Egyptian 3rd Army had been encircled that's true but it did not surrender. Some elements of it were even still fighting. But that isn't my point. The Egyptian contingency for a war of attrition is though.

From the 25th of October onwards some steps were taken that are of import:

1) The reformation of the 21st Armoured Division on the Western bank with Soviet resupplies
2) The reformation of the 6th and 26th Mechanised Infantry battalion with Soviet resupplies
3) Re-designating the 4th Armoured Division (which was in the Reserve) to the 3rd Army (which was encircled) orbat
4) Creating a Infantry Division comprised of Arab nations (Morroco, Sudan, Emirates, Palestine, Kuwait) and adding it to the 3rd Army orbat
5) Placing the Algerian contingent on the Suez Road (even though the Israelis did not attempt to take it after their first try)
6) Resupply for battalions in the 2nd Army that took heavy casualties during the war.

All this was ready in November.

This was known as the Comprehensive Plan. The reformation and creation of forces from the reserves and arriving Arab contingents to break the encirclement of the 3rd Army by Israeli forces who were in a perilous position and were going to be severely outnumbered and could potentially be surrounded.







Arrow 1 2nd Army: Planned movement of the 16th Mechanised Battalion
Arrow 2 2nd Army: Planned movement of the 18th 116th Mech Bt and 182nd Para
Arrow 3 3rd Army: Planned movement of the 3rd Mech Division
Arrow 4 3rd Army: 4th Arm Div and 6th Mech Div
*Algerian Armoured Battalion and Egyptian Sixth Mech Bat and 339 Mech Coy to hold Suez road
* Arab Inf division in reserve



hellfire said:


> And the rest is history ....



Except you've been pretty much wrong on...everything.



hellfire said:


> So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......



A letter from the Presidency and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces signed Anwar Alsadat to COS Ismail a day before the war on the strategic imperatives of the campaign.

1) Reigniting military action
2) Breaking the ceasefire
3) inflicting substantive losses to the enemy
4) Liberating Sinai* stage by stage within the means* of the Armed Forces






The objective was never all out war nor was it ever liberating the entirety of Sinai in a week!

Edit: Battalions in Arab Armies circa 1960-80 are usually what we would call modern day Brigades.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Manidabest

they lost because of lack of unity in their ranks and lack of knowledge about modern warfare...


----------



## Solomon2

Oscar said:


> I am going to stick with the CIA's own assessment of the war -


Then why didn't you link to it?


----------



## Hellfire

Frogman said:


> Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.



My dear sir please read up the history of Gaza strip before posting a crap like this. You and your fellow countryman are spreading non-sense due to your ignorance and trying to pass off as an expert, one by claiming to be speaking to the intelligence chiefs and the other by totally re-writing the history of Gaza strip.

Please read the reference below before you make this statement again. You lost the control of Gaza in 1967!!! You were the de-facto rulers of Gaza from 1959-67, when Nasser did away with all pretensions in name of Pan-Arabism!!! What nonsense are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

http://www.britannica.com/place/Gaza-Strip




Frogman said:


> Except you've been pretty much wrong on...everything.



I have been wrong on what? You have no idea of the topic you have just posted on!!!!! You are not aware of the fact of the governance of Gaza by Egypt till 1967 yet have the sense of humour to call out the other as being incorrect!! You both that is @Hell NO and you, have both been factually wrong ... so your bravado of trying to denounce me as being wrong is laughable at best and pathetic in the true sense.

I suggest stop deluding yourself by continuously re-reading your own interpretation of history and first get your facts in line by reading across cross sections of writings on the war, the politics and economics of Egypt as also the prevailing social conditions there and the reasons for formulation of the war as an option.

Please do not do what majority of Pakistani members and Indians also do when faced with uncomfortable truths .. re-write their own versions and continue to tom tom them hoping it becomes majority version and is accepted as being truth!!!



Frogman said:


> A letter from the Presidency and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces signed Anwar Alsadat to COS Ismail a day before the war on the strategic imperatives of the campaign.
> 
> 1) Reigniting military action
> 2) Breaking the ceasefire
> 3) inflicting substantive losses to the enemy
> 4) Liberating Sinai* stage by stage within the means* of the Armed Forces
> 
> *The objective was never all out war nor was it ever liberating the entirety of Sinai in a week!*
> 
> Edit: Battalions in Arab Armies circa 1960-80 are usually what we would call modern day Brigades.



I have simply skipped over the military aspects because it is indeed a very long topic. I have conceded that the initial crossing of Egyptian forces was brilliantly executed and why they could not achieve their subsequent objectives as they halted and took time to eradicate the Bar Lev defences and maybe reorganise their forces, is open to discussion and has various reasons.

However, quoting you specifically:

for point 4 .. I have said Sinai was an aim and your fellow countryman with access to intelligence chief and army chief and even embassies said no ... a lie!

And when you bold the 4th point to emphasise the stage by stage you are acting like a typical novice in trying to tell me how military operations are run!!! Please first go through all my posts in the thread quoting the people where I have and read their posts ... then quote me

Last red bold line of yours ... only a baseless protagonist can put forth such a point to try and emphasise the validity of his/her arguments

Please do show me where the time frame has EVER been quoted by me (Hint: Nowhere)


What you have posted is called trying to obfuscate your facts in order to somehow prove the other poster as less knowledgeable and try and exhibit to others that you know more

I have not even gone into military operations and yet you have touched on them. Instead I gave a crux of the whole plethora of operations ...... the only problem with members like you is they jump in middle of communication and try to strike themselves as being knowledgeable ... a pathetic exercise as can be seen from the fact that you did not even know Gaza was under administrative control of Egypt till 1967!!

A good day to you sir, you have been factually wrong on your base itself!

Thanks

PS: Your work on the military aspects is indeed commendable and informative hence the thanks for sharing it. But I continue to differ with your statements on overall political objectives and your claims about Gaza as also your attempt at trying to bail your countryman!


----------



## Hell NO

hellfire said:


> Firstly, the bold part!
> 
> What is worse is not a person who knows little but speaks as if he gets it all (to quote you) but who knows nothing and claims to be speaking to intelligence community all across and then trying to define the political objectives from everyone other than the guy who defined the political objectives as the President of the belligerent nation! That is what is worse.
> 
> Secondly, you butted in to quote me, when I specifically said Israel didn't loose the war (militarily it not only checked the Egyptian attack but also regained the Suez banks and crossed it to move towards Cairo in the process encircling the Egyptian Third Army) to a poster who was declaring 1973 as a victory.
> 
> Please do not presume to obfuscate facts ----- A war is always an extension of a foreign policy and the objectives are politically defined. War is, as per Clausewitz, an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.
> 
> When Sadat's objectives were as earlier mentioned by me that is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza, you reallllyyyyyy think that the above mentioned personalities are the ones dictating the agenda then?
> 
> Post war analysis will give you hundreds, nay thousands of objectives, each with its own logical importance
> 
> 
> Let me sum it up, how it probably would have gone in as a flow chart in the mind -----
> 
> Primary Aim:
> 
> To win back all territories lost to Israel in 1967.
> 
> (what is not written as a political directive - there were two ways - achieve a military breakthrough and force the negotiations of conclusion of war from a position, or achieve enough military momentum with concomitant diplomatic push and offence that the same can be achieved in case the military is not able to achieve the objectives required. This is because after 1967, Israel is in no mood to negotiate as it knows militarily it is strong; so perhaps it is required to force them to negotiations.)
> 
> We also achieve the additional aim of opening up Suez (an attractive option for West to give us diplomatic support)
> 
> so this is secondary objective
> 
> Just what could possibly have been in his (Sadat's) head ...
> 
> 
> Coming back to what you say, that the aim was to force Israelis to negotiations ......
> 
> Were the aims achieved by Sadat?
> 
> No.
> 
> Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass
> 
> Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....
> 
> Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.
> 
> This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.
> 
> Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.
> 
> And the rest is history ....
> 
> But after the Camp David accord, when for a quid pro quo of recognition of Israel for vacation of Sinai, peace was achieved, one can say that Sadat won .......!!!!
> 
> So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......


A misunderstanding you see nowhere did I mention personally speaking to any of those people and I thought that it would be a common sense thing to assume that iam quoting their book/interview. (Just to make sure you understand that iam talking about people who held these positions around the time of the war right???????)
the reason I didn't quote Sadat because my post was about the plan of attack something the prisident would not explain in a book/interview as it wasn't his job to plan the attack and thus my quote of the chief of staff.
your post about how the israeli counter attacked and managed to get to the canal shows how little you know about the war sneaked is the term you should use in this case as the israelis advanced throw a gab between the two armies facing the great bitter lakes considered too wide for a crossing by the egyptians (a narrow gab)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm
also mentioning an open road to Cairo which is laughable giving that this is what happened when they tried advancing on a small city
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia

I can go on and on explaining the whole situation but I know I would be met with the same baseless answer that iam Tring to re write history and........etc +have exams in a couple of days so
You sir believe whatever you see believable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Frogman

hellfire said:


> My dear sir please read up the history of Gaza strip before posting a crap like this. You and your fellow countryman are spreading non-sense due to your ignorance and trying to pass off as an expert, one by claiming to be speaking to the intelligence chiefs and the other by totally re-writing the history of Gaza strip.



Was not denying that Gaza was under Egyptian administration pre 1967. No one would deny that. However, it was never part of the plan to retake it militarily or through negotiations.

Areas that were disputed such as Taba though were fought for tooth and nail in the negotiations and through courts using Egypt's rich historical archive maps. Gaza was not fought for because even though it was under Egyptian admin it was and will remain part of Palestine.

Calm down, deer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hellfire

@Hell NO

Putting your quotes in one post



Hell NO said:


> *Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai *as it would be _impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this _The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.



The bold part, that is where you are wrong from the beginning. The aim of any military action is to undertake the process of achieving your foreign policy objectives. The commencement of hostilities begin with the government of the day defining the political objectives of the whole war.

The armed forces of *ANY* nation, are given directives based on the overall objective. The armed forces define their objectives based on overall narrative given to them.

The objective of Sadat was to reclaim the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza! Period! And if once again someone says Gaza is not Egyptian territory ... I will seriously call that person a demented retard who is simply trolling at the least ....!!!! The Gaza strip was under de-facto governance of Egypt till 1967. The aims of Egypt I will clearly spell out so that YOU can understand what was to be done:

1. To recapture all territories lost in 1967 (Egypt lost Sinai and Gaza)
2. To be able to commence commercial activities on Suez to correct the economy.
3. To restore the Egyptian pride and pre-eminence in the Arab world, which had been dented post-defeat in 1967.

The italics:

You had the best Air Defence for the theatre. It was a ploy of Sadat to kick out the Russians, a great ruse which unfortunately Nasser's son in law ensured did not achieve the full surprise it was intended to. You had Scuds ..... !




Hell NO said:


> *You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.*
> *Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,Egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.*
> 
> _why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions????? _
> Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.
> 
> again not my opinion but facts.



The bold part - What one can infer from your statement as highlighted by the bold portion above, is your information is from the quoted people. So either you were out trying to impress by bluffing or simply put, your English is limited. If it is the latter case, then my apologies but your English sucks mate, and you are responsible for the misunderstanding of your quote. However, since neither of us are native English speakers, it can happen!

Come to italics, they didn't counter attack as after canal crossing and mopping up of the Israeli defences on the East Bank of Suez (which took longer than anticipated) the only attempt by Egyptian 1st Mechanised Brigade to push East was badly mauled by Israelis. The Egyptians realised the import of ensuring their SAM cover and hence the 2nd and 3rd armies did not push Eastwards till the reorganisation of forces and establishment of air protection for the armoured and mechanised forces was adequately achieved.

For your reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

The red portion: you are again referring to him as if he spoke to you ... so a deliberate attempt at trying to impress by conveying that the gentlemen spoke to you!! LOL!!!!

The green part - I really do not have any words left ... simply am at a loss for words to describe that!!!




Hell NO said:


> A misunderstanding you see nowhere did I mention personally speaking to any of those people and I thought that it would be a common sense thing to assume that iam quoting their book/interview. (Just to make sure you understand that iam talking about people who held these positions around the time of the war right???????)



Nope. The phrases you have used were deliberately penned to portray first hand account. If you were indeed quoting the references, you would have provided the links .... did you?



Hell NO said:


> the reason I didn't quote Sadat because my post was about the plan of attack something the prisident would not explain in a book/interview as it wasn't his job to plan the attack and thus my quote of the chief of staff.



Now this is called covering your *** after it has been handed over to you on your posts so far bereft of facts and merely based on your rhetorics. I said the objective of the war was to capture Sinai and Gaza and you simply said that the objective was not that. Instead, you have chosen to now change tack and are claiming you were discussing military objectives. Now if a 15R dune is to be captured next to a burnt out village, how the fcuk am I concerned that Egyptian army could capture 15R and with it overlook the nearby oasis which could be water point for enemy thereby denying the enemy source of water? Now you are being an *** and wasting my time.

My dear sir, first of all get it into your head that there is nothing called a limited war. There is always a total war or no war. The only time one says a war is limited war, is when the objectives are limited, time and resources allocated are limited, and the ability and means of the initiating nation is such that it can dictate the timing of initiation and cessation of hostilities. There is, today, only one nation which can do that to a certain degree and that too only against minor banana republics, that is US. No other nation can ever be in a limited war ...something I think you have tried to portray ( I may have misunderstood this I admit). The war is always total as you have to mobilize all your resources, industrial capacity, output your monetary resources, diplomatic resources, your reserves ... the whole nation is involved in every facet of war ... hence the war is always total.



Hell NO said:


> your post about how the israeli counter attacked and managed to get to the canal shows how little you know about the war sneaked is the term you should use in this case as the israelis advanced throw a gab between the two armies facing the great bitter lakes considered too wide for a crossing by the egyptians (a narrow gab)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm
> also mentioning an open road to Cairo which is laughable giving that this is what happened when they tried advancing on a small city
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia



I gave you a crux of the overall war and not simply isolated battles. The US was the sole supplier of weapons to Israel, it forced Israel to a ceasefire and Egypt also had no option as its 3rd army was surrounded. Israelis were within 65 miles of cairo .... just how long do you think you would have lasted if US had not applied pressure on Israel to stop? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question!!!!!

You are quoting isolated battles. Every war has reverses. heck Indian infantry division got bogged down thinking of superior Pakistani forces in 1971 .... and sat throughout on its nether regions doing nothing ....!! Does it mean India lost 1971? Don't be a funny toon!



Hell NO said:


> I can go on and on explaining the whole situation but I know I would be met with the same baseless answer that iam Tring to re write history and........etc +*have exams in a couple of days so*
> You sir believe whatever you see believable.




Oh my! And I thought I was talking to a military history buff or a veteran!! My apologies ... you are authorised to think whatever you want!!!

Go study mate ..... you are talking to a guy who had done this for a living and has been an avid student of military history for almost 25 years now ...... don't waste your time here. All the best for your exams.


@Frogman 



Frogman said:


> Was not denying that Gaza was under Egyptian administration pre 1967. No one would deny that. However, it was never part of the plan to retake it militarily or through negotiations.



The quote below is from your intervention in my discussion with @Hell NO (and it turns out I was arguing with a kid!!!)



Frogman said:


> Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.



When it was under your de-facto control, it was technically your territory ... so please can it. We are not in International Court of Justice or whatever arguing like effing attorneys!!!

Please go through the objectives stated earlier in my post. Gaza was always an extended objective as the aim was to restore the perceived lost pride of Egypt as pre-eminent power in the Arab world (remember even Syria consider Camp David accord a betrayal and voted against you in 1979??) and to rally the Arab world for support by unifying the Arabs on Palestinian cause.




Frogman said:


> Sharm Al Shaikh and both passes were never part of the plan.
> 
> The crossing occurred across the entirety of the Canal and there were no such plans for crossing the Gulf or deploying troops from the Canal crossing to Southern Sinai (to capture Sharm) deep into Israeli territory.
> 
> Mitla and Gadi were beyond the 20km zone which was to be occupied and out of Egyptian SAM range. When Egyptian forces did eventually surge into those areas to face Israeli armour basically the entirety of the 21st Armoured was lost. *Although a Battalion did venture to claim the passes several days into the war also against Shazlis wishes, that as well didn't end well.*



Thank you for the bold part. I did not know that I had to put up a flow chart of when the weapon was cocked and how the round was chambered and how the aim was taken ... man, seriously ..?

I TOLD THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE WAR!!!!! Ever heard of summation of a really long war? Next you will discuss World War 2 .. and you will spend 20 years just writing about the annexation of Czechoslovakia if you write this way ...

Answer me - did or did not Egypt have Mitla Pass and Gidi Pass as an objective along with a possible heliborne assault on Refidim in consonance with advance on ground on directives of the Legal president of the time Anwar el Sadat? (I don't care a fig for General Shazly and his resisting the Minister of War General Ahmed Ismail Ali; in the end the effing political directive superseded and always does; this despite the loss of 1st Mechanised Brigade)

Didn't the attack take place with Egyptian 3rd and 2nd armies advancing eastwards with disastrous consequences?

If the answer to all these queries is yes ... then if I summed up that these were objectives instead of wasting bandwidth and my time, am I wrong?

Now a military objective can be changed as narrative of war changes, is it not? Is there something called fluidity in war? If yes, then military objectives are variable at best. What is *always* constant is the political objective(s)/directive(s)!!!

So what is the problem with you guys? Is a summation so difficult to digest?

Do I have to write that when I sum, your eyes should be able to read and the neuronal electrical impulses travel via optic nerves which receive inputs from the image formed on retina and then the same causes an electrochemical impulse to generate in rods and cones, the sensory pigments in the retina who have electrical variance which is conducted as electrical impulse along nerve fibres which have saltatory conduction on account of their axons being myelinated by oligodendrocytes instead of schwann cells which normally myelinated cranial nerves, but in this case the optic nerve is the only nerve that is a cranial nerve but acts as a nerve of Central Nervous System instead of the Peripheral Nervous System to which all Cranial Nerves belong .... blah blah and then the information is processed by your visual cortex and the same has a complex mechanism involving the limbic system, instead of just saying read and understand it?

If I go this way .. you will surely fly from wherever you are and kill me out of sheer frustration!!!


Accept it ... militarily you lost the war - politically you lost the war!!!

You got Sinai back only AFTER you recognised Israel. So you didn't win as you had sworn to destroy Israel ...!

So you lost EVERYTIME!!!

Don't care if Moroccans or Iraqis or Jordanians or for that matter even the Martians were coming to intervene on your side!!

Even the Nazis were on threshold of making a nuke and god knows they did have the first fighter jet operational in the final stages of war ....

What didn't happen ..... does NOT matter!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

hellfire said:


> 1. To recapture all territories lost in 1967 (Egypt lost Sinai and Gaza)


That was the war plan presented by Sadat ( tru Shazli)to the countries that participated on the side of Egypt . Assad lied of course and sacked Shazli, to implement his real goal.



> 2. To be able to commence commercial activities on Suez to correct the economy.


Sadat cared less , he had a problem of self esteem, his skin color (at least in his mind) was an impediment to his stature, and his goal was to get close to the US and her allies....


> 3. To* restore the Egyptian pride* and* pre-eminence in the Arab world*, which had been dented post-defeat in 1967.


Since Nasser, none of the Egyptiens Presidents that followed cared about the Egyptian pride, they cared most about how they are viewed by the west. For the second part they claimed it like a god given right, Their record was shemlessly repeated from president to president, the ones who truly wanted to restablish the emminence of the Arab world weren't ARABS, but berbers, and both were assassinated by the Arabs or with their help.


----------



## SSGcommandoPAK

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??



The answer to all the question are in this video !!!


----------



## Super Falcon

Problem was ARABS don't have better commanders nor a better mind and plabers and above it their ego of numbers 

Training played it's part even today they have best jets but worst pilots in the world they only issue is they don't take it seriously 

Yes it was a resupply from USA helped Israelis 

But they can asked USSR too they need better air defence system if any country had MIG 31 in that time they could have intercepted USA resupply cargos C7 Aircrafts in result they couldn't got any resupply

Lack of air cover and training of pilots took them to defeat

Egypt became slave of Israel after assassination of President till today


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

Stupidity has no limits!
Every while there a shitty thread like this only to bash Arab people .. nothing more!

Your ignorance about what REALLY happened though posing that you know it all just make you stupid ..

Egypt went to war back in 1973 knowing that we couldn't wage a full scale war against Israel and USA ..
Israel had the longest arm in the Air power with F-4 phantom the backbone of its arsenal .
Egypt only had Mig-21 to fight with .. Many were went down during combats only because they ran out of fuel!

Same with artillery, tanks , APC, AD .
Israel had the upper hand in range, firepower and more ..

Plan wasn't ever to clean Sinai from Israeli troops within days or months.
We knew our capabilities and knew theirs ..
Israel as a small country with its working-class are much of its population .. Thus Israel couldn't and ever can't be able to survive a long war .

Egypt's plan was to end the state of "No peace No war" by occupying 15 km of the East bank only the rang that AD could cover .. If Egypt had more sa-6 the plan could have changed to go deeper in Sinai peninsula.

Egypt's plan went to Action and despite all reports and what so called facts like the "impossibility to go through barliv line even with nuclear blast"! we managed to do more with only water cannons.

Read about the Egyptian victories through all the battles they fought against Israel during the first week of the war .
Things were changed only when Sadat politcally interfered into the military actions despite all the disapproves by the war cabinet.

In the end Israel failed to capture neither Ismailia nor Suez , and even with its circulation of the 3rd army .. Israeli troops were encircled itself by the Egyptian and Arab reservations.

All those years post war and peace agreement. Egypt now has a powerful armed forces for example its AF has these in its arsenal :
Mirage-2000
F-16 block 52
Rafael
Mig-35
Su-35


The next months It's navy will receive two Mistral LHD with 50+ ka-52
4 type 209/1400

Keep trolling Egypt and Arab while they building their countries economically and militarily despite all the proxy wars that put the region on fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> You want a tactical analysis or a political analysis??
> 
> Tactically, the Arabs have committed a major mistake during the 67 and 73 war, and that is they fed into Israel piecemeal.
> 
> In short (It's 4 am here)
> 
> in 67, the responsibility to destroy Israel is not shared within the Arab alliance, it's basically an Egyptian led operation, Jordanian and Syrian (Also other minor player) are in a supporting mode. Israel saw that and they simply destroy the Egyptian Air Force, which formed the backbone of Egyptian military might, and once that is gone, the Egyptian ground force would simply raped by IAF.
> 
> 
> in 73, Egyptian improved the communication, and was actually winning in the first stage of Yom Kippur War, but what the Israel do is simply put the Sinai front on hold, and focus on their eastern neighbour, defeated Syria first , then Jordan, Iraq and Other minor player in Golan, only then they force Egyptian hand and engage and destroy the Egyptian and reverse their fortune.
> 
> In short, Egyptian should use the strategy they use in 73 to fight the 67 war, and the 67 strategy to fight the 73 war.
> 
> Politically, the Arab alliance does not quite trust each other, Egyptian was not in a way of trusting the Syrian to fill their promise in after they conquer Israel in 6 days war, which Syrian were to only occupied Golan Height and part of Jerusalem, they want to go in first and thus they decided to engage the Israeli even tho their Air Force in that region were almost completely destroyed.
> 
> In Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian stance changed, and they fought overcaution even when they are winning the war. Thus they let the Israeli to have a breather and they allow the Israeli to neutralise their eastern threat first, and rushed into battle once the eastern flank are in danger of collapsing.
> 
> That is a nutshell, and if you want, I can give you a more detail analysis tomorrow.



In 67 Egypt alone had a far superior airforce than Israel.. 400 new Egyptian aircrafts were destroyed on the ground in a "preventive"!!! strike by Usrael..

In 1973 the arabs overwhelmed Usrael so much in the first stages of the war that they had to stop for a while because that is not what they have expected, for example, the Egyptians have thought of loosing up to 20 000 soldiers to get through the Barlev line - the stronget military line in the world at that time..they have lost 200..
The syrians took back the Golan Heights and the Mount Hermon in 48 hours , they marched toward Usrael..there was no opposition and they got orders to stop their advance.. Usrael (USA+Israel) took advantage of this..
On the Sinai front , Sadat changed the plans and ordered a full brigade to advance further..with no air cover! which was not planned at all, and with all the supplies that Usrael was getting from uncle SAM, it couldn't do anything more but lie about the outcome , athough it was more political and diplomatic after the overwhelming Arab victories.. The Syrians stopped the advances of Usraeli troops at the Syrian borders, and the Egyptian second army has defeated all Usraeli attempts to encircle it or the 3rd army..." I that case I do not know who was surrounding whom" General Sharon said after the war..Goda Mayer the then prime minister of Usrael was cryind and saying "this is the end of Usrael",
So What does anyone need to understand that the Arabs won that war and were convinced to let Usrael breath, in an international understanding that will get the Sinai pininsula back through diplomatic means , which sadat was asking for before he went to war, but since diplomacy failled at that time war was the only pressure that could convince Usrael of the real arab strength and to make her change her mindset facing real death of its entity..
I have seen most Usraelis comments on this thread, either they are not educated enough about these matters or they are lying about facts..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> In 67 Egypt alone had a far superior airforce than Israel.. 400 new Egyptian aircrafts were destroyed on the ground in a "preventive"!!! strike by Usrael..
> 
> In 1973 the arabs overwhelmed Usrael so much in the first stages of the war that they had to stop for a while because that is not what they have expected, for example, the Egyptians have thought of loosing up to 20 000 soldiers to get through the Barlev line - the stronget military line in the world at that time..they have lost 200..
> The syrian took back the Golan Heights an the Mount Hermon in 48 hours , they marched toward Usrael..there was no opposition and they got orders to stop their advance.. Usrael (USA+Israel) took advantage of this..
> On the Sinai front , Sadat changed the plans and ordered a full brigade to advance further..with no air cover! which was not planned at all, and with all the supplies that Usrael was getting from uncle SAM, it couldn't do anything more but lie about the outcome , athough it was more political and diplomatic after the overwhelming Arab victories.. The Syrians stopped the advances of Usraeli troops at the Syrian borders, and the Egyptian second army has defeated all Usraeli attempts to encircle it or the 3rd army..." I that case I do not know who was surrounding whom" General Sharon said after the war..Goda Mayer the then prime minister of Usrael was cryind and saying "this is the end of Usrael",
> So What does anyone need to understand that the Arabs won that war and were convinced to let Usrael breath, in an international understanding that will get the Sinai pininsula back through diplomatic means , which sadat was asking for before he went to war, but since diplomacy failled at that time war was the only pressure that could convince Usrael of the real arab strength and to make her change her mindset facing real death of its entity..
> I have seen most Usraelis comments on this thread, either they are not educated enough about these matters or they are lying about facts..



Is this a joke or you really want me to comment on this??

I am a student of War, a student of History, what I am not is a student of fanaticism. You can have your own view about how this war is being fought. but please do me a favour, do not quote me again with this BS....


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> Is this a joke or you really want me to comment on this??
> 
> I am a student of War, a student of History, what I am not is a student of fanaticism. You can have your own view about how this war is being fought. but please do me a favour, do not quote me again with this BS....



Well you have said it yourself, you are still a student, so do not bother answering this before you become a researcher in miltary and strategic matters..
I have quoted you because it was inline with what you seemd to have understood from those conflicts, or the lack of understaning, because what you have said is in most media, but you have to go deeper, read books and specialised magazines and scholarly article about the matter at hand, compare the sources and then state the facts as they really are..
Sorry for quoting you..
Your comments are still wellcome, but do not get mad if this matter is beyond your understanding of facts, the Arab civilization and the context in time and space, the facts on the terrain of war..


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> Well you have said it yourself, you are still a student, so do not bother answring this before you become a researcher in miltary and strategic matters..
> I have quoted you because it was inline with what you seemd to have understood from those conflicts, or the lack of understaning, because what you have said is in most media, but you have to go deeper, read books and specialised magazines and scholarly article about the mather, compare the sources and then state the facts as they really are..
> Sorry for quoting you..
> Your comments are still wellcome, but do not get mad if this matter is beyond your understanding of facts, the Arab civilization and the context in time and space, the facts on the terrain of war..



So, I am a student, that make what you said make any sense??

I graduated from University of Colorado in Boulder with a Bachelor Degree in International Politics in 2000

I then enlisted and commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant via ROTC/OCS in 2001.

I was then deployed to Iraq and fought all the way from Kuwait to Baghdad leading a platoon of 43 men with the 3d ID in 2003.

I was then promote to 1st Lieutenant and transferred to Special Reconnaissance Platoon in 2004.

I completed Jump School and Ranger School in 2004.

Promote to Captain in the US Army in 2005, the same years I was transferred to Military Intelligence Brigade. In charge of a Com-Center coordinate action between SF group deployed in Afghanistan, detached with NSA operation in Central Asia

I was honourably discharged from the US Army as a Captain in 2006.

I then work with KBR and DCATS in the UK as an intelligence specialist

I was then completed a Master in International Business degree with International College of Management, Sydney in 2014

I am currently in a research program on MPhil/PhD in Economic with the University of Melbourne.

So, may I know what is your qualification to say my word is shit and your BS is good?? You must have unlimited knowledge on Military and fought in uncounted conflict to be call yourself any "Authority" in the field of Military Science.

So, if I call you on these type of thread,

https://defence.pk/threads/jhungary-on-warfare-part-1-principles-of-war.432599/

You would be able to converse with me with real military science sense??


----------



## The SC

@jhungary

If you know Sun Tzu that will be good..
Me it is just military engineering (Civil and unified Engineering), much more in reality but do not like to talk about myself too much. For this matter of the october war 1973 and most Arab -Usraeli conflicts I have dedicated more than 25 years in research..going from WW2 to recent conflicts and wars analysis. You to have no idea of what went behind the scenes, what was covered and disovered later on..
To make it short, there are a whole lot of threads on this same subject on PDF where you can see my posts, with facts and sources..


----------



## Solomon2

jhungary said:


> So, I am a student, that make what you said make any sense??
> 
> I graduated from University of Colorado in Boulder with a Bachelor Degree in International Politics in 2000
> 
> I then enlisted and commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant via ROTC/OCS in 2001.
> 
> I was then deployed to Iraq and fought all the way from Kuwait to Baghdad leading a platoon of 43 men with the 3d ID in 2003.
> 
> I was then promote to 1st Lieutenant and transferred to Special Reconnaissance Platoon in 2004.
> 
> I completed Jump School and Ranger School in 2004.
> 
> Promote to Captain in the US Army in 2005, the same years I was transferred to Military Intelligence Brigade. In charge of a Com-Center coordinate action between SF group deployed in Afghanistan, detached with NSA operation in Central Asia
> 
> I was honourably discharged from the US Army as a Captain in 2006...


Thank you for your service.


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> @jhungary
> 
> If you know Sun Tzu that will be good..
> Me it is just military engineering (Civil and unified Engineering), much more in reality but do not like to talk about myself too much. For this matter of the october war 1973 and most Arab -Usraeli conflicts I have dedicated more than 25 years in research..going from WW2 to recent conflicts and wars analysis. You to have no idea of what went behind the scenes, what was covered and disovered later on..
> To make it short, there are a whole lot of threads on this same subject on PDF where you can see my posts, with facts and sources..



dude, I am not the one that blub out BS like what you just said 3 post ago.

And seeing that I am just a student and you are a master, so what you spill out must be correct then...

25 years of research on WW2 til now and you spill out this kind of shit.........lol, sorry to tell you, but you have just wasted the last 25 years.

Maybe you should stop talking crap and let's discuss ourselves some Military History and Military Science. Where you want to start? We can do this at any level, you want to talk about Logistic?

https://defence.pk/threads/a-closer-look-on-performance-based-logistic.358426/
https://defence.pk/threads/warfighting-capability-and-power-projection.361655/
https://defence.pk/threads/a-brief-view-on-combat-logistic-support.356284/

or do you want to talk about Battlefield Management?

https://defence.pk/threads/concept-of-operation-for-battlefield-and-battlespace.412762/
https://defence.pk/threads/battlefield-management.384479/

or do you want to talk about Military Science?

https://defence.pk/threads/modern-warfare-1gw-to-4gw.385646/
https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-special-operation.382458/
https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-warfare-tactics-and-doctrine.368458/
https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-airborne-warfare-doctrines-and-tactics.368454/
https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-amphibious-assault-warfare-tactics-and-doctrines.362491/
https://defence.pk/threads/doctrine-and-tactical-development-in-war-science.351869/

or technology??

https://defence.pk/threads/stealth-vs-jammer-the-airsea-battle-concept.425875/

How about military History?

https://defence.pk/threads/battle-and-combat-history-series.286181/

Oh well, if I want to build a bridge, I may look you up, if I want to piss under a bridge, I will look you up, but we are talking about Military Science. And what you said does not make sense in actual combat. Do you even know how to get out of an Ambush alive?

lol........if this is how its goes then forgive me, master, I bow before your military knowledge 



Solomon2 said:


> Thank you for your service.



You're welcome


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> dude, I am not the one that blub out BS like what you just said 3 post ago.
> 
> And seeing that I am just a student and you are a master, so what you spill out must be correct then...
> 
> 25 years of research on WW2 til now and you spill out this kind of shit.........lol, sorry to tell you, but you have just wasted the last 25 years.
> 
> Maybe you should stop talking crap and let's discuss ourselves some Military History and Military Science. Where you want to start? We can do this at any level, you want to talk about Logistic?
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/a-closer-look-on-performance-based-logistic.358426/
> https://defence.pk/threads/warfighting-capability-and-power-projection.361655/
> https://defence.pk/threads/a-brief-view-on-combat-logistic-support.356284/
> 
> or do you want to talk about Battlefield Management?
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/concept-of-operation-for-battlefield-and-battlespace.412762/
> https://defence.pk/threads/battlefield-management.384479/
> 
> or do you want to talk about Military Science?
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/modern-warfare-1gw-to-4gw.385646/
> https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-special-operation.382458/
> https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-warfare-tactics-and-doctrine.368458/
> https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-airborne-warfare-doctrines-and-tactics.368454/
> https://defence.pk/threads/dissecting-amphibious-assault-warfare-tactics-and-doctrines.362491/
> https://defence.pk/threads/doctrine-and-tactical-development-in-war-science.351869/
> 
> or technology??
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/stealth-vs-jammer-the-airsea-battle-concept.425875/
> 
> How about military History?
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/battle-and-combat-history-series.286181/
> 
> Oh well, if I want to build a bridge, I may look you up, if I want to piss under a bridge, I will look you up, but we are talking about Military Science. And what you said does not make sense in actual combat. Do you even know how to get out of an Ambush alive?
> 
> lol........if this is how its goes then forgive me, master, I bow before your military knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome



I do not boost my knowlege like you are doing, it is a sign of arrogance and inferiority complex.. all what you have said is writen in specialized books or scholarly articles.. do you know how many theories and counter theories on those subjects exist? speaking about ambush. do you really know what happened to you in Irak and Afghanistan, could the US have won against Germmany in WW2 on its own?
You come up with history and some technical books and articles..and you think you are the author?
I want you to tell me what you know about the 73 Arab-Usraeli conflict, that is the ppoint here and now, the other topics will be discussed in time..


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> I do not boost my knowlege like you are doing, it is a sign of arrogance and inferiority complex.. all what you have said is writen in specialized books or scholarly articles.. do you know how many theories and counter theories on those subjects exist? speaking about ambush. do you really know what happened to you in Irak and Afghanistan, could the US have won against Germmany in WW2 on its own?
> You come up with history and some technical books and articles..and you think you are the author?
> I want you to tell me what you know about the 73 Arab-Usraeli conflict, that is the ppoint here and now, the other topics will be discussed in time..



First of all, I did not "BOOST" anything, in fact, you boosted yours before by saying that my view are generally for uneducated or those who bought their lies.

I did not wrote to please anybody, nor have an nationalistic argument, I study war, I planned actual operation, i am neither Jewish nor Muslim, I study war for war, you and I were at different level.

And lol, you try to talk sense between WW2 and Iraq and Afghanistan? You seems to forgot I was actually in both Iraq and Afghanistan and where you are sitting in front of a TV. Do you even know how war is like over there or at anywhere at all? And about WW2, try ask yourself this question could Allied won WW2 without the US??

And trying to claim what I wrote was already written in specialised book or scholarly article is simply pathetic. I don't read much of anything else, you can run my article on any plagiarism detection software and if it come up with a hit, I will physically send you $100 bucks.

Plus what I am talked about is to discuss the issue on the article I raise, I did a lot of talks and discussion with both serving and former military officers as well as with PDF member here such as @AUSTERLITZ @Levina or @Slav Defence . I am asking you to *DISCUSS* that with me, not writing anything, if you claim I copy idea from someone, then I should not be able to come up with my own idea and discuss the issue at hand. So what are you waiting for, let's get on some discussion rather then talking trash here.

lol, are you afraid to talk about real military issue? Mr Military Engineer?


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

The SC said:


> .......
> So What does anyone need to understand that the Arabs won that war and were convinced to let Usrael breath, in an international understanding that will get the Sinai pininsula back through diplomatic means , which sadat was asking for before he went to war, but since diplomacy failled at that time war was the only pressure that could convince Usrael of the real arab strength and to make her change her mindset facing real death of its entity..



That's well summed up.
The plan was to force the big powers in the world to negotiate to give back the occupied Arab lands.
And the only way to do so was "War" force Israel and the Americans to realize that occupying Sinai was not going to be a source of safety or stability to Israel and that the Egyptians were never going to accept what had happened in 1967

Many here know nothing about the battles that happened pre-1973 war
Know nothing regarding a whole war called "War of Attrition" 1967 to 1970 when Egyptians believed that only military initiative would compel Israel or the international community to facilitate a full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai

This war was characterized by large-scale shelling along the Suez Canal, extensive aerial warfare and commando raids , These are some defining days of the war:

October 21, 1967 Egyptian Navy sank the Israeli destroyer INS Eilat with anti-ship missiles, killing forty-seven sailors .. It was just unprecedented to sink a destroyer by an anti-ship missile.
Israel's response was its artillery bombarded oil refineries and depots near Suez. which led to heavy Egyptians civilian casualties. then Egypt evacuated a large number of the civilian population in the canal region.







December 9, 1969: Egyptian aircraft, with the assistance of newly delivered P-15 radars, defeats the Israelis in an aerial engagement, shooting down two Israeli Mirages. Later in the evening, an Egyptian fighter flown by Lt. Ahmed Atef shot down an Israeli F-4 Phantom II, making him the first Egyptian pilot to shoot down an F-4 in combat

April 8, 1970: Israeli F4 Phantom II fighter jets attack a single-floor school in the Egyptian town of Bahr el-Baqar . The school is hit by five bombs and two air-to-ground missiles, killing 46 schoolchildren and injuring over 50




That wasn't nor would be the last time that IAF attack a civilian target killing mostly children

June 30, 1970: Soviet air defenses shoot down two Israeli F-4 Phantoms.

Early August, 1970: Despite their losses, the Soviets and Egyptians manage to press the air defenses closer to the canal, shooting down a number of Israeli aircraft. The SAM batteries allow the Egyptians to move in artillery which in turn threatens the Bar Lev Line.

August 7, 1970: A cease-fire agreement is reached
September 28, 1970: President Nasser dies of a heart attack, and is succeeded by Vice President Anwar Sadat.

Then there was less than 3 years to continue building the Egyptian armed forces and to wage 1973 war.
A war would led eventually to an agreement and peace.
Something Most Arab and Muslims refused to do back then (a peace agreement and accepting the existence of Israel + giving back the occupied lands incl. "Jerusalem" )

Egypt paid big price to that decision with Muslim and Arab countries cut off their relations with Egypt.
President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by radicals as a result of that agreement.
All those years back Muslims and Arabs still regret not taking what they could have taken back in the 70s-80s



The SC said:


> .......
> I have seen most Usraelis comments on this thread, either they are not educated enough about these matters or they are lying about facts..


Americans and Zionists have the big media outlets in the world.
They make fool believe that Jewish fought a freedom war , a sort of liberation in 1948 (Independence year) as they say! .. like they had lived in Palestine for 1000+ of years before they fought Arab .. Like there hasn't been (till modern days) any kind of immigration by millions to occupy Arab lands sponsored by western powers in a time when Arab where at their weakest conditions .









Plus the anti-Arab sentiments by many, among those .. funny to say "Muslims"!!
If it wasn't the month of "Ramadan" I would give them a hard lessons re. being underneath of Zionists influence!
They can't even defend themselves against American-led western interventions in their lands .. Even if they've killed 1000s of their people by drones! Yet they mocking the few Arab victories against Western-Israeli aggression! 

________________________________

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> First of all, I did not "BOOST" anything, in fact, you boosted yours before by saying that my view are generally for uneducated or those who bought their lies.
> 
> I did not wrote to please anybody, nor have an nationalistic argument, I study war, I planned actual operation, i am neither Jewish nor Muslim, I study war for war, you and I were at different level.
> 
> And lol, you try to talk sense between WW2 and Iraq and Afghanistan? You seems to forgot I was actually in both Iraq and Afghanistan and where you are sitting in front of a TV. Do you even know how war is like over there or at anywhere at all? And about WW2, try ask yourself this question could Allied won WW2 without the US??
> 
> And trying to claim what I wrote was already written in specialised book or scholarly article is simply pathetic. I don't read much of anything else, you can run my article on any plagiarism detection software and if it come up with a hit, I will physically send you $100 bucks.
> 
> Plus what I am talked about is to discuss the issue on the article I raise, I did a lot of talks and discussion with both serving and former military officers as well as with PDF member here such as @AUSTERLITZ @Levina or @Slav Defence . I am asking you to *DISCUSS* that with me, not writing anything, if you claim I copy idea from someone, then I should not be able to come up with my own idea and discuss the issue at hand. So what are you waiting for, let's get on some discussion rather then talking trash here.
> 
> lol, are you afraid to talk about real military issue? Mr Military Engineer?



I am willing and able to discuss any military topic with you.. it is just that your type and thoughts do not fit my diplomacy..; we have said almost the same things about the 73 conflict and I have added some (very few details) and you found a way of talking about fanatism, just because I have quoted Sharon and Golda Mayer, and said some truth you were unaware of..!?

Maybe we will meet in another thread..till then take it easy..


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Well; Arab commanders were just straight up horrible - they had little understanding of Modern Warfare and has no system of carrying and giving out complex orders. The Arab armies were also very disorganized and did not really believe in the cause they were fighting for.

Israel on the other hand had many officers that served in WW1/WW2 and the backbone of their military/officer corps were professionally trained by the British - their soldiers were also very dedicated.


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> I am willing and able to discuss any military topic with you.. it is just that your type and thoughts do not fit my diplomacy..; we have said almost the same things about the 73 conflict and I have added some (very few details) and you found a way of talking about fanatism, just because I have quoted Sharon and Golda Mayer, and said some truth you were unaware of..!?
> 
> Maybe we will meet in another thread..till then take it easy..



the different between you and me is that, I do not factor in any national issue or characteristic issue when I was planning or try to detail someone else's plan, for me, if I were to plan an operation, I only look at the objective at hand and I would discard any personnel, national, sentiment issue. You can only plan a military operation that way.

I study war for war, I don't really care about Israel or Egypt won in 73, 67 or 48, for me, that mean nothing, I studied how command decision was made and how a particular battle was won.

Your so called "Truth" mean nothing to me, as they are not in my scope, that "truth" did nothing because it does not affect how that particular war ended up in the end, you may say Egypt want to give a breather to Israel, or whatever the hack you want to believe, Me? I studied almost all the battle happened in 1973, some of it when I was a Calvary Officer trainee in OCS, some of them just for fun. If the Egyptian were really fighting the way you describe, then they have a funny way on actually fighting the war.

Again, feel free to believe whatever you want to believe, but do not call me up to reply to these type of BS, this is not Military Science nor History, this is what a fan boy believe.


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Well; Arab commanders were just straight up horrible - they had little understanding of Modern Warfare and has no system of carrying and giving out complex orders. The Arab armies were also very disorganized and did not really believe in the cause they were fighting for.
> 
> Israel on the other hand had many officers that served in WW1/WW2 and the backbone of their military/officer corps were professionally trained by the British - their soldiers were also very dedicated.



Hahaha...
Many Egyptian top commanders like el-Shazly and el-Gamasy considered by western experts among The Top Military Leaders of the 20th Century . (But who you to know ?!)

The Israelis themselves said the opposite of your claiming during the war of attrition and post 73 war
Arab had the initiative to shot down F-4 phantom by lower aircrafts i.e Mig-19, Mig-21
The initiative to sink a destroyers by an anti-ship missile
The initiative to ....

You know what it's not even worth it educating people like you .. coz it's not about knowledge!
Just saying that the people who fought to liberate their lands "did not really believe in the cause they were fighting for" show the true color of yours!





Try to find other pilots who could do that with Mig-21
Without Israelis and Americans we would never hear this outstanding battle.
And they're so many yet untold.

Stick to your keyboard kid.. while Arab children (real men) facing tanks with stones because they truly believe in a cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> the different between you and me is that, I do not factor in any national issue or characteristic issue when I was planning or try to detail someone else's plan, for me, if I were to plan an operation, I only look at the objective at hand and I would discard any personnel, national, sentiment issue. You can only plan a military operation that way.
> 
> I study war for war, I don't really care about Israel or Egypt won in 73, 67 or 48, for me, that mean nothing, I studied how command decision was made and how a particular battle was won.
> 
> Your so called "Truth" mean nothing to me, as they are not in my scope, that "truth" did nothing because it does not affect how that particular war ended up in the end, you may say Egypt want to give a breather to Israel, or whatever the hack you want to believe, Me? I studied almost all the battle happened in 1973, some of it when I was a Calvary Officer trainee in OCS, some of them just for fun. If the Egyptian were really fighting the way you describe, then they have a funny way on actually fighting the war.
> 
> Again, feel free to believe whatever you want to believe, but do not call me up to reply to these type of BS, this is not Military Science nor History, this is what a fan boy believe.



You just forgot the context of war in all your thoughts, you are a tactical guy, and your BS does not apply everywhere, and is very far from strategy in a war..



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Well; Arab commanders were just straight up horrible - they had little understanding of Modern Warfare and has no system of carrying and giving out complex orders. The Arab armies were also very disorganized and did not really believe in the cause they were fighting for.
> 
> Israel on the other hand had many officers that served in WW1/WW2 and the backbone of their military/officer corps were professionally trained by the British - their soldiers were also very dedicated.


You are talking about the 1948 war, that is true.. even the majority of the Arab world were still colonized by either the Brits or the French.
1967 war a preventive air strike on the Egyptian airforces on the ground, it was facilitated by satellite images of the Egyptian military airports, combined with ground intelligence operations from Usrael and its allies at that time and the infiltration of the Egyptian high command by highly trained women spies.
1973 war was totally different, due to extensive and comprehensive Arab reshuffeling of their armed forces, the results were clear and they won that war - at least in the case of Egypt,since the Syrian front went back to the pre1973 war statuquo-..
Cheers

@hellfire

" I gave you a crux of the overall war and not simply isolated battles. The US was the sole supplier of weapons to Israel, it forced Israel to a ceasefire and Egypt also had no option as its 3rd army was surrounded. Israelis were within 65 miles of cairo .... just how long do you think you would have lasted if US had not applied pressure on Israel to stop? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question!!!!!"

Do you know that Usrael did not abide by that ceasfire for more than 24 hours, to try encirling the Egyptian 3rd army and to claim that, which was a lie: General Sharon who was leading that operation said himself after the war:" I really do not know who was surrounding whom in that area", this should tell you a lot about the media lies..



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The October War started October 6, and this document is from October 22.
> U.S. support for Israel started to grow about 1970, and that is not news...
> The document shows a couple of thing.
> 
> 1. Israel is winning, at a cost.
> 2. Both Israel and the Arabs are beeing resupplied.
> 3. As a result of the failure, the Arabs are finally open to negotiations.



You are posting wrong information again:
The Arabs were open to negotiations much before the war, it is Usrael that refused, and then became "open to negotiations" when they were losing the war..you can not escape these facts...
Please refrain from answering , because it will be called trolling and no none wants that on this forum.



Mountain Jew said:


> Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians agreed to recognize Israel and maintain peace with Israel
> Israel offered the Gaza Strip to Egypt, but the Egyptians refused.
> Even with Jordan, Israel offered the West Bank to Jordan,
> In return for recognition and peace, the Jordanians refused to take the West Bank.
> Israel proposed to Syria the Golan in exchange for peace and recognition.
> Arabs think that in war they'll get it, not realizing that if they want to return the territories that Israel occupied, they should make peace not war.



Egyptians are very smart people, Sadat himself said after the war that he can fight and defeat Usrael on its own - with proof; taking the Barlev line- but can not fight the US.. So what to do? Usrael had the totall full support of the US like if it was a US state, so better make peace, which was the aim from the beginning and without war if Sinai was given back..Then it took war, because the Usraelis were too arrogant and refused every peaceful attempt to let go of the Sinai, at the end of it Egypt gained much more than the Sinai Pininsula, it Got Billions of Dollars worth of aids and sophisticated American weapons and systems that were like some value plus for becoming American friends.

The other Arab states did not want to split Palestinian territories between them, it was a trap and they were aware of it.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Or - when Egypt found out they could not beat Israel, they decided to negotiate, instead of engaging in a new war.
> The only thing the war changed, was the perception Egyptians had of themselves.



Talikng about self-perception:



























Israeli POWs all over the fronts, Egypt and Syria..



Oscar said:


> 1. The 67 war was Israeli deception on stating that Arabs were going to take it out. Essentially they were the aggressors and knew certain victory because despite being outnumbered; they possessed both a qualitatively superior and much more trained force with years of combat experience.
> 
> 2. The 73 war had the Americans jumping in to save Israel, without US intervention; Israel was going to resort to nuclear weapons.



Point 2. is very important: I saw picture during that war of American F-4 stationned at Usrael carrying 2/250 kt nuclear bombs under its wings, it came with the supplies the US was sending.. So I think usrael's nuclear weapons are a bluff, they have the assurance like NATO members to get covered with nukes if their survival is in question..


----------



## Hellfire

The SC said:


> Do you know that Usrael did not abide by that ceasfire for more than 24 hours, to try encirling the Egyptian 3rd army and to claim that, which was a lie: Genral Sharon who was leading that operation said himself after the war:" I really do not know who was surrounding whom in that area", this should tell you a lot about the media lies..



Yes, I know that Israel initiated a violation of ceasefire.

Now seriously, be a nice guy and read the whole exchange and not quote a sub text of the whole sequence. Like I said to the member, am not sitting to discuss the capture of every 15 or 20 R and its importance and the victory or lack there of.

The crux is - Egypt did not win(as claimed by the quoted personalities), and failed to achieve their military objectives in overall aims as elucidated at the start of hostilities.

Now go and waste your time on 15 or 45 Rs with someone else.


----------



## MULUBJA

It is because of excellent tactical planning by israel. In one war they bring in drone for first time and destroyed the enemy airforce by gathering information.

In another war, they bring in rective armour for the first time on the tank and enemy tanks were helpless.

In one war israeli spy made enemy soldiers drunk and destroyed its airforec completely.

Subsequently israely is innovating and has bring in many first in the world technologies such as iron dome, battlefield management system on tank etc. Israel builds their need specif weapons. They have second to the naone spy agency and they are highly motivated.

They are very good businessmen and they have a lots of money. US and israel are successful in deviding the Arabs. Saudi is Israel's friend. Now new Hizbullah chief has shown a clear sign of friend ship with israel.

Israle is afaraid of only one thing and that is russain weapons.


----------



## SQ8

The SC said:


> Point 2. is very important: I saw picture during that war of American F-4 stationned at Usrael carrying 2/250 kt nuclear bombs under its wings, it came with the supplies the US was sending.. So I think usrael's nuclear weapons are a bluff, they have the assurance like NATO members to get covered with nukes if their survival is in question..



Pre-73 and in the war, YES.. after that.. no.


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> You just forgot the context of war in all your thoughts, you are a tactical guy, and your BS does not apply everywhere, and is very far from strategy in a war..



I never said the context of war is never relevant. In fact, if you kindly try to remember the first post you quote me. I said to the OP on that post

"Do you want a tactical or political view on the subject", this is what I said.



jhungary said:


> You want a tactical analysis or a political analysis??
> .



In war studies, you can only discuss in one matter in one single term, you can either go tactically, strategically, or operationally.. That will give you a basis of comparison.

What you then reply to my post is try to use the ultimate strategic goal to justify what happened in the field, which is, in essence, useless. Let's put an example to use shall we? You said this.



The SC said:


> In 1973 the arabs overwhelmed Usrael so much in the first stages of the war that they had to stop for a while because that is not what they have expected, for example, the Egyptians have thought of loosing up to 20 000 soldiers to get through the Barlev line - the stronget military line in the world at that time..they have lost 200..
> The syrians took back the Golan Heights and the Mount Hermon in 48 hours , they marched toward Usrael..there was no opposition and they got orders to stop their advance.. Usrael (USA+Israel) took advantage of this..
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/why-arabs-lost-all-its-wars-to-israel-despite-outnumbering-israel-in-weapons-and-manpower.433156/page-7#ixzz4BExCDb2V
> 
> .



Now operationally, this does not matter the Israeli, as stopping at that stage is a tactical error for the Egyptian, it matter not why Egyptian stopped, Even it's like you claim, the Egyptian does not understand how deep they fare in the opening engagement into the Sinai, *FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITHIN THEIR UNIT is still a tactical error by Egyptian side.*

You try to justified the tactical failure for the Egyptian by claiming they do not know how unopposed it is, it is a spinning of their mistake and trying to make an excuse for it.

Another issue for you is you then try to justify the whole war to put it in Egyptian don't want a total victories, they only want to get back what they lost in 67'. Point is, this is* AT BEST ARGUABLE, *and when we are talking about the Israel, this strategic goal does not applies as there are no way the Israeli will know whether or not the Egyptian start a war not to finish off the Israeli themselves or just to took back the Gaza Strip and Sinai. For them, Egyptian attacks them, they would have to be put into a mind that this is a fight to the finish.

What you claim Sharon or Golda said is also unnecessarily related, those are comment on the way by some key player, at no point they would represent the actual fighting on the ground. Eisenhower have already took the blame in case of D-day failure, and wrote a letter to the US public and took the blame for it before D-Day even started, does that mean D-Day will or had failed? Many commander, including me have opinion on or during any given battle. I have myself multiple time grunted on the fact that I was being dealt with a what I thought is undoable task. And at time I cursed at my commander, that does not mean anything.

Again, the different between me and you is, you start to look at a war or battle at the angle of a country perspective, trying to justify the action carried out, whether or not successful by the action appropriated to states., I am not saying what you did is wrong, I am simply saying I did not do that, I look at each conflict independently, I only look at the merit and fault of a battle. You want to justify any action is okay for me, just do not quote me and ask me about this type of "History"


----------



## The SC

jhungary said:


> I never said the context of war is never relevant. In fact, if you kindly try to remember the first post you quote me. I said to the OP on that post
> 
> "Do you want a tactical or political view on the subject", this is what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> In war studies, you can only discuss in one matter in one single term, you can either go tactically, strategically, or operationally.. That will give you a basis of comparison.
> 
> What you then reply to my post is try to use the ultimate strategic goal to justify what happened in the field, which is, in essence, useless. Let's put an example to use shall we? You said this.
> 
> 
> 
> Now operationally, this does not matter the Israeli, as stopping at that stage is a tactical error for the Egyptian, it matter not why Egyptian stopped, Even it's like you claim, the Egyptian does not understand how deep they fare in the opening engagement into the Sinai, *FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITHIN THEIR UNIT is still a tactical error by Egyptian side.*
> 
> You try to justified the tactical failure for the Egyptian by claiming they do not know how unopposed it is, it is a spinning of their mistake and trying to make an excuse for it.
> 
> Another issue for you is you then try to justify the whole war to put it in Egyptian don't want a total victories, they only want to get back what they lost in 67'. Point is, this is* AT BEST ARGUABLE, *and when we are talking about the Israel, this strategic goal does not applies as there are no way the Israeli will know whether or not the Egyptian start a war not to finish off the Israeli themselves or just to took back the Gaza Strip and Sinai. For them, Egyptian attacks them, they would have to be put into a mind that this is a fight to the finish.
> 
> What you claim Sharon or Golda said is also unnecessarily related, those are comment on the way by some key player, at no point they would represent the actual fighting on the ground. Eisenhower have already took the blame in case of D-day failure, and wrote a letter to the US public and took the blame for it before D-Day even started, does that mean D-Day will or had failed? Many commander, including me have opinion on or during any given battle. I have myself multiple time grunted on the fact that I was being dealt with a what I thought is undoable task. And at time I cursed at my commander, that does not mean anything.
> 
> Again, the different between me and you is, you start to look at a war or battle at the angle of a country perspective, trying to justify the action carried out, whether or not successful by the action appropriated to states., I am not saying what you did is wrong, I am simply saying I did not do that, I look at each conflict independently, I only look at the merit and fault of a battle. You want to justify any action is okay for me, just do not quote me and ask me about this type of "History"


 
About your red text:
That never happened, they had very good communication from top to bottom. The error was tactical, but the orders were political from Sadat himself, as many generals and mostly the planner of the whole campaign General Chazly opposed it with all his power , but since war is an extention of politics and diplomacy, the latter prevailed, because Sadat was negotiating the terms of ending the war with Kissinger, so politics took over very quickly after the first week or so of fighting.. A whole Egyptian armourd brigade was sacrified (sent out of its air defense cover) so Usrael can have a point of crossing (saving face)..
In short, tactics or even strategies of modern warfare are subject to politics..



Oscar said:


> Pre-73 and in the war, YES.. after that.. no.


They -the US- did not leave them there, they can send them anytime they want in case of war, otherwise why a nation so spoiled by the West did not test its warheads if it had them in the first place? my answer is that they can tap into the american arsenal if need be..


----------



## SQ8

The SC said:


> They -the US- did not leave them there, they can send them anytime they want in case of war, otherwise why a nation so spoiled by the West did not test its warheads if it had them in the first place? my answer is that they can tap into the american arsenal if need be..


No longer need to. The US supplied the nukes in the faith that they would have the authority over its release, but the Israelis saw their own interests and developed their own nukes using French and moles within the US nuclear program. There are many documented cases of the Israelis spying on the US for their own gains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

The SC said:


> About your red text:
> That never happened, *they had very good communication from top to bottom*. The error was tactical, but the orders were political from Sadat himself, as many generals and mostly the planner of the whole campaign General Chazly opposed it with all his power , but since war is an extention of politics and diplomacy, the latter prevailed, because Sadat was negotiating the terms of ending the war with Kissinger, so politics took over very quickly after the first week or so of fighting.. A whole Egyptian armourd brigade was sacrified (sent out of its air defense cover) so Usrael can have a point of crossing (saving face)..
> In short, tactics or even strategies of modern warfare are subject to politics..
> 
> 
> ..



lol, they had very good communication from top to bottom, yet Sadat does not know his troop had penetrated that far and ordered a halt....Do you even realise how contradicted what you said to one thing and the other??

Again, I do not care your "Save Face" theory, you cannot look at history objectively and I will have nothing to talk to you about, you can think what you want regarding the Egyptian action and try to justify it with your own theory. as long as you keep it to yourself..

Please do not quote me again. I am of no interest to discuss your kind of "history", this would be the last post with you on this.


----------



## The SC

hellfire said:


> Yes, I know that Israel initiated a violation of ceasefire.
> 
> Now seriously, be a nice guy and read the whole exchange and not quote a sub text of the whole sequence. Like I said to the member, am not sitting to discuss the capture of every 15 or 20 R and its importance and the victory or lack there of.
> 
> The crux is - Egypt did not win(as claimed by the quoted personalities), and failed to achieve their military objectives in overall aims as elucidated at the start of hostilities.
> 
> Now go and waste your time on 15 or 45 Rs with someone else.



I did read the whole exchange and found it of no value, the same as you answer here..If the ones who were directing that war on the Usreali side said they have lost it and you say otherwise, it means you are being emotional and extremist minded.. I am not surprized at all, most indians here are licking Usraeli A** for some innefective weapon systems, maybe India found out and now it turns to the US..



Oscar said:


> No longer need to. The US supplied the nukes in the faith that they would have the authority over its release, but the Israelis saw their own interests and developed their own nukes using French and moles within the US nuclear program. There are many documented cases of the Israelis spying on the US for their own gains.



Indeed even the theft of big quantities of weapon grade plutonium from US reseves!!! there is a bluff and then consolidating that bluff..



jhungary said:


> lol, they had very good communication from top to bottom, yet Sadat does not know his troop had penetrated that far and ordered a halt....Do you even realise how contradicted what you said to one thing and the other??
> 
> Again, I do not care your "Save Face" theory, you cannot look at history objectively and I will have nothing to talk to you about, you can think what you want regarding the Egyptian action and try to justify it with your own theory. as long as you keep it to yourself..
> 
> Please do not quote me again. I am of no interest to discuss your kind of "history", this would be the last post with you on this.


It is good for last post from me too because you seem a bit nervous, and extremist in your thoughts..
Egypt has planned a 15 km incursion into Sinai and all the troops stoped there, so communication was very good and those 15 kms were covered by SAM missiles, the rest I have told you in my previous post.


----------



## Hellfire

The SC said:


> I did read the whole exchange and found it of no value, the same as you answer here..



Then, why indeed, are you so keen in engaging me? Move along....!



The SC said:


> If the ones who were directing that war on the Usreali side said they have lost it and you say otherwise,



Says a man who posted a statement with out the reference being posted........

Yes, the Egyptian military achieved it's objectives of crossing over to the East Bank and then they lost their plot. They lost the initiative, I have said it earlier. But the subsequent actions when Egyptian forces post re-org and consolidation moved East in order to relieve the pressure on Syrians, was still a continuation of war.

What is war?

For arm chair 'experts'/ignorant 'professionals' like you (who may have served but slept in their Junior Commander's courses and totally lost the plot in Military History & Tactics):

_"We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance.

*War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.*

Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of states and law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed; and this is, correctly speaking, the real aim of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside in a manner as something not properly belonging to war"_

A revision for you!

While the Egyptians militarily lost the war as their aim was to wrest back control of the Sinai (as the breakthrough at the Great Bitter Lake was successfully exploited by Israel), in my first statement of this thread itself I had conceded that Sadat achieved his objective but paid dearly for it (in terms of his assassination). That is why when I said read everything and then speak, I meant for you to read it and see my response ALWAYS as an overall context.

Further revision for you:

_"The result in war is never absolute"_

_'even the final decision of a whole war is not always to be regarded as absolute. The conquered/defeated state often sees in it only a passing or transitory stage, a situation which may be repaired in after times by means of political combinations and new alliances/allegiances. How much this also must modify the degree of tension and the vigour of the efforts made is evident in itself'_

_Hence, the state (the defeated/conquered state) may use this modified tension or invigorated efforts to either proceed on a path of alternate actions e.g. of improvement in bilateral relations and accumulation of diplomatic currency; or it may proceed along a route of renewed hostility/antagonism._

My first post in reply to GiannKall #50 for your reference



hellfire said:


> The bold part: Wasn't a stalemate ... Israel was born, don't distort history.
> 
> 1956: The reversal of Suez blocking took place for commercial shipping as also Israel gained access to Tiran. The military victory was lost politically by Brits and French. Israelis got away with their objectives.
> 
> 1973: _It was Anwar al Saddat whose forces got stuck on the other side of the Suez inspite of being the one with initiative. And it was he, who took the initiative to bring peace to the Egypt Israeli equation ... a great but costly decision by him.
> 
> The aim of Egyptians in the war was to re-capture Sinai, and they failed._
> 
> Please first read Anwar Sadat's Biography .... to get your facts a bit in line




Now coming back to my statement here regarding 1973:

_"*The law of the extreme,* the view to disarm the adversary, to overthrow him, has hitherto to a certain extent usurped the place of this end or object (the political objective) Just as this law loses its force, the political object must again come forward. If the whole consideration is a calculation of probability based on definite persons and relations, then the political object, being the original motive, must be an essential factor in the product. The smaller the sacrifice we demand from our opponent, the smaller it may be expected will be the means of resistance which he will employ; but the smaller his are, the smaller will ours require to be. Further, the smaller our political object, the less value shall we set upon it, and the more easily shall we be induced to give it up altogether."_

Was the Egyptian effort a small political objective? (The recapture of Sinai to force Israel to negotiations?) One may argue on both sides of the point. However, the objective by itself is not small and was indeed, the principal aim of the whole exercise of war in 1973, the aim to ensure repossession of territories lost to Israel in 1967 war and also to achieve a political negotiation in order to bring about an end to hostilities between the two nations.
_



"Thus, therefore, the political object, as the original motive of the war, will be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force, and also the amount of effort to be made. This it cannot be in itself; but it is so in relation to both the belligerent states, because we are concerned with realities, not with mere abstractions. *One and the same political object may produce totally different effects upon different people, or even upon the same people at different times; we can, therefore, only admit the political object as the measure, by considering it in its effects upon those masses which it is to move, and consequently the nature of those masses also comes into consideration. It is easy to see that thus the result may be very different according as these masses are animated with a spirit which will infuse vigour into the action or otherwise.* It is quite possible for such a state of feeling to exist between two states that a very trifling political motive for war may produce an effect quite disproportionate, in fact, a perfect explosion."_

The statement you have quoted of the Israeli 'commanders' is the result of this ambiguity of the situation. For the Israelis, the shock of loosing Bar-Lev line and the significant losses they incurred in the subsequent failed counter attack to stabilise their position, was an immense shock to the military and national psyche, who had believed in their own invincibility in the aftermath of 1967. The precision with which the Egyptian armies crossed the Suez and the ingenuity of the Engineering efforts in facilitating the same, was an eye opener for the complacent and confident Israeli commander.

"_This applies to the efforts which the political object will call forth in the two states, and to the aim which the military action shall prescribe for itself. At times it may itself be that aim, as for example the conquest of a province. At other times, the political object itself is not suitable for the aim of military action; then such a one must be chosen as will be an equivalent for it, and stand in its place as regards the conclusion of peace. But, also, in this, due attention to the peculiar character of the states concerned is always supposed. There are circumstances in which the equivalent must be much greater than the political object in order to secure the latter. The political object will be so much the more the standard of aim and effort, and have more influence in itself, the more the masses are indifferent, the less that any mutual feeling of hostility prevails in the two states from other causes, and, therefore, there are cases where the political object almost alone will be decisive"_

Here, the political objective was repossessing the lost territories. The military objective was formulated with the same being he principal objective. Hence, the immense pressure on Sadat to continue offensive operations against his better judgement. That the precarious situation on Syrian front demanded the action need not be underscored. However, the political action of only capturing the Suez was made redundant with the Israeli counter-attack and thence the military objectives converged as one with the overall political objective of repossessing the Sinai.

One can argue that the political aim of Sadat was limited to capture of Suez, but that in itself is a travesty as the political aim was always to repossess the Sinai.

_"If the aim of the military action is an equivalent for the political object, that action will in general diminish as the political object diminishes, and that in a greater degree the more the political object dominates; and so is explained how, without any contradiction in itself, there may be wars of all degrees of importance and energy, from a war of extermination, down to the mere use of an army of observation."_

There is your final explanation. I hope you can now co-relate.


Now coming to your specifics about the third army:

_"AS THINGS FELL APART TO THE NORTH, SADAT felt compelled to order an offensive and press deeper into the Sinai. Shazly, his chief of staff, and other top generals fiercely opposed this move. They remembered how Israeli planes had devastated Arab ground forces in the 1967 war, and they did not want to move the army from under its missile shield. Yet on October 14, as many as 1,000 Egyptian tanks and several mechanized brigades rumbled forward. The targets were two gateways into Israel: the mountain passes at Mitla and Giddi, both at least 30 miles east of the Suez.

This thrust was met by air strikes as well as some 800 tanks led by heroes of Israel’s previous wars—General Avraham Adan and Major General Sharon. The two armored divisions outflanked the Egyptian units and ripped into them, destroying 265 tanks and at least 200 other vehicles. In contrast, only 40 Israeli tanks suffered damage, most of it minor. Worse for the Egyptians, the Israeli assault opened a chink in their lines along the Great Bitter Lake, which lay north of the Gulf of Suez. Adan and Sharon pounced and launched a counteroffensive to bridge the Suez Canal and divide the Egyptian Second and Third Armies on the west bank. Sharon was to boldly move his forces across the canal and push the Second Army north, establishing a corridor for Adan’s men to cross and wheel south, where they would destroy SAM missile launch sites and hit the Egyptian Third Army from the rear.

On October 15 and 16, Sharon’s 143rd Reserve Armored Division crossed the canal on pontoon bridges and established a bridgehead. The Israelis also raced southeast on the Sinai, slamming into the Egyptians concentrated in an area known as the Chinese Farm.


The fighting here was fierce. For four days the Egyptians fought the Israelis off from behind well-prepared defenses but Adan crushed their counterattacks. The Egyptian 25th Armored Brigade, for instance, lost its entire force of armored personnel carriers and 85 of its 96 T-62s while destroying only three IDF tanks.

On October 17 or 18, Soviet officials showed Sadat and General Ahmad Ismail Ali, his war minister, satellite pictures of the expanding bridgehead that Sharon had established on the west bank of the Suez. General Shazly recommended pulling back four armored units from the Sinai to counter the threat. But Sadat, calculating the political need to hang on to Egyptian gains, ruled against a withdrawal.

Three days later, with the Israeli threat deepening, Sadat finally pushed for an end to the war. “I knew my capabilities,” he said later, noting the American aid to Israel. “I did not intend to fight the entire United States of America.” Kissinger flew to Moscow, where he and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire.

Although Egyptian and Israeli officials accepted the truce, fighting continued. The IDF sensed a crushing victory and marched on. Having crossed the Suez through the corridor that Sharon had established, General Adan and his 200 or so tanks raced south, destroying SAM sites and enveloping the 45,000-man Egyptian Third Army.

Some Israelis wanted to destroy the force, which was cut off from food and water supplies. Sadat requested U.S. and Soviet troops to enforce the cease-fire, shrewdly drawing the two superpowers into the fray. When the Americans hesitated, Brezhnev signaled that the Soviet Union was willing to act unilaterally—a message that the United States interpreted as major threat. Kissinger and a special crisis-management team within the White House held an emergency meeting and raised U.S. military forces from Defense Readiness Condition 4 to 3 for the first time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Ultimately, diplomacy defused the situation, but it was one of the Cold War’s most dangerous moments.

On October 28, Israel, under pressure from the United States, agreed to allow the Egyptians to deliver food and medical supplies to the trapped Third Army. The next day, Syria stopped fighting. A couple of weeks later, on November 11, Egypt and Israel agreed to a cease-fire drafted by Sadat and Kissinger."
_
Some resources:

http://www.liquisearch.com/yom_kippur_war/combat_operations/in_the_sinai/egypts_trapped_third_army

Then you can have another view point like this; makes sense too:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/

I am sure you can find all sorts of views floating and indeed may be having the minimal faculties to make informed judgement.

But on PDF, I think that as a military professional/history buff, one has to analyse war for the facts as stated factually and and as available.

For example, despite the official line of India (which is parroted by 99% of Indian members here that 1962 war was thrust upon India by China, I love to take them to task over the incorrect information and indeed dissemination of falsehood. The conflict began with Indian troops moving across Macmahon line in Arunachal or NEFA of the time; something which our official narrative buries in a footnote).

So as a whole:

Aim of Sadat: To reclaim Sinai. Achieved

Aim of Sadat in 1973: To militarily force Israel to negotiate after wresting Sinai - not achieved. A military defeat as even the minimal aim of capture of Suez (not merely capture but you have to hold the territory too to qualify as a success in your war objectives) - not achieved. So Yom Kippur was a failure for them.

Aim of Israel: To legitimise itself as a state. Achieved. 1978 Camp David accord afforded this. So Israelis achieved their target to.

End result if only political objectives are looked at? A stalemate.

But if you look at the political objectives from the specific viewpoint of initiation of hostilities in 1973, failed; militarily lost the war.




The SC said:


> it means you are being emotional and extremist minded.



No, it means you are sufficiently challenged to appreciate the information as

a. You are merely an enthusiast (or a fanboy; depending on how you look at it) having no clue about the art of war or indeed war fighting.

b. In case you are indeed a veteran, you have poor understanding of subjects as relevant to basic military instructorial course and may have fared poorly on them (am not presuming you are)

c. Or you may just be out to have some fun ....!




The SC said:


> I am not surprized at all, most indians here are licking Usraeli A** for some innefective weapon systems, maybe India found out and now it turns to the US..



I am surprised that such a low level of comment is coming from you now .....

I am left with no words except that sometimes it is better to lick A$s than have someone shaft you for their benevolence (and get into the habit of getting shafted and enjoying it), which your original country seems to have developed!!!

You take care and note that not all people appreciate a crude sense of humour.

Thanks.



@Joe Shearer This is the gentleman who has started the thread about the Indian army conventional superiority over Pakistani army being exaggerated and has given outdated and lopsided view in them.


----------



## jhungary

hellfire said:


> Then, why indeed, are you so keen in engaging me? Move along....!
> 
> 
> 
> Says a man who posted a statement with out the reference being posted........
> 
> Yes, the Egyptian military achieved it's objectives of crossing over to the East Bank and then they lost their plot. They lost the initiative, I have said it earlier. But the subsequent actions when Egyptian forces post re-org and consolidation moved East in order to relieve the pressure on Syrians, was still a continuation of war.
> 
> What is war?
> 
> For arm chair 'experts'/ignorant 'professionals' like you (who may have served but slept in their Junior Commander's courses and totally lost the plot in Military History & Tactics):
> 
> _"We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance.
> 
> *War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.*
> 
> Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of states and law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed; and this is, correctly speaking, the real aim of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside in a manner as something not properly belonging to war"_
> 
> A revision for you!
> 
> While the Egyptians militarily lost the war as their aim was to wrest back control of the Sinai (as the breakthrough at the Great Bitter Lake was successfully exploited by Israel), in my first statement of this thread itself I had conceded that Sadat achieved his objective but paid dearly for it (in terms of his assassination). That is why when I said read everything and then speak, I meant for you to read it and see my response ALWAYS as an overall context.
> 
> Further revision for you:
> 
> _"The result in war is never absolute"_
> 
> _'even the final decision of a whole war is not always to be regarded as absolute. The conquered/defeated state often sees in it only a passing or transitory stage, a situation which may be repaired in after times by means of political combinations and new alliances/allegiances. How much this also must modify the degree of tension and the vigour of the efforts made is evident in itself'_
> 
> _Hence, the state (the defeated/conquered state) may use this modified tension or invigorated efforts to either proceed on a path of alternate actions e.g. of improvement in bilateral relations and accumulation of diplomatic currency; or it may proceed along a route of renewed hostility/antagonism._
> 
> My first post in reply to GiannKall #50 for your reference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now coming back to my statement here regarding 1973:
> 
> _"*The law of the extreme,* the view to disarm the adversary, to overthrow him, has hitherto to a certain extent usurped the place of this end or object (the political objective) Just as this law loses its force, the political object must again come forward. If the whole consideration is a calculation of probability based on definite persons and relations, then the political object, being the original motive, must be an essential factor in the product. The smaller the sacrifice we demand from our opponent, the smaller it may be expected will be the means of resistance which he will employ; but the smaller his are, the smaller will ours require to be. Further, the smaller our political object, the less value shall we set upon it, and the more easily shall we be induced to give it up altogether."_
> 
> Was the Egyptian effort a small political objective? (The recapture of Sinai to force Israel to negotiations?) One may argue on both sides of the point. However, the objective by itself is not small and was indeed, the principal aim of the whole exercise of war in 1973, the aim to ensure repossession of territories lost to Israel in 1967 war and also to achieve a political negotiation in order to bring about an end to hostilities between the two nations.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "Thus, therefore, the political object, as the original motive of the war, will be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force, and also the amount of effort to be made. This it cannot be in itself; but it is so in relation to both the belligerent states, because we are concerned with realities, not with mere abstractions. *One and the same political object may produce totally different effects upon different people, or even upon the same people at different times; we can, therefore, only admit the political object as the measure, by considering it in its effects upon those masses which it is to move, and consequently the nature of those masses also comes into consideration. It is easy to see that thus the result may be very different according as these masses are animated with a spirit which will infuse vigour into the action or otherwise.* It is quite possible for such a state of feeling to exist between two states that a very trifling political motive for war may produce an effect quite disproportionate, in fact, a perfect explosion."_
> 
> The statement you have quoted of the Israeli 'commanders' is the result of this ambiguity of the situation. For the Israelis, the shock of loosing Bar-Lev line and the significant losses they incurred in the subsequent failed counter attack to stabilise their position, was an immense shock to the military and national psyche, who had believed in their own invincibility in the aftermath of 1967. The precision with which the Egyptian armies crossed the Suez and the ingenuity of the Engineering efforts in facilitating the same, was an eye opener for the complacent and confident Israeli commander.
> 
> "_This applies to the efforts which the political object will call forth in the two states, and to the aim which the military action shall prescribe for itself. At times it may itself be that aim, as for example the conquest of a province. At other times, the political object itself is not suitable for the aim of military action; then such a one must be chosen as will be an equivalent for it, and stand in its place as regards the conclusion of peace. But, also, in this, due attention to the peculiar character of the states concerned is always supposed. There are circumstances in which the equivalent must be much greater than the political object in order to secure the latter. The political object will be so much the more the standard of aim and effort, and have more influence in itself, the more the masses are indifferent, the less that any mutual feeling of hostility prevails in the two states from other causes, and, therefore, there are cases where the political object almost alone will be decisive"_
> 
> Here, the political objective was repossessing the lost territories. The military objective was formulated with the same being he principal objective. Hence, the immense pressure on Sadat to continue offensive operations against his better judgement. That the precarious situation on Syrian front demanded the action need not be underscored. However, the political action of only capturing the Suez was made redundant with the Israeli counter-attack and thence the military objectives converged as one with the overall political objective of repossessing the Sinai.
> 
> One can argue that the political aim of Sadat was limited to capture of Suez, but that in itself is a travesty as the political aim was always to repossess the Sinai.
> 
> _"If the aim of the military action is an equivalent for the political object, that action will in general diminish as the political object diminishes, and that in a greater degree the more the political object dominates; and so is explained how, without any contradiction in itself, there may be wars of all degrees of importance and energy, from a war of extermination, down to the mere use of an army of observation."_
> 
> There is your final explanation. I hope you can now co-relate.
> 
> 
> Now coming to your specifics about the third army:
> 
> _"AS THINGS FELL APART TO THE NORTH, SADAT felt compelled to order an offensive and press deeper into the Sinai. Shazly, his chief of staff, and other top generals fiercely opposed this move. They remembered how Israeli planes had devastated Arab ground forces in the 1967 war, and they did not want to move the army from under its missile shield. Yet on October 14, as many as 1,000 Egyptian tanks and several mechanized brigades rumbled forward. The targets were two gateways into Israel: the mountain passes at Mitla and Giddi, both at least 30 miles east of the Suez.
> 
> This thrust was met by air strikes as well as some 800 tanks led by heroes of Israel’s previous wars—General Avraham Adan and Major General Sharon. The two armored divisions outflanked the Egyptian units and ripped into them, destroying 265 tanks and at least 200 other vehicles. In contrast, only 40 Israeli tanks suffered damage, most of it minor. Worse for the Egyptians, the Israeli assault opened a chink in their lines along the Great Bitter Lake, which lay north of the Gulf of Suez. Adan and Sharon pounced and launched a counteroffensive to bridge the Suez Canal and divide the Egyptian Second and Third Armies on the west bank. Sharon was to boldly move his forces across the canal and push the Second Army north, establishing a corridor for Adan’s men to cross and wheel south, where they would destroy SAM missile launch sites and hit the Egyptian Third Army from the rear.
> 
> On October 15 and 16, Sharon’s 143rd Reserve Armored Division crossed the canal on pontoon bridges and established a bridgehead. The Israelis also raced southeast on the Sinai, slamming into the Egyptians concentrated in an area known as the Chinese Farm.
> 
> 
> The fighting here was fierce. For four days the Egyptians fought the Israelis off from behind well-prepared defenses but Adan crushed their counterattacks. The Egyptian 25th Armored Brigade, for instance, lost its entire force of armored personnel carriers and 85 of its 96 T-62s while destroying only three IDF tanks.
> 
> On October 17 or 18, Soviet officials showed Sadat and General Ahmad Ismail Ali, his war minister, satellite pictures of the expanding bridgehead that Sharon had established on the west bank of the Suez. General Shazly recommended pulling back four armored units from the Sinai to counter the threat. But Sadat, calculating the political need to hang on to Egyptian gains, ruled against a withdrawal.
> 
> Three days later, with the Israeli threat deepening, Sadat finally pushed for an end to the war. “I knew my capabilities,” he said later, noting the American aid to Israel. “I did not intend to fight the entire United States of America.” Kissinger flew to Moscow, where he and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire.
> 
> Although Egyptian and Israeli officials accepted the truce, fighting continued. The IDF sensed a crushing victory and marched on. Having crossed the Suez through the corridor that Sharon had established, General Adan and his 200 or so tanks raced south, destroying SAM sites and enveloping the 45,000-man Egyptian Third Army.
> 
> Some Israelis wanted to destroy the force, which was cut off from food and water supplies. Sadat requested U.S. and Soviet troops to enforce the cease-fire, shrewdly drawing the two superpowers into the fray. When the Americans hesitated, Brezhnev signaled that the Soviet Union was willing to act unilaterally—a message that the United States interpreted as major threat. Kissinger and a special crisis-management team within the White House held an emergency meeting and raised U.S. military forces from Defense Readiness Condition 4 to 3 for the first time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Ultimately, diplomacy defused the situation, but it was one of the Cold War’s most dangerous moments.
> 
> On October 28, Israel, under pressure from the United States, agreed to allow the Egyptians to deliver food and medical supplies to the trapped Third Army. The next day, Syria stopped fighting. A couple of weeks later, on November 11, Egypt and Israel agreed to a cease-fire drafted by Sadat and Kissinger."
> _
> Some resources:
> 
> http://www.liquisearch.com/yom_kippur_war/combat_operations/in_the_sinai/egypts_trapped_third_army
> 
> Then you can have another view point like this; makes sense too:
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/
> 
> I am sure you can find all sorts of views floating and indeed may be having the minimal faculties to make informed judgement.
> 
> But on PDF, I think that as a military professional/history buff, one has to analyse war for the facts as stated factually and and as available.
> 
> For example, despite the official line of India (which is parroted by 99% of Indian members here that 1962 war was thrust upon India by China, I love to take them to task over the incorrect information and indeed dissemination of falsehood. The conflict began with Indian troops moving across Macmahon line in Arunachal or NEFA of the time; something which our official narrative buries in a footnote).
> 
> So as a whole:
> 
> Aim of Sadat: To reclaim Sinai. Achieved
> 
> Aim of Sadat in 1973: To militarily force Israel to negotiate after wresting Sinai - not achieved. A military defeat as even the minimal aim of capture of Suez (not merely capture but you have to hold the territory too to qualify as a success in your war objectives) - not achieved. So Yom Kippur was a failure for them.
> 
> Aim of Israel: To legitimise itself as a state. Achieved. 1978 Camp David accord afforded this. So Israelis achieved their target to.
> 
> End result if only political objectives are looked at? A stalemate.
> 
> But if you look at the political objectives from the specific viewpoint of initiation of hostilities in 1973, failed; militarily lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means you are sufficiently challenged to appreciate the information as
> 
> a. You are merely an enthusiast (or a fanboy; depending on how you look at it) having no clue about the art of war or indeed war fighting.
> 
> b. In case you are indeed a veteran, you have poor understanding of subjects as relevant to basic military instructorial course and may have fared poorly on them (am not presuming you are)
> 
> c. Or you may just be out to have some fun ....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised that such a low level of comment is coming from you now .....
> 
> I am left with no words except that sometimes it is better to lick A$s than have someone shaft you for their benevolence (and get into the habit of getting shafted and enjoying it), which your original country seems to have developed!!!
> 
> You take care and note that not all people appreciate a crude sense of humour.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> @Joe Shearer This is the gentleman who has started the thread about the Indian army conventional superiority over Pakistani army being exaggerated and has given outdated and lopsided view in them.



If I were you, I would not engage with this gentlemen anymore,

He said some of the craziest stuff and then called me an extremist for simply looking up the event without impartial judgement. He is a defender of arab, hence all his view are biased, and if you keep arguing with him, it just went straight into a wall.

You can go with him about 100 post and not going anywhere, because for him, Egyptian did not lose that war, the Egyptian won and just let about 24,000 people die and capture just so Israel can save face lol is what he believe and nothing will change him from deviate from that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

jhungary said:


> If I were you, I would not engage with this gentlemen anymore,
> 
> He said some of the craziest stuff and then called me an extremist for simply looking up the event without impartial judgement. He is a defender of arab, hence all his view are biased, and if you keep arguing with him, it just went straight into a wall.
> 
> You can go with him about 100 post and not going anywhere, because for him, Egyptian did not lose that war, the Egyptian won and just let about 24,000 people die and capture just so Israel can save face lol is what he believe and nothing will change him from deviate from that.



Absolutely, I saw his points against your post and understood ... had some spare time to chart out a long rebuttal to him, so I did .... for a few others

I was avoiding him. He has made a thread where he has actually posted nonsense and tried to justify it, but then the majority here is composed of those who keep publishing the nonsense and will argue over it. That is why you will see my posts are very few.

Unfortunately there are people supposedly professionals who have also got into it ...!! There is one particular member who is professing usage of Enhanced Radiation Weapons at the smallest point .....lol


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

Enough with this thread!
Many of you still want to believe that Egypt was defeated back in 1973 as if Israel still occupying Sinai!
or that Israel left Sinai as a result of its desire to world peace!
Not iron and fire that compelled USA-Israel to go back pre 1967

The irony in pro-Israel posts here reminds me of what Israeli government had to say after withdrawing from Southern Lebanon back in 2000 and what Hezbollah said as a response to those lies .. I do remember the exact words from both sides though 16 years have passed since then!

Interesting is the way how rivals and different parts see things and facts! 

Anyway, Just wanna share the image of the EAF 2016






MIRAGE2000
F16 block52
RAFALE
MIG35
SU35 ...
......

A huge progress post 73 war and since ever actually

Can't wait to see what Egyptian falcons gonna do with the new Russian-origin Mig-35, Su-35
Just the previous video I posted here re. EAF Mig-21 vs IAF mirage-5 during 73 war give us a clear glimpse

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

jhungary said:


> If I were you, I would not engage with this gentlemen anymore,
> 
> He said some of the craziest stuff and then called me an extremist for simply looking up the event without impartial judgement. He is a defender of arab, hence all his view are biased, and if you keep arguing with him, it just went straight into a wall.
> 
> You can go with him about 100 post and not going anywhere, because for him, Egyptian did not lose that war, the Egyptian won and just let about 24,000 people die and capture just so Israel can save face lol is what he believe and nothing will change him from deviate from that.



I actually agree with you Sir, no point in engaging @hellfire as our friend has put out some very wild theories. 

1973 was an Egyptian defeat by every standards. They failed to accomplish their objectives, the Egyptian Third Army was completely encircled and blocked off from any supplies and the road to Cairo was wide open for an Israeli Armored Assault. The Egyptians failed to build on the momentum they gained in their initial assault, which was quite good in my opinion and their golden moment was smashing the counterattack by the IDF 162nd Division. But than again, when they left the safety of their SAM Umbrellas they were rightly smashed by the IDF and IDAF from every direction. I don't know how Egyptians can claim a victory when they were at the mercy of the Israelis by the end of this war.

Another point i would like to make, which i believe nobody is talking about is the role of the Soviets. I strongly believe the Soviet threats played a bigger role in reigning in the Israelis than the Americans. The Soviets practically forced the Israelis to halt their advance and blackmailed them to let food/medical aid pass through to the Encircled Egyptian Army. The Soviets made their threats very clear when they placed their Airborne Divisions on Alert, and started moving Transport Aircraft to deploy these troops in the region, and on top of that deployed Naval Assets in the Mediterranean with authorization to Open Fire. This was by far the biggest threat to the Israelis, and rightly so they complied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

notorious_eagle said:


> Another point i would like to make, which i believe nobody is talking about is the role of the Soviets. I strongly believe the Soviet threats played a bigger role in reigning in the Israelis than the Americans. The Soviets practically forced the Israelis to halt their advance and blackmailed them to let food/medical aid pass through to the Encircled Egyptian Army. The Soviets made their threats very clear when they placed their Airborne Divisions on Alert, and started moving Transport Aircraft to deploy these troops in the region, and on top of that deployed Naval Assets in the Mediterranean with authorization to Open Fire. This was by far the biggest threat to the Israelis, and rightly so they complied.



Yes. I have given the link on this in resources which emphasizes the point about Soviet threat of unilateral action which spurred americans. Am too lazy to write and cant spend much time here.... if had the time would have asked you how to be a registered professional here in the forum

I was teaching him war strategy and quoting Clausewitz and using it in Egyptian context on political level lol ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

hellfire said:


> Absolutely, I saw his points against your post and understood ... had some spare time to chart out a long rebuttal to him, so I did .... for a few others
> 
> I was avoiding him. He has made a thread where he has actually posted nonsense and tried to justify it, but then the majority here is composed of those who keep publishing the nonsense and will argue over it. That is why you will see my posts are very few.
> 
> Unfortunately there are people supposedly professionals who have also got into it ...!! There is one particular member who is professing usage of Enhanced Radiation Weapons at the smallest point .....lol



Well, I do love a good argument based on historical facts and actual investigation of the incident, as I said to the other member, I have engage with productive argument to my friend, serving member and also folks here on PDF once in a while just to improve my knowledge, however, what I would absolutely not do is to have these type of argument to people see things solely on a certain perspective.

I have encounter these type of folks wherever I go, they tend to see thing a bit different than we do. I think it's okay to love your own country, but to set things up into that perspective is not necessary good to your own people, cos sometime people need to learn from their mistake, and if we start making excuse for what went wrong behind the scene, then we would be forever staying that place.

In short, let him immerse in his own world, we should better use our time than to go on and on with those people 



notorious_eagle said:


> I actually agree with you Sir, no point in engaging @hellfire as our friend has put out some very wild theories.
> 
> 1973 was an Egyptian defeat by every standards. They failed to accomplish their objectives, the Egyptian Third Army was completely encircled and blocked off from any supplies and the road to Cairo was wide open for an Israeli Armored Assault. The Egyptians failed to build on the momentum they gained in their initial assault, which was quite good in my opinion and their golden moment was smashing the counterattack by the IDF 162nd Division. But than again, when they left the safety of their SAM Umbrellas they were rightly smashed by the IDF and IDAF from every direction. I don't know how Egyptians can claim a victory when they were at the mercy of the Israelis by the end of this war.
> 
> Another point i would like to make, which i believe nobody is talking about is the role of the Soviets. I strongly believe the Soviet threats played a bigger role in reigning in the Israelis than the Americans. The Soviets practically forced the Israelis to halt their advance and blackmailed them to let food/medical aid pass through to the Encircled Egyptian Army. The Soviets made their threats very clear when they placed their Airborne Divisions on Alert, and started moving Transport Aircraft to deploy these troops in the region, and on top of that deployed Naval Assets in the Mediterranean with authorization to Open Fire. This was by far the biggest threat to the Israelis, and rightly so they complied.



Quite right........

Another point I want to point out is that I actually saw the Egyptian have the command ability and level of organisation to overwhelm the Israeli. Many people say the Israeli leadership and command ability is a lot better than Egyptian, but I think this has not done the Egyptian justice, don't forget, they had their initial success early on with the war. The campaign is actually going smoothly against Israeli counterattacks, That in itself is a merit.

I am not going to say the Egyptian leadership is superior than the Israeli like someone claim here, but the leadership and unit command have been improved extraordinately since the 67 war. What let the Egyptian down is that the few faithful decision that the Egyptian high command made that basically seal the faith of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 19887

The SC said:


> Egyptians are very smart people, Sadat himself said after the war that he can fight and defeat Usrael on its own - with proof; taking the Barlev line- but can not fight the US.. So what to do? Usrael had the totall full support of the US like if it was a US state, so better make peace, which was the aim from the beginning and without war, if Sinai was given back..then it took war, because the Usraelis were too arrogant and refused every peaceful attempt to let go of the Sinai, at the end of it Egypt Egypt gained much more than the Sinai Pininsula, it Got Billions of Dollars worth of aids and sophisticated American weapons and systems that were like some value plus for becoming American friends.
> 
> The other Arab states did not want to split Palestinian territories between them, it was a trap and they were aware of it.


Wtf man???
So many things wrong in one response
And you absolutely believe it, dude you're hallucinating!


----------



## The SC

A general question:

Why would Usrael treaten to use nuclear weapons if it was winning the war? 
Since everyone knows it is the last resort of a nation and its armed forces on the brink of defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 19887

The SC said:


> A general question:
> 
> Why would Usrael treaten to use nuclear weapons if it was winning the war?
> Since everyone knows it is the last resort of a nation and its armed forces on the brink of defeat.


They exposed the nuclear missiles to American satellite,
So that the Americans stop the embargo they imposed on Israel and send them the weapons they bought.
The same americans who said to israel to avoid from launching a preemptive attack,even the israelis knew that the arabs were planned an attack,the same americans who said to israel to avoid from raising reserve......
usrael hhhhh


----------



## The SC

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!..............................................................................................................................

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amun

notorious_eagle said:


> I actually agree with you Sir, no point in engaging @hellfire as our friend has put out some very wild theories.
> 
> 1973 was an Egyptian defeat by every standards. They failed to accomplish their objectives, the Egyptian Third Army was completely encircled and blocked off from any supplies and the road to Cairo was wide open for an Israeli Armored Assault. The Egyptians failed to build on the momentum they gained in their initial assault, which was quite good in my opinion and their golden moment was smashing the counterattack by the IDF 162nd Division. But than again, when they left the safety of their SAM Umbrellas they were rightly smashed by the IDF and IDAF from every direction. I don't know how Egyptians can claim a victory when they were at the mercy of the Israelis by the end of this war.
> 
> Another point i would like to make, which i believe nobody is talking about is the role of the Soviets. I strongly believe the Soviet threats played a bigger role in reigning in the Israelis than the Americans. The Soviets practically forced the Israelis to halt their advance and blackmailed them to let food/medical aid pass through to the Encircled Egyptian Army. The Soviets made their threats very clear when they placed their Airborne Divisions on Alert, and started moving Transport Aircraft to deploy these troops in the region, and on top of that deployed Naval Assets in the Mediterranean with authorization to Open Fire. This was by far the biggest threat to the Israelis, and rightly so they complied.


Hey mister THINK TANK.....my grandfather was in Suez during Israeli trial to invade it.....they get into their own stallengrad.....Every building,stone,tree or even the Air they breath ..... Attacked them .... Finally they failed to enter Suez....after their failure of approaching Ismaelia in the north.
The Israeli forces tried to surround 3rd Army...are surrounded as well.
The First photo for Israeli soldiers raising high the photo of Anwar Sadat after he saved their lives after agreeing on ceasefire.
As you know as a THINK TANK if you read Any Reliable source or even neutral source about October War....you will know about SHAMEL plan that was set by Egyptian leaders to destroy the Israeli forces west the canal....also if you read what Sadat wrote in his diary that he told Kessenger (US minister of foreign affairs) that he will bomb Suez and the area including Israli and Egyptian forces to smash and destroy them all Egyptians and Israeli.....Kessenger said US will not allow that to happen.

About their road that opened to Cairo...do you know what are you talking about....Israelis are more smart than that....they will not step in a foot near Cairo as they know its population and they will sink to their knees (that if your words are true that their is no forces on their way to Cairo which is not true) The republican guards are all in Cairo and they equal the 3rd Army with more sophisticated weapons......there are also 400 Tanks Egypt get by Algeian money just outside Suez....also there was other Arabic forces.

Also you have to know why Egyptains Moved outside the safety of SAM umbrella .... It was to decrease the pressure on Syrian forces in Golan Hieghts.

About the support of super powers...
Do you know about that plan in the photo....google it.....and you will know that it belongs to US and flied all over the canal front and supplied the image to your beloved Israel so they know about the gap between 2nd and 3rd army....and there was no Air defense in Egypt can shoot it down at that time.

Finally Egypt get what it want....we want our land back...and we get it...and as you know Israel is not a charity org. For lands they occupy.
Another Image for Egyptian chelderns playing over a destroyed Israeli tank...I did that my self on the top of Israli tanks destroyed out side Suez.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

@ the OP
Read this, it is a great summary and a good read for anyone interested in military science and strategy.
Maybe the title of the thread should be changed afterward:

THE CROSSING OF THE SUEZ CANAL, OCTOBER 6,1973
(THE RAMADAN WAR)
BY
BG HAMDY SOBHY ABOUSEADA
Egyptian Army
I DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Approved for Public Release.
Distribution is Unlimited.
USAWC CLASS of 2000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

Amun said:


> .



The Lockheed* SR-71 "Blackbird*" 
A Secret mission by a U.S. Air Force SR-71 during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. It was written by Col. Jim Wilson, a former Blackbird pilot who has written self-biography titled “SR-71 Mission to the Middle East”.
https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/01/declassified-sr-71-mix/

Egypt and Arab didn't fight Israel forces alone since Israel hasn't never been alone during its conflicts vs Arab.

It seems that many here have never heard about it before!
Neither heard about *Operation Nickel Grass




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass
*




A new American tank cut only 220 km only in Sinai captured by Egyptian troops.


Also, They probably never heard about The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (*OAPEC*, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an *oil embargo*. 

Which by the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."








But of course, many idiots want to believe that Arab can't fight neither win and they just take what western powers accept to give!





EAF vs IAF

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beny Karachun

litman said:


> poor training of arabs and full US support for israel


Arabs were trained by the USSR and even North Korea

Israel was not backed at all by the US in 1967, neither it was fully supported in 73.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> The Lockheed* SR-71 "Blackbird*"
> A Secret mission by a U.S. Air Force SR-71 during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. It was written by Col. Jim Wilson, a former Blackbird pilot who has written self-biography titled “SR-71 Mission to the Middle East”.
> https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/01/declassified-sr-71-mix/
> 
> Egypt and Arab didn't fight Israel forces alone since Israel hasn't never been alone during its conflicts vs Arab.
> 
> It seems that many here have never heard about it before!
> Neither heard about *Operation Nickel Grass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new American tank cut only 220 km only in Sinai captured by Egyptian troops.
> 
> 
> Also, They probably never heard about The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (*OAPEC*, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an *oil embargo*.
> 
> Which by the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy. It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course, many idiots want to believe that Arab can't fight neither win and they just take what western powers accept to give!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EAF vs IAF



Wow! one picture of Israeli jet downed against over 500. very nice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arthur

"Decisively lost" will be a more apt choice of words I think!


----------



## jamal18

If you people really want to know about the war, read the Ramadan war by gen. Gamasy. He was the Egyptian chief of operations during the war. He also covers the six day war.

Instead of the comics the western press put out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel was not backed at all by the US in 1967, neither it was fully supported in 73..



Hahah .. yeah right!
Even with the added links!
Don't let me even start with Henry Kissinger's role during the conflict



Beny Karachun said:


> Wow! one picture of Israeli jet downed against over 500. very nice.



It seems that this photo hurt your feeling!
Actually there are many pictures you know that ..
And everyone knows that Most of IAF victoris over EAF especially in 1967 happened while Egyptian aricrafts were on ground!
5/6/1967 was our "peral harbour in ww2"!





What matters what happened next ..
It was quiet an achievments that EAF went through a massive construction program to build new air bases in order to increase its survivability. The EAF was the first branch of the Egyptian armed forces to achieve full combat readiness in short time.

It was quiet an achievments what EAF manged to accopmlish with low graded aircrafts vs more advanced ones
We were the ones who shot down Mirage-3 and F-4 phantom by just Mig-21

The IAF did not operate freely and did not have complete air supremacy it enjoyed during the previous conflict, the 1967 war. Egyptian MiGs were used with better efficiency than before which included the tactics and lessons learned from the 1967 war.

Do not underestimate other's accomplishments since learing from your mistakes makes you better .
It was during this war that the EAF applied the lessons it earlier learnt from the Israelis. A 32-year-old deputy MiG-21 regiment commander who has been flying since he was 15 recalls: "During the war of attrition, the Israeli air force had a favorite ambush tactic", he told Aviation Week and Space Technology. "They would penetrate with two aircraft at medium altitude where they would be quickly picked up by radar, We would scramble four or eight to attack them. But they had another dozen fighters trailing at extremely low altitude below radar coverage. As we climbed to the attack they would zoom up behind and surprise us. My regiment lost MiGs to this ambush tactic three times. But we learned the lesson and practiced the same tactics. In the final fights over Deversoir, we ambushed some Mirages the same way, and my own 'finger four' formation shot down four Mirages with the loss of one MiG.





Israeli Mirage III shot down by Egyptian MiG-21 during October war

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

I think it is everything to do with the Isreali spirit and will being stronger and feeling nobler than the Arabs. 
Add to that the fact , which is still true today, the Israelis are smarter and more innovative than almost all other races, especially the Arabs. Look at how many innovations and inventions Israelis accomplished and accomplish. And it cannot be denied that Israelis learnt and improved structural organization from Americans as well.


----------



## Solomon2

jamal18 said:


> If you people really want to know about the war, read the Ramadan war by gen. Gamasy. He was the Egyptian chief of operations -


Did you read his book? Can you point to where Gamasy wrote objectively about his own failures?


----------



## Solomon2

Khan saheb said:


> "Decisively lost" will be a more apt choice of words I think!








“When we celebrate the birthday of Mohammad next, not only Sinai but Jerusalem too will be liberated, and the Israelis reduced to the abasement and submissiveness decreed for them” - President Anwar Sadat, 1972.

[Muslim dictators, from left to right: Hafiz el-Assad, doomed to be President-for-life of a decrepit, socialist, war-depressed Syria; Idi Amin of Uganda, whose downfall began when the Israeli military raided his country to successfully rescue Jewish hostages from terrorists he harbored; Sadat, who skillfully re-marketed his failed war as a battle to regain honor; and Muammar Qadafi of Libya, whose antisemitic campaign was so powerful that it turned into a weapon his own people used against him.]


----------



## Amun

Tiger Genie said:


> I think it is everything to do with the Isreali spirit and will being stronger and feeling nobler than the Arabs.
> Add to that the fact , which is still true today, the Israelis are smarter and more innovative than almost all other races, especially the Arabs. Look at how many innovations and inventions Israelis accomplished and accomplish. And it cannot be denied that Israelis learnt and improved structural organization from Americans as well.


I believe they are smart yes....so we prepare our self well for them....but if you feel inferior to other people don't generalize that thing as you are talking about EGYPT.



Solomon2 said:


> “When we celebrate the birthday of Mohammad next, not only Sinai but Jerusalem too will be liberated, and the Israelis reduced to the abasement and submissiveness decreed for them” - President Anwar Sadat, 1972.
> 
> [Muslim dictators, from left to right: Hafiz el-Assad, doomed to be President-for-life of a decrepit, socialist, war-depressed Syria; Idi Amin of Uganda, whose downfall began when the Israeli military raided his country to successfully rescue Jewish hostages from terrorists he harbored; Sadat, who skillfully re-marketed his failed war as a battle to regain honor; and Muammar Qadafi of Libya, whose antisemitic campaign was so powerful that it turned into a weapon his own people used against him.]


One year later ..... Screams are heard on Sinai and then other sound heard which is USA plans transferring weapons to save Israel.


----------



## The SC

Tiger Genie said:


> I think it is everything to do with the Isreali spirit and will being stronger and feeling nobler than the Arabs.
> Add to that the fact , which is still true today, the Israelis are smarter and more innovative than almost all other races, especially the Arabs. Look at how many innovations and inventions Israelis accomplished and accomplish. And it cannot be denied that Israelis learnt and improved structural organization from Americans as well.




*Impact of Islamic civilization on European civilization in the field of sciences*

*Introduction*
The impact of Muslims on the West in the field of sciences, including medicine, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry, optics, geography, astronomy, and others was one of the best manifestations of the influence on European civilization. Many impartial Westerners admitted that Muslims continued to be the teachers of Europe for no less than 600 years.



*Translation of Muslim scientists’ books*


One of the manifestations of this impact was the translation of the books written by Muslim scientists more than once and adopting them as basic sources and principal reference books for many centuries for teaching at Western universities. For example, when medicine reached its peak at the hands of Muslims, the European church was preventing treatment because disease was (a punishment from Allah)! They learned about medicine and treatment afterwards through the translation of the books written by Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, and others. This included, but was not limited to, the book Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (The law of medicine) by Ibn Sina in the 12th century. The book was published several times and was the basis for studies at French and Italian universities![1]

The UNESCO newsletter mentioned in 1980 that the book Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb by Ibn Sina continued to be taught at the University of Brussels until 1909. The article cited a comment by the writer Osler[2] in which he said: The book Al-Qanun continued to be a sole reference in medicine for a period longer than any other book. It was published 15 times in the last 30 years of the 15th century.

Osler added: “Ibn Sina enabled Western scientists to embark upon a scientific revolution in the field of medicine, which indeed started in the 13th century and reached its principal stage in the 17th century.[3]

Just like Al-Qanun, the book (Al-Hawi) and (Al-Mansuri) by Al-Razi were translated at the end of the 13th century. In recognition of his contributions, the US Princeton University called its biggest wing Al-Razi. Also, the research work done by Abu Al-Rayhan Al-Bayruni on qualitative weight had such an important impact on Western civilization. Al-Khazini was a scientific lead for Torricelli in doing research on the weight and condensation of air and the pressure it causes. Al-Khazini invented a barometer to weigh matter in the air and in water which Europe had continued to use up till the middle ages. Europe also used the accurate scales of Muslims in the field of qualitative weight, the weight of air, lifting apparatuses, and gravitation.

Al-Khazini’s book Mizan al-Hikmah (Scale of Wisdom) benefited Western scholars to a great extent as it was translated from Arabic into many various languages. Books by Jabir Ibn Hayyan, Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haytham, and Al-Khawarizmi were also translated and continued to be a reference for Europe for centuries!

The prominent Orientalist Sedillot says: If we look at what the Latins had copied from the Arabs in the beginning, we will find that Gerbert who later became Pope Sylvester II brought to us, between (359 A.H / 970 A.D) and (369 A.H / 980 A.D), the mathematical sciences he studied in Andalusia. Moreover, the British author O'Hallard toured Andalusia and Egypt, for some time between (493 A.H / 1100 A.D) and (522 A.H/1128 A.D) and translated from Arabic "Al-Arkan" by Euclid, which had been unknown to the West.

Platon de Tivoli translated from Arabic Al-Ukar by Theodosius. Rudolf Brugie translated from Arabic Ptolemy's book (Geography of the inhabited Earth). Leonard of Pisa wrote in about (596 A.H/1200 A.D) a treatise on Algebra which he had picked up from his Arab teachers. Johannes Campanus translated Euclid’s book from Arabic and provided good explanation in the 13th century.

In addition, Polish Witelo drew upon Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haitham's book Al-Basariyat "Optics” in that century. Gerard of Cremona propagated the real astronomical science in that century as well through his translation of Ptolemy's Almagest and (Al-Sharh) by Jabir…etc. In (648A.H / 1250 A.D), Alfonso X of Castile ordered the publication of astronomical almanac which were named for him. Roger I encouraged the study of Arabic sciences in Sicily, particularly the book by Al-Idrissi. Emperor Frederick II was no less keen on encouraging the study of the Arab sciences and arts. The sons of Ibn Rushd stayed at the court of that emperor and taught him the natural history of plants and animals.[4] It is clear from Sedillot’s statement that Muslims not only transferred their sciences to Europeans but also strongly helped Europeans to know the history of their Greek ancestors who were completely isolated from them. As such, the impact was manifested in all types and fields of sciences.



*Impact of Islamic industries in Europe*


With regard to Islamic industries in Europe, which were connected with several sciences, there was the paper industry which Muslims spread across the world at the time. But for that industry, sciences would not have developed, writing would not have flourished, and Europe would not have been civilized.

Muslims transported a number of Chinese prisoners to Samarqand around the mid 8th Gregorian century. Among them were those who were good at paper industry. It was at their hands that the paper industry appeared and flourished in Samarqand. Improvements were then introduced into it, as linen and cotton were the raw material of this industry. Soft paper, the best type of paper, appeared. As papyrus paper was expensive, there was a high demand for the new paper to the extent that the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur, who was known for his saving, ordered the departments of his state not to use the papyrus paper and use only the ordinary paper for its cheap prices.[5]


Paper factories were set up in Baghdad in the era of Al-Rashid, then in Damascus and Tripoli, and then in Palestine and Egypt. The paper industry moved to Morocco and from there to Sicily and Andalusia until the West knew this industry, which was in fact one of the pillars of culture and spiritual life. Muslims, therefore, marked the start of a new era when science was no longer the monopoly of a certain group of people. It even became, as Sigrid Hunke said, available to everyone and an invitation for all minds to work and think.[6]


Tourists, visitors, pilgrims, traders, and students used to come from their countries in Europe to Barcelona and Valencia, where soft paper was produced, to return, as Al-Idrissi mentioned, carrying quantities of this paper which had no match in the world whatsoever. [7]

Sigrid Hunke says: The building of mills (paper mills) was an Arab specialization achieved by the Arabs themselves who gave Europe all kinds of water and air mills.[8]

Apart from the paper industry, there was also the magnetic needle (compass) which for some Europeans was invented by the Italian Flavio Gioia. In this regard, Sigrid replies by saying that that Italian “had known this device through (Muslim) Arabs”.[9]

“Researchers have disagreed as to whether the Arabs were the first to use the compass or copied it from China… Sedillot denies that the Chinese had used the compass although until 1850 A.D they still had the belief that the south pole of the earth was a raging fire. He emphasizes that the (Muslim) Arabs were the first to use it. He was supported by Sarton who had the same opinion. Everyone emphasizes that the Arabs had used it, and that Europe learned about the compass through the Arabs.”[10]

There is no question on the impact of this compass on the life of Europeans in general.

Impact of Islamic civilization on European civilization in the field of sciences

To stay on topic read the paper in post # 131

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Amir_Pharaoh said:


> Hahah .. yeah right!
> Even with the added links!
> Don't let me even start with Henry Kissinger's role during the conflict
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this photo hurt your feeling!
> Actually there are many pictures you know that ..
> And everyone knows that Most of IAF victoris over EAF especially in 1967 happened while Egyptian aricrafts were on ground!
> 5/6/1967 was our "peral harbour in ww2"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What matters what happened next ..
> It was quiet an achievments that EAF went through a massive construction program to build new air bases in order to increase its survivability. The EAF was the first branch of the Egyptian armed forces to achieve full combat readiness in short time.
> 
> It was quiet an achievments what EAF manged to accopmlish with low graded aircrafts vs more advanced ones
> We were the ones who shot down Mirage-3 and F-4 phantom by just Mig-21
> 
> The IAF did not operate freely and did not have complete air supremacy it enjoyed during the previous conflict, the 1967 war. Egyptian MiGs were used with better efficiency than before which included the tactics and lessons learned from the 1967 war.
> 
> Do not underestimate other's accomplishments since learing from your mistakes makes you better .
> It was during this war that the EAF applied the lessons it earlier learnt from the Israelis. A 32-year-old deputy MiG-21 regiment commander who has been flying since he was 15 recalls: "During the war of attrition, the Israeli air force had a favorite ambush tactic", he told Aviation Week and Space Technology. "They would penetrate with two aircraft at medium altitude where they would be quickly picked up by radar, We would scramble four or eight to attack them. But they had another dozen fighters trailing at extremely low altitude below radar coverage. As we climbed to the attack they would zoom up behind and surprise us. My regiment lost MiGs to this ambush tactic three times. But we learned the lesson and practiced the same tactics. In the final fights over Deversoir, we ambushed some Mirages the same way, and my own 'finger four' formation shot down four Mirages with the loss of one MiG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli Mirage III shot down by Egyptian MiG-21 during October war



Ahahaha, you must be kidding me, how was Israel supported in 1967? If we were not supported in 73, Israel would have nuked you, the US only started the aid when they saw the Jericho's.

Oh, and the destroying planes on the ground part
1973? Israel didn't destroy jets on the ground- Israel lost 102 jets- the Arabs? 514
Here you go- 




This source was told in Egypt Daily News
Also, I didn't deny that Israeli jets were shot down, I said that much more Egyptian and Syrian jets were downed than Israeli ones.
1973- 5 enemy aircraft down to every 1 Israeli.


----------



## jamal18

Solomon2 said:


> Did you read his book? Can you point to where Gamasy wrote objectively about his own failures?



It was a long time ago, but let me remember the salient points.

1. *Six day war*. After the loss of the Egyptian air force, the Egyptian c-in-c ordered a strategic withdrawal from Sinai. All the senior officers of the Egyptian army in Sinai testified that even after the loss of the air force, they could have held the line at the mitla pass. They had no doubt, and protested at the order to withdraw. The major Egyptian inquiry after the war pronounced that the defeat in Sinai was not due to the loss of the air force, but due to this order.

2. *1973 war*. The aim of the operation was to 'regain Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai'. Sadat had put this, obviously, in writing. The army had asked for a further 'aim' a few days before the war, and the same written aim was stated. Israel's existence was never at stake, in fact there were no plans to occupy Israeli territory.

3.* Defeat*. The Egyptians knew exactly the casualties the Israelis had suffered, and they were enormous. When the Israelis crossed the canal, the Egyptians simply couldn't believe the sheer quantity of resources the Israelis threw at them. When Sadat accepted the cease fire, he did so without consulting the army. The army first heard about it on television. Sadat gave his reason for accepting the ceasefire as such: he believed that in the last ten days of the war, Egypt had in fact been fighting the US. Israel had the US's unlimited resources behind it, and continuing the war would bring Egypt into conflict with the US.

There is another book written on the war by a British army general, but I forget the name .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

1948: The brits killed more than 40 000 Palestinian armed men before handing the key of Jerusalem to the Usraelis (From the Book "O Jerusalem"), 

1956: Suez Attak exposed, the French-Brits-Usraeli alliance against Egypt and the Arabs in general

1967: Usraeli weapons were mostly french..and British most probably free of cost, even ToT

1973: Transfer of usrael protection from old powers to the new one a.k.a USA, with same benefits , every US major weapon plus ToT..

So anyone saying that the Arabs were Fighting Usrael instead of the western colonizing powers is spreading lies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> sound heard which is USA plans transferring weapons to save Israel.


Bullshit! Egypt was receiving weapons too from the Soviet Union, from Yugoslavia, en top what Lybia contributed, and what Algeria bought . The US supplying Israel was not the cause, the cause is Sadat who surrendered after his brother was shot down. that spineless sob was the cause of the debacle.



Beny Karachun said:


> Also, I didn't deny that Israeli jets were shot down, I said that much more Egyptian and Syrian jets were downed than Israeli ones.
> 1973- 5 enemy aircraft down to every 1 Israeli.


Just like your Egyptian counterpart, you are full of it...You had your *** handed to you in every area, until Sadat decided to be commander in chief.


----------



## jamal18

Ceylal said:


> Bullshit! Egypt was receiving weapons too from the Soviet Union, from Yugoslavia, en top what Lybia contributed, and what Algeria bought . The US supplying Israel was not the cause, the cause is Sadat who surrendered after his brother was shot down. that spineless sob was the cause of the debacle.
> 
> 
> Just like your Egyptian counterpart, you are full of it...You had your *** handed to you in every area, until Sadat decided to be commander in chief.



No. Sadat addressed this point. He said that Russia's help was conditional, while the US's help was unconditional.

For example, the Egyptians wanted attack aircraft so they could attack Israel just as the Israelis were attacking Egypt pre war. They wanted the tu-22 bomber. The Russians refused, whereas the US had no hesitation in giving Israel similar weapons. 

There was a fundamental political difference between Egypt and Russian aims. The Russians were afraid of being dragged into a war with the US, and wanted a peaceful settlement. For Egypt, that meant negotiating from a losers status; a peace deal would give them nothing. To get into a position of strength, they had to change the military situation. This is why Russia would give Egypt defensive weaponry, not offensive. This difference was the reason why Sadat cancelled his defense treaty with Russia before the war.

Despite the cancellation, Russia still helped Egypt during and after the war, although it had no obligation to do so. The US's help to Israel was a totally different quantum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

Amun said:


> I believe they are smart yes....so we prepare our self well for them....but if you feel inferior to other people don't generalize that thing as you are talking about EGYPT.
> 
> 
> One year later ..... Screams are heard on Sinai and then other sound heard which is USA plans transferring weapons to save Israel.



In the past 200 years the Jews have a significantly disproportionate high number of inventions and accomplishment than almost every other single race. It is a fact.Whether that should make you feel inferior or not is entirely based on your outlook about life.



The SC said:


> *Impact of Islamic civilization on European civilization in the field of sciences*
> 
> *Introduction*
> The impact of Muslims on the West in the field of sciences, including medicine, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry, optics, geography, astronomy, and others was one of the best manifestations of the influence on European civilization. Many impartial Westerners admitted that Muslims continued to be the teachers of Europe for no less than 600 years.
> 
> 
> 
> *Translation of Muslim scientists’ books*
> 
> 
> One of the manifestations of this impact was the translation of the books written by Muslim scientists more than once and adopting them as basic sources and principal reference books for many centuries for teaching at Western universities. For example, when medicine reached its peak at the hands of Muslims, the European church was preventing treatment because disease was (a punishment from Allah)! They learned about medicine and treatment afterwards through the translation of the books written by Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, and others. This included, but was not limited to, the book Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (The law of medicine) by Ibn Sina in the 12th century. The book was published several times and was the basis for studies at French and Italian universities![1]
> 
> The UNESCO newsletter mentioned in 1980 that the book Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb by Ibn Sina continued to be taught at the University of Brussels until 1909. The article cited a comment by the writer Osler[2] in which he said: The book Al-Qanun continued to be a sole reference in medicine for a period longer than any other book. It was published 15 times in the last 30 years of the 15th century.
> 
> Osler added: “Ibn Sina enabled Western scientists to embark upon a scientific revolution in the field of medicine, which indeed started in the 13th century and reached its principal stage in the 17th century.[3]
> 
> Just like Al-Qanun, the book (Al-Hawi) and (Al-Mansuri) by Al-Razi were translated at the end of the 13th century. In recognition of his contributions, the US Princeton University called its biggest wing Al-Razi. Also, the research work done by Abu Al-Rayhan Al-Bayruni on qualitative weight had such an important impact on Western civilization. Al-Khazini was a scientific lead for Torricelli in doing research on the weight and condensation of air and the pressure it causes. Al-Khazini invented a barometer to weigh matter in the air and in water which Europe had continued to use up till the middle ages. Europe also used the accurate scales of Muslims in the field of qualitative weight, the weight of air, lifting apparatuses, and gravitation.
> 
> Al-Khazini’s book Mizan al-Hikmah (Scale of Wisdom) benefited Western scholars to a great extent as it was translated from Arabic into many various languages. Books by Jabir Ibn Hayyan, Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haytham, and Al-Khawarizmi were also translated and continued to be a reference for Europe for centuries!
> 
> The prominent Orientalist Sedillot says: If we look at what the Latins had copied from the Arabs in the beginning, we will find that Gerbert who later became Pope Sylvester II brought to us, between (359 A.H / 970 A.D) and (369 A.H / 980 A.D), the mathematical sciences he studied in Andalusia. Moreover, the British author O'Hallard toured Andalusia and Egypt, for some time between (493 A.H / 1100 A.D) and (522 A.H/1128 A.D) and translated from Arabic "Al-Arkan" by Euclid, which had been unknown to the West.
> 
> Platon de Tivoli translated from Arabic Al-Ukar by Theodosius. Rudolf Brugie translated from Arabic Ptolemy's book (Geography of the inhabited Earth). Leonard of Pisa wrote in about (596 A.H/1200 A.D) a treatise on Algebra which he had picked up from his Arab teachers. Johannes Campanus translated Euclid’s book from Arabic and provided good explanation in the 13th century.
> 
> In addition, Polish Witelo drew upon Al-Hasan Ibn Al-Haitham's book Al-Basariyat "Optics” in that century. Gerard of Cremona propagated the real astronomical science in that century as well through his translation of Ptolemy's Almagest and (Al-Sharh) by Jabir…etc. In (648A.H / 1250 A.D), Alfonso X of Castile ordered the publication of astronomical almanac which were named for him. Roger I encouraged the study of Arabic sciences in Sicily, particularly the book by Al-Idrissi. Emperor Frederick II was no less keen on encouraging the study of the Arab sciences and arts. The sons of Ibn Rushd stayed at the court of that emperor and taught him the natural history of plants and animals.[4] It is clear from Sedillot’s statement that Muslims not only transferred their sciences to Europeans but also strongly helped Europeans to know the history of their Greek ancestors who were completely isolated from them. As such, the impact was manifested in all types and fields of sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> *Impact of Islamic industries in Europe*
> 
> 
> With regard to Islamic industries in Europe, which were connected with several sciences, there was the paper industry which Muslims spread across the world at the time. But for that industry, sciences would not have developed, writing would not have flourished, and Europe would not have been civilized.
> 
> Muslims transported a number of Chinese prisoners to Samarqand around the mid 8th Gregorian century. Among them were those who were good at paper industry. It was at their hands that the paper industry appeared and flourished in Samarqand. Improvements were then introduced into it, as linen and cotton were the raw material of this industry. Soft paper, the best type of paper, appeared. As papyrus paper was expensive, there was a high demand for the new paper to the extent that the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur, who was known for his saving, ordered the departments of his state not to use the papyrus paper and use only the ordinary paper for its cheap prices.[5]
> 
> 
> Paper factories were set up in Baghdad in the era of Al-Rashid, then in Damascus and Tripoli, and then in Palestine and Egypt. The paper industry moved to Morocco and from there to Sicily and Andalusia until the West knew this industry, which was in fact one of the pillars of culture and spiritual life. Muslims, therefore, marked the start of a new era when science was no longer the monopoly of a certain group of people. It even became, as Sigrid Hunke said, available to everyone and an invitation for all minds to work and think.[6]
> 
> 
> Tourists, visitors, pilgrims, traders, and students used to come from their countries in Europe to Barcelona and Valencia, where soft paper was produced, to return, as Al-Idrissi mentioned, carrying quantities of this paper which had no match in the world whatsoever. [7]
> 
> Sigrid Hunke says: The building of mills (paper mills) was an Arab specialization achieved by the Arabs themselves who gave Europe all kinds of water and air mills.[8]
> 
> Apart from the paper industry, there was also the magnetic needle (compass) which for some Europeans was invented by the Italian Flavio Gioia. In this regard, Sigrid replies by saying that that Italian “had known this device through (Muslim) Arabs”.[9]
> 
> “Researchers have disagreed as to whether the Arabs were the first to use the compass or copied it from China… Sedillot denies that the Chinese had used the compass although until 1850 A.D they still had the belief that the south pole of the earth was a raging fire. He emphasizes that the (Muslim) Arabs were the first to use it. He was supported by Sarton who had the same opinion. Everyone emphasizes that the Arabs had used it, and that Europe learned about the compass through the Arabs.”[10]
> 
> There is no question on the impact of this compass on the life of Europeans in general.
> 
> Impact of Islamic civilization on European civilization in the field of sciences
> 
> To stay on topic read the paper in post # 131



I am sure muslims have contrbuted as well but if you take the past 200 years or so the Jews have accomplished significantly more than others. 

If you go back so many centuries as your posted reference does, you will then have to do the same with other races as well for comparison. But that was not my intent.


----------



## The SC

Tiger Genie said:


> In the past 200 years the Jews have a significantly disproportionate high number of inventions and accomplishment than almost every other single race. It is a fact.Whether that should make you feel inferior or not is entirely based on your outlook about life.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure muslims have contrbuted as well but if you take the past 200 years or so the Jews have accomplished significantly more than others.
> 
> If you go back so many centuries as your posted reference does, you will then have to do the same with other races as well for comparison. But that was not my intent.


I am sure that was yor intent And I had very long threads on that subject, mainlty the Indus valley civilisation..
But hey buddy, "in the lat 200 years"!? Usrael was created in 1948 !!!!!1


----------



## Tiger Genie

The SC said:


> I am sure that was yor intent And I had very long threads on that subject, mainlty the Indus valley civilisation..
> But hey buddy, "in the lat 200 years"!? Usrael was created in 1948 !!!!!1



Israel is a declared Jewish state so I did generalize to that. But if you prefer to be particular that's fine, just start conting from when Israel was created. The rate of success is even higher


----------



## The SC

Tiger Genie said:


> Israel is a declared Jewish state so I did generalize to that. But if you prefer to be particular that's fine, just start conting from when Israel was created. The rate of success is even higher



That is if you base the rate of success on the ToT they have received since than ..for free, plus money, plus weapons.. I am just saying things like they were in the past and are now..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

jamal18 said:


> No. Sadat addressed this point. He said that Russia's help was conditional, while the US's help was unconditional.
> 
> For example, the Egyptians wanted attack aircraft so they could attack Israel just as the Israelis were attacking Egypt pre war. They wanted the tu-22 bomber. The Russians refused, whereas the US had no hesitation in giving Israel similar weapons.
> 
> There was a fundamental political difference between Egypt and Russian aims. The Russians were afraid of being dragged into a war with the US, and wanted a peaceful settlement. For Egypt, that meant negotiating from a losers status; a peace deal would give them nothing. To get into a position of strength, they had to change the military situation. This is why Russia would give Egypt defensive weaponry, not offensive. This difference was the reason why Sadat cancelled his defense treaty with Russia before the war.
> 
> Despite the cancellation, Russia still helped Egypt during and after the war, although it had no obligation to do so. The US's help to Israel was a totally different quantum.



Sorry? In 1967 the Egyptians DID buy a huge bomber for its time, called the Tu16, Israel had nothing close to it, the biggest bomber it had was the B17
Russia would give Egypt defensive weapons? Since when are MiGs defensive weapons? or huge tactical bombers are?
T62s and such?


----------



## jamal18

Beny Karachun said:


> Sorry? In 1967 the Egyptians DID buy a huge bomber for its time, called the Tu16, Israel had nothing close to it, the biggest bomber it had was the B17
> Russia would give Egypt defensive weapons? Since when are MiGs defensive weapons? or huge tactical bombers are?
> T62s and such?



At that time, the Israeli air force had the capability to attack cairo at will. The Egyptians wanted to be able to attack Tel Aviv. The only soviet aircraft that could do that was the Tu-22. The Russians wouldn't give that, or anything else with that range,

The mig was a sort range interceptor.

A shell fired from a t-62, from Egypt, couldn't reach Tel Aviv.

This lack of assistance from the Soviets was the reason for the cancellation of the Egyptian/Soviet defence treaty.

I am simply stating what were the views, and reasons, of Sadat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

jamal18 said:


> At that time, the Israeli air force had the capability to attack cairo at will. The Egyptians wanted to be able to attack Tel Aviv. The only soviet aircraft that could do that was the Tu-22. The Russians wouldn't give that, or anything else with that range,
> 
> The mig was a sort range interceptor.
> 
> A shell fired from a t-62, from Egypt, couldn't reach Tel Aviv.
> 
> This lack of assistance from the Soviets was the reason for the cancellation of the Egyptian/Soviet defence treaty.
> 
> I am simply stating what were the views, and reasons, of Sadat.



No, it didn't, Israel could reach Cairo as much as the Arabs could, they even could reach Israel in 1948, how come they cant reach us in 1973?

MiG is a fighter, not interceptor.

T62 was a better tank in overall than ours, equipped with more modern technology such as night vision.

the Russians assisted the Egyptians way more.
A Tu16 could easily reach and destroy a large area of Tel Aviv.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

The SC said:


> That is if you base the rate of success on the ToT they have received since than ..for free, plus money, plus weapons.. I am just saying things like they were in the past and are now..


No I am not basing it on ToT or aid money. Just their own brain work


----------



## Ceylal

jamal18 said:


> No. Sadat addressed this point. He said that* Russia's help was conditiona*l, while the US's help was unconditional.
> 
> For example, the Egyptians wanted attack aircraft so they could attack Israel just as the Israelis were attacking Egypt pre war. *They wanted the tu-22 bomber.* The Russians refused, whereas the US had no hesitation in *giving Israel similar* weapons.


Let be real here..Sadat obtained all the weapons he needed including the Tupolev. The only condition is that Egypt had to pay for it. Algeria pick up the tab and wrote a blank check to the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia sent them 100 tanks fuelled and armed , as well as Lybia who put her entire arsenal at Egypt disposal.
The US has never given Israel bombers, the only thing he gave them was the maverick anti tank,missile that Israel needed badly. Everything the US gave them was equivalent to what the Soviet furnished the Egyptians.




> There was a fundamental political difference between Egypt and Russian aims. The Russians were afraid of being dragged into a war with the US, and wanted a peaceful settlement. For Egypt, that meant negotiating from a losers status; a peace deal would give them nothing. To get into a position of strength, they had to change the military situation. This is why Russia would give Egypt defensive weaponry, not offensive. This difference was the reason why Sadat cancelled his defense treaty with Russia before the war.


That is not totally true! Sadat had two military plans. One for his army to execute which was limited in scope, and another he presented to the Arab states for support that comprise the liberation of the Sinai and Palestine. Sadat has never wanted to go further than the Canal of Suez. I am saying that, because from the Algerian officers that participated in the war with Egyptians told in their own words that they waited 48 hrs after their arrival to be authorized to join the front and for the Algerian pilot to fly combat mission. By that time Sharon and his tank brigade were near the deversoir and the 2nd and the 3rd Egyptian armies to be surrendered by the IDF. Sadat was the one who defeated the Egyptian army, not Israel. Israel was running on empty.



> Despite the cancellation, Russia still helped Egypt during and after the war, although it had no obligation to do so. *The US's help to Israel was a totally different quantum*.



I agree with you partially. Israel, despite the US help didn't get anything that tilted the war to their favor. In today's times, the US help is of different quantum, but not then...It was more the French than the US.


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> Let be real here..Sadat obtained all the weapons he needed including the Tupolev. The only condition is that Egypt had to pay for it. Algeria pick up the tab and wrote a blank check to the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia sent them 100 tanks fuelled and armed , as well as Lybia who put her entire arsenal at Egypt disposal.
> The US has never given Israel bombers, the only thing he gave them was the maverick anti tank,missile that Israel needed badly. Everything the US gave them was equivalent to what the Soviet furnished the Egyptians.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not totally true! Sadat had two military plans. One for his army to execute which was limited in scope, and another he presented to the Arab states for support that comprise the liberation of the Sinai and Palestine. Sadat has never wanted to go further than the Canal of Suez. I am saying that, because from the Algerian officers that participated in the war with Egyptians told in their own words that they waited 48 hrs after their arrival to be authorized to join the front and for the Algerian pilot to fly combat mission. By that time Sharon and his tank brigade were near the deversoir and the 2nd and the 3rd Egyptian armies to be surrendered by the IDF. Sadat was the one who defeated the Egyptian army, not Israel. Israel was running on empty.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you partially. Israel, despite the US help didn't get anything that tilted the war to their favor. In today's times, the US help is of different quantum, but not then...It was more the French than the US.


Do you ever write something worth reading....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> Do you ever write something worth reading....


I can't write about the Egyptian army and her officers, it's too painful and too embarrassing..".*We have a proverb in Algeria, that goes like this...You need to thank the one who took you to the souk and brought you back home so you won't get lost*..."

and this fact is true to this day..You have an army of incapables! Look the real fucking soldiers that kept Ariel Sharon from owning your @sses. They travelled 4000 kms , and found your officers working for with the IDF. Despite the honorless officers of your great paper army, they managed to show Ariel who is the big D---K!








I will comeback of field pictures showing Ariel"s tank brigade remnants spread over a wide area near the deversoir..

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla to you and to the donkey that thanked your post!


----------



## MICA

Ceylal said:


> I can't write about the Egyptian army and her officers, it's too painful and too embarrassing..".*We have a proverb in Algeria, that goes like this...You need to thank the one who took you to the souk and brought you back home so you won't get lost*..."
> 
> and this fact is true to this day..You have an army of incapables! Look the real fucking soldiers that kept Ariel Sharon from owning your @sses. They travelled 4000 kms , and found your officers working for with the IDF. Despite the honorless officers of your great paper army, they managed to show Ariel who is the big D---K!
> View attachment 311269
> View attachment 311270
> 
> I will comeback of field pictures showing Ariel"s tank brigade remnants spread over a wide area near the deversoir..
> 
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla to you and to the donkey that thanked your post!



you can suck my donkey

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

MICA said:


> you can suck my donkey


Donkey's are to be mounted..like Israel,the Sauds, and the houthis are mounting you now...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Ceylal said:


> I can't write about the Egyptian army and her officers, it's too painful and too embarrassing..".*We have a proverb in Algeria, that goes like this...You need to thank the one who took you to the souk and brought you back home so you won't get lost*..."
> 
> and this fact is true to this day..You have an army of incapables! Look the real fucking soldiers that kept Ariel Sharon from owning your @sses. They travelled 4000 kms , and found your officers working for with the IDF. Despite the honorless officers of your great paper army, they managed to show Ariel who is the big D---K!
> View attachment 311269
> View attachment 311270
> 
> I will comeback of field pictures showing Ariel"s tank brigade remnants spread over a wide area near the deversoir..
> 
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla to you and to the donkey that thanked your post!



It is true that the Algerian troops and commandos fought valiantely in the deversoir, but How about the Egyptians in Ismaelia, mostly police and civilians!? The Algerian brigade was a support brigade to the Egyptians...
The Second Egyptian army has never been surrounded, actually it has surrounded Sharon brigades who were trying to encircle the 3rd army.. Sharon himself said after the war that he did not now at that time and place who was surrounding whom..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MICA

The SC said:


> It is true that the Algerian troops and commandos fought valiantely in the deversoir, but How about the Egyptians in Ismaelia, mostly police and civilians!? The Algerian brigade was a support brigade to the Egyptians...
> The Second Egyptian army has never been surrounded, actually it has surrounded Sharon brigades who were trying to encircle the 3rd army.. Sharon himself said after the war that he did not now at that time and place who was surrounding whom..



Let him write a new and fake history for his army on our shoulders , pretty much all the forum members know this guy on particular write nonsense posts that doesn't worth a minute of reading ..... no hate for algeria though there must be another good guys there indeed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Ceylal said:


> By that time Sharon and his tank brigade were near the deversoir and the 2nd and the 3rd Egyptian armies to be surrendered by the IDF
> 
> QUOTE]
> at least that is new the 2nd and 3rd armies surrounded ? good one
> 
> 
> The SC said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Algerian troops and commandos fought valiantely in the deversoir, but How about the Egyptians in Ismaelia, mostly police and civilians!? The Algerian brigade was a support brigade to the Egyptians...
> The Second Egyptian army has never been surrounded, actually it has surrounded Sharon brigades who were trying to encircle the 3rd army.. Sharon himself said after the war that he did not now at that time and place who was surrounding whom..
> 
> 
> 
> let him talk he like many algrians want to think they are important they always feel small when they look at Egypt
Click to expand...


I said these words many times and I will never get tired of repeating them again
first of all I will speak about the Egyptian front only
most of you know after the 6 days war our army suffered many losses in both manpower and tanks jets etc so under pressure from the people to retake occupied Sinai as fast as they can our armed forces planed for war realistically with what they had we did not at the time have a good enough air force to cover our armies deep into Sinai and no mobile air defense so the plan was to cross the canal destroy the barliv line which they said the strongest in history wait for the isreali counter attack and defend against it inflicting heavy losses on the isrealis until we can retake Sinai by negotiations from a position of power our armed forces did that everything was going according to plan until pressure from Syria and the soviet untion made us advance outside the cover of our air defense to help the Syrians things were not going well there we lost many men and that led to isrealis crossing the canal but they could not do anything after crossing they attacked the city of suez they failed they attacked the city of ismalia they failed time and manpower are on our side by that time isreali losses were so big that they couldn't stand this for long if the continued they could never match our manpower

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Archie

it's mainly due to in adequate training 

even today The Arabs might have state of art technology and numerical superiority 
but theirs balls are held in American pockets 
they can't fight a war against Iran
let alone Israel


----------



## jamal18

Ceylal said:


> I can't write about the Egyptian army and her officers, it's too painful and too embarrassing..".*We have a proverb in Algeria, that goes like this...You need to thank the one who took you to the souk and brought you back home so you won't get lost*..."
> 
> and this fact is true to this day..You have an army of incapables! Look the real fucking soldiers that kept Ariel Sharon from owning your @sses. They travelled 4000 kms , and found your officers working for with the IDF. Despite the honorless officers of your great paper army, they managed to show Ariel who is the big D---K!
> View attachment 311269
> View attachment 311270
> 
> I will comeback of field pictures showing Ariel"s tank brigade remnants spread over a wide area near the deversoir..
> 
> Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla to you and to the donkey that thanked your post!



Guys, I don't want to interfere in this rich cultural exchange, but it is simply a matter of fact that the Egyptian army performed with great ability and competence. For example, the British general I mentioned earlier rated Egyptian special forces better then their Israeli counterparts.

As for the figures, I believe the Egyptians beat the Israelis in 1973. What saved the Israelis and turned the tide was endless American support.

I am not a fan of anybody, just stating the facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Amun

Archie said:


> it's mainly due to in adequate training
> 
> even today The Arabs might have state of art technology and numerical superiority
> but theirs balls are held in American pockets
> they can't fight a war against Iran
> let alone Israel


Do you understand or even read English.....try some pages before in this thread and you will know much more about that.....and if you want your plans don't crash over and over again...you can send some of your technicians to Egypt to know the know how and the discipline required for good maintenance.



jamal18 said:


> Guys, I don't want to interfere in this rich cultural exchange, but it is simply a matter of fact that the Egyptian army performed with great ability and competence. For example, the British general I mentioned earlier rated Egyptian special forces better then their Israeli counterparts.
> 
> As for the figures, I believe the Egyptians beat the Israelis in 1973. What saved the Israelis and turned the tide was endless American support.
> 
> I am not a fan of anybody, just stating the facts.


That Algerian guy no one in the forum take him seriously .... I'm sure if people try to read more about Ramadan-October-Youm Kepour war they will end with that conclusion or even they will know how much was the Egyptians are capable .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> That Algerian guy no one in the forum take him* seriously *.... I'm sure if people try to read more about Ramadan-October-Youm Kepour war they will end with that conclusion or even they will know how much was the *Egyptians are capable .*


It has been 33 years since the October/Yom kippur war, and yet you can't even discuss this subject with objectivity. Nobody denies that crossing the Suez Canal by the Egyptian army was a text book written with indelible ink. We are talking about what matter the most, *THE END RESULTS. 
Two of your armies were surrounded and supplies were cut off. 
Sinai is still out of your reach and escape to any government control, since Israel and the US have to OK any Egyptian troop movements . 
Egypt was compensated with $ 1B to be a good submissive child of the middle east
Israel was REWARDED $3B plus , to let Egypt wipe her tears after her behind was ripped off..
Because of Sadat:
Egypt has been handcuffed for eternity, Palestine lost, as well as the Golan for the Syrian.

If you and some of the chiots that thank and follow your postings, think the 73 war was a win for the Egyptian Army, well the exact definition of the verb WIN has changed since the advent of internet and social media.
*



jamal18 said:


> As for the figures, I believe the Egyptians beat the Israelis in 1973. What saved the Israelis and turned the tide was endless American support.
> .


They won a battle, the crossing of the canal, but they lost the war and losses not just to Egypt, but the Palestinien and to the the Syrians. They lied to Syria, they lied to every country who helped them. And Shazly was used as a patsy to get the support that Egypt needed. 
It has been 43 years since 73. At least we can talk about it openly and put the real truth forward and learn for the mistakes!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jamal18

Ceylal said:


> It has been 33 years since the October/Yom kippur war, and yet you can't even discuss this subject with objectivity. Nobody denies that crossing the Suez Canal by the Egyptian army was a text book written with indelible ink. We are talking about what matter the most, *THE END RESULTS.
> Two of your armies were surrounded and supplies were cut off.
> Sinai is still out of your reach and escape to any government control, since Israel and the US have to OK any Egyptian troop movements .
> Egypt was compensated with $ 1B to be a good submissive child of the middle east
> Israel was REWARDED $3B plus , to let Egypt wipe her tears after her behind was ripped off..
> Because of Sadat:
> Egypt has been handcuffed for eternity, Palestine lost, as well as the Golan for the Syrian.
> 
> If you and some of the chiots that thank and follow your postings, think the 73 war was a win for the Egyptian Army, well the exact definition of the verb WIN has changed since the advent of internet and social media.*



My friend, read my post. The war was a win for Egypt _but _unlimited American support saved Israel. The result was a defeat for Egypt.

Victory is the achievement of the aim. The aim was to reassert Egyptian sovereignty over the Sinai, and this was not achieved; Gamasy himself states that in the book.

The war proved that the US will support Israel unconditionally and with unlimited resources. This makes an Egyptian/Arab victory technically impossible. Sadat realized that Egypt simply had to come to terms with that and effectively abandoned the struggle against Israel. He moved Egypt into the US/Zionist camp, for large amounts of American money. It is America's whore. Where it remains today with the present government. The morsi government would have changed that, this is why the death of democracy in Egypt received no complaints from the 'liberal democratic' west.


----------



## Ceylal

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> the time have a good enough air force to cover our armies deep into Sinai and no mobile air defense so the plan was to cross the canal destroy the barliv line which they said the strongest in history wait for the isreali counter attack and defend against it inflicting heavy losses on the isrealis until we can retake Sinai by negotiations from a position of power our armed forces did that everything was going according to plan until pressure from Syria and the soviet untion made us advance outside the cover of our air defense to help the Syrians things were not going well


I agree with you on some of it, but I don't agree with the last part. 
The russian didn't put any pressure on Egypt, until your two armies were surrounded and unable to supply them..Syria entered the war in the wrong time, under pressure from Sadat who lied to El Assad. Assad wanted to attack in the morning when the sun was behind them, and not when the sun is in front of them and at a time where Egypt hasn't even engaged the IDF in the canal.
The IDF was stopped at the deversoir and pushed back in the Sinai with heavy losses, that where Ariel Sharon lost his tank brigade and 700 of his men to the Algerian 8th BB. The war was winnable and was within reach if Sadat didn't give the order to stop the hostilities, after he learned of his brother, a pilot of the EAF. After that , you know the rest...



jamal18 said:


> My friend, read my post. The war was a win for Egypt _but _*unlimited American* support saved Israel. The result was a defeat for Egypt.


That is not an excuse, the Russians, Yugoslavia, Lybia and Algeria re-armed Egypt...like the americans did with Israel. Sadat had a limited plan, to retake the Suez Canal and negotiate, like@ *Mahmoud_Egypt* wrote above. 
Due to his actions arab states lost a lot...



The SC said:


> It is true that the Algerian troops and commandos fought valiantely in the deversoir, but How about the Egyptians in Ismaelia, mostly police and civilians!? The Algerian brigade was a support brigade to the Egyptians...


Not true! The Algerian brigade was not authorized to join the front until the deversoir was under Ariel Sharon control. Egyptian tanks units were laminated by Sharon.


> T*he Second Egyptian army has never been surrounded*, actually it has surrounded Sharon brigades who were trying to encircle the 3rd army.. Sharon himself said after the war that he did not now at that time and place who was surrounding whom..


That maybe a mistake of my part, but two of the Egyptian armies were surrounded. Ismailia was defended by Algerians .





*General Benhadid the Algerian 8TH BB commander.*


----------



## jamal18

I see endless posts on the 'military incompetence' of the Arabs, after analysis I find it simply untrue. All the defeats had a definite reason.

In fact look up Hizbullah or Hamas's military wing on youtube. How these people perform against Israel, despite the massive odds against them, is awe inspiring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BordoEnes

The answer is rather simple. The Israëli armed forces were led by capable men that excel in their enviroment whilst the Arabs were led by incapable ultra nationalists that had no actual skill in the art of war. Plus the Israëli's were really handy in using what little resources they had to their full advantage. Which is probably the reason why Israel today has a proper advanced defence industry while not a single Arab country has something remotely comparable.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Ceylal said:


> I agree with you on some of it, but I don't agree with the last part.
> The russian didn't put any pressure on Egypt, until your two armies were surrounded and unable to supply them..Syria entered the war in the wrong time, under pressure from Sadat who lied to El Assad. Assad wanted to attack in the morning when the sun was behind them, and not when the sun is in front of them and at a time where Egypt hasn't even engaged the IDF in the canal.
> The IDF was stopped at the deversoir and pushed back in the Sinai with heavy losses, that where Ariel Sharon lost his tank brigade and 700 of his men to the Algerian 8th BB. The war was winnable and was within reach if Sadat didn't give the order to stop the hostilities, after he learned of his brother, a pilot of the EAF. After that , you know the rest...
> 
> 
> [/ATTACH]
> *General Benhadid the Algerian 8TH BB commander.*


many of what you say is not true I don't know where do you get your information it was airbone and thunderbolt infantry who defended the city of Ismailia
also we had the 2nd and 3rd army none of them surrendered you realize that this I discussed the war here with isrealis westerns and I talked to some of the brave men who fought in the war but this is the first time I see someone say that.
suez was defended Stalingrad style
about algrian help no one is denying it but it is not as effective as you make it sound like if so can you tell me the number of algrian troops sent and the casualties they inflicted
last thing in war you set objectives for your armed forces if they accomplish it they win it is simple we got exactly what we wanted from the war our army won back his reputation after the 67 war we crossed we held our ground and the Israelis suffered on the Egyptian front like they never did before and we have Sinai back now and peace we won it is as simple as that



BordoEnes said:


> The answer is rather simple. The Israëli armed forces were led by capable men that excel in their enviroment whilst the Arabs were led by incapable ultra nationalists that had no actual skill in the art of war. Plus the Israëli's were really handy in using what little resources they had to their full advantage. Which is probably the reason why Israel today has a proper advanced defence industry while not a single Arab country has something remotely comparable.


at least we are not supporting terrorists btw in this war if you really know what you are talking about our special forces did what some would say the impossible our use of SAMs and ATGMs made most countries around the world rethink their tactics crossing the canal and destroying the barliv line was not simple matter we in Egypt there is a good military industry

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CorporateAffairs

Does the Arabs have a professional army?


----------



## BordoEnes

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> many of what you say is not true I don't know where do you get your information it was airbone and thunderbolt infantry who defended the city of Ismailia
> also we had the 2nd and 3rd army none of them surrendered you realize that this I discussed the war here with isrealis westerns and I talked to some of the brave men who fought in the war but this is the first time I see someone say that.
> suez was defended Stalingrad style
> about algrian help no one is denying it but it is not as effective as you make it sound like if so can you tell me the number of algrian troops sent and the casualties they inflicted
> last thing in war you set objectives for your armed forces if they accomplish it they win it is simple we got exactly what we wanted from the war our army won back his reputation after the 67 war we crossed we held our ground and the Israelis suffered on the Egyptian front like they never did before and we have Sinai back now and peace we won it is as simple as that
> 
> 
> at least we are not supporting terrorists btw in this war if you really know what you are talking about our special forces did what some would say the impossible our use of SAMs and ATGMs made most countries around the world rethink their tactics crossing the canal and destroying the barliv line was not simple matter we in Egypt there is a good military industry



Wasnt trying to insult you.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

BordoEnes said:


> Wasnt trying to insult you.


I wasn't too I hate only Erdogan not all the Turkish people and I said facts if you see anything wrong in what I wrote we can talk about it
ramadan kareem to us all


----------



## Beny Karachun

GiannKall said:


> Who said that they lost all wars? Only the 1967 war can be considered a victory for Israel. The 1948 war ended in stalemate. The 1956 war ended with Israel winning with the help of British and French but withdrawing back. And the 1973 war ended with Israel giving back Sinai


1948 Israel conquers its land back, Israeli military, strategic. political victory
1956 Israel was the main force, with a little bit of support troops from France and the UK
1973 ended up with Israel giving back the Sinai? the Sinai was given only in 1979, after the Egyptians wanted to make a peace treaty.
In other words, bullshit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mugwop

One of the dog fights was because 1 pilot lost his temper even thou he had an advantage over the israeli mirage. The israeli pilot was testing him and he lost his temper thats how he got behind him. Even thou he won that fight the israeli dude always had respect for that pilot.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> 1948 Israel conquers its land back, Israeli military, strategic. political victory
> 1956 Israel was the main force, with a little bit of support troops from France and the UK
> 1973 ended up with Israel giving back the Sinai? the Sinai was given only in 1979, after the Egyptians wanted to make a peace treaty.
> In other words, bullshit.


would we have Sinai back if not for victory in the war?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

jamal18 said:


> I see endless posts on the 'military incompetence' of the Arabs, after analysis I find it simply untrue. All the defeats had a definite reason.
> 
> In fact look up Hizbullah or Hamas's military wing on youtube. How these people perform against Israel, despite the massive odds against them, is awe inspiring.



That happends when there is no aid from outside for Usrael and it fights on its own (no US, France or Britain in the picture) , it just shows how incompetent they really are...


----------



## jamal18

The SC said:


> That happends when there is no aid from outside for Usrael and it fights on its own (no US, France or Britain in the picture) , it just shows how incompetent they really are...



Israels victories are due to:
1. Support from the west
2. own goals by the Arabs ( the view of gen. Gamasy).
3. Ownership of the media which endlessly praises them.

To quote an American officer in Lebanon; 'this is a 7th rate army fighting a tenth rate army.'


----------



## GiannKall

Beny Karachun said:


> 1948 Israel conquers its land back, Israeli military, strategic. political victory
> 1956 Israel was the main force, with a little bit of support troops from France and the UK
> 1973 ended up with Israel giving back the Sinai? the Sinai was given only in 1979, after the Egyptians wanted to make a peace treaty.
> In other words, bullshit.



1948 Israel conquered some land but lost some other around Latrun
1956 I wouldnt call 80.000 French and British troops a small force
1973 Obviously the fact that Sinai was given back had to do with the difficulties the Israel faced in that war

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Amun

jamal18 said:


> . He moved Egypt into the US/Zionist camp, for large amounts of American money. It is America's whore. Where it remains today with the present government. The morsi government would have changed that, this is why the death of democracy in Egypt received no complaints from the 'liberal democratic' west.


Don't you know about the latest arms deals by Egypt from East and west from sources other than US..?!?
Don't you know that US and UK always critsize Egypt and they stopped arming Egypt for 2 years..?!
Don't you know that Egypt refused to join US in the anti-terrorism coalition in Syria..?!


----------



## Beny Karachun

GiannKall said:


> 1948 Israel conquered some land but lost some other around Latrun
> 1956 I wouldnt call 80.000 French and British troops a small force
> 1973 Obviously the fact that Sinai was given back had to do with the difficulties the Israel faced in that war


Israel conquered much more than it lost, in 1948 Israel was one, against 8 countries, their objective was to destroy us, our objective was to defend ourselves, and we did it.
1956- 80,000 British and French, and 175,000 Israelis, not to mention not all the French and British were deployed, and most of them were behind the Israelis. So how did Egypt win any war? since it never attacked Israel alone? your own logic.
1973- Israel didn't face difficulties more than it faced in 1967, Israel gave Gaza in 2005, you think we faced difficulties?



jamal18 said:


> Israels victories are due to:
> 1. Support from the west
> 2. own goals by the Arabs ( the view of gen. Gamasy).
> 3. Ownership of the media which endlessly praises them.
> 
> To quote an American officer in Lebanon; 'this is a 7th rate army fighting a tenth rate army.'


1967- Support from the west? hell, 1948? No support



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> would we have Sinai back if not for victory in the war?


Idiot, how come you won the war, if your goal was to conquer the Sinai, while you only got it in 1979?



Mugwop said:


> One of the dog fights was because 1 pilot lost his temper even thou he had an advantage over the israeli mirage. The israeli pilot was testing him and he lost his temper thats how he got behind him. Even thou he won that fight the israeli dude always had respect for that pilot.


Who are you talking about?


----------



## AUz

Putting Israel on pedestal as always lol..

Israelis deserve all the credit for surviving in harsh conditions--but lets be real. They wouldn't and did not stand much of a chance against combine Arab assault.

In 1948, Israelis outnumbered Arab forces--and actual Arab military didn't even take part in action (Moreover, Israelis got weapons from Europe and their officers also had European military knowledge which was quite latest thanks to WW2).

1967--only time Israelis surprised Arabs and struck down their air forces.

1973--Egyptians destroyed half of israeli armor in Sinai within first few hours of engagement and totally got Israel by surprise.

The ONLY way Israel got upper hand was because Egyptians were forced to leave their original plan and go deep into Sinai without aircover.

Basically, even though Israel fought well, it were mainly Arab mismanagement and shortcomings that gave Israel a chance to survive.

I have studied and worked with Israeli professors who have served in israeli security establishment and what not. They agree as well.

One of my Israeli professor smiled and told "IDF isn't as lean and mean, well oiled machine as you think it is"...

For example, without foreign intervention, Israeli military---no matter how good--wouldn't stand much of a chance against powers like Turkey in the region

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> Idiot, how come you won the war, if your goal was to conquer the Sinai, while you only got it in 1979?


no need for using words like that and I will let it pass this time but believe me using bad language is easy and fun so don't make me do it
our goal was never to retake all of Sinai see my post earlier I said the objectives clearly and our army managed to do everything was asked

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TopCat

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians agreed to recognize Israel and maintain peace with Israel
> Israel offered the Gaza Strip to Egypt, but the Egyptians refused.
> Even with Jordan, Israel offered the West Bank to Jordan,
> In return for recognition and peace, the Jordanians refused to take the West Bank.
> Israel proposed to Syria the Golan in exchange for peace and recognition.
> Arabs think that in war they'll get it, not realizing that if they want to return the territories that Israel occupied, they should make peace not war.



You dont understand the game, do you? Arab want entire Israel. Thats why they will shove Gaza and Westbank inside Israel (2 state solution is a ploy). More muslim live in greater palestine than jews. Israel will eventually collapse.


----------



## The SC

The Arab code name of the whole 1973 conflict was "Spark" or "etincelle" in French, this fact alone shades some light on the scoop of that war in the minds of Egyptian and Syrian commanders...In other words it was very limited in scoop, they wanted Usrael to negotiate peace and give back Sinai and the Golan heights..


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

This will be the last post in this thread . 
It's official now .. from the start actually!
This thread is some sort of cultural exchange like one member added!!! ..
Any one who see Arab as inferior to his country!
Any Arab who has sth. in his heart against Egypt!
All here are sharing the same ideas about the incompetency of Egypt's armed forces!!!

The armed forces that breached the Bar Lev Line, which costed $300 million at that time
^A sand wall, which varied in height from 20–25 metres (66–82 ft), was inclined at an angle of 45–65 degrees
^Then was the front line of Israeli fortifications. 22 forts, which incorporated 35 strongpoints. The forts were designed to be manned by a platoon. The strongpoints, which were built several stories into the sand, were on average situated less than 5 km (3 mi) from each other, but at likely crossing points they were less than 900 metres (3,000 ft) apart. The strongpoints incorporated trenches, minefields, barbed wire and a sand embankment.
^Then the water obstacle, the Israelis installed an underwater pipe system to pump flammable crude oil into the Suez Canal, thereby creating a sheet of flame.































Just breaching and occupying this line alone within few hours is considered one of the biggest achievements that ever happened .. As the French minister of defence said post the war "Only you Egyptians who could make such achievement" .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Amir_Pharaoh

As for the members who claim that Egypt had aircrafts could reach Israel and made Migs among them!
Go and read some info about military stuff!! you are such ignorants.

Egypt only had few numbers of Tu-16 .. could make it there of course (range: 7,200 km)
But Mig-21 couldn't make it to there to guard bombers ..
It's funny how some even considering to compare between EAF and IAF during 1973 war!!




EAF strongest fighter was Mig-21:
Range 1,210 km
Armament: 4× K-13 the short-range, infra red homing air-to-air missile
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0

IAF strongest fighter was F-4 Phantom II :
Range :2,600 km
Armament : 4× AIM-7 Sparrow is an American, medium-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder
Maximum speed: Mach 2.23

Yet many IAF F-4 were shut down by EAF' Mig-21









---------------------------------------------

------------------




*An Israeli Centurion tank. It was considered in many respects superior to the Soviet T-54/55*





T-45/55




--------------------------
As for T-62 tanks, yes the T-62 was an effective adversary for Israeli Patton and Centurion main battle tanks armed with 105 mm tank guns. The T-62 had an advantage in its better night-fighting capability.
But The Egyptian army only received approx. 200 T-62 between 1971-73.
Unlike Syria that acquired about 500





"T-62 Main Battle Tank 1965–2005 by Steven J. Zaloga‏"


In general:





Everyone can see how much advanced weapons Israel had during the conflicts in the 60s-70s
Yet Egypt managed to breach and capture "Bar Lev Line" and occupy 20km east of the canal.
Egypt's losses only began after "Sadat" gave the order (even with the opposition given by war cabinet) to go deeper without AD cover!


*Final situation on the Egyptian front*
By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal (Israel claim).They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army.

Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, according to Gamasy, the Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads.

In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."
For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded

In the end We don't take many of the posts here seriously .. we know the truth .. we see it .. we live in it!
Sinai was returned back to us only by war and lots of sacrifices .. a war we fought and goals we achieved
And that considers wining .. That's victory.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> no need for using words like that and I will let it pass this time but believe me using bad language is easy and fun so don't make me do it
> our goal was never to retake all of Sinai see my post earlier I said the objectives clearly and our army managed to do everything was asked


Your goal wasn't to retake the Sinai?
How come you started to push into the Sinai, when we captured your whole third army?



iajdani said:


> You dont understand the game, do you? Arab want entire Israel. Thats why they will shove Gaza and Westbank inside Israel (2 state solution is a ploy). More muslim live in greater palestine than jews. Israel will eventually collapse.


Ahahaha, is that why the Jordanians still want the West Bank?
Eventually every nation will collapse
But Israel will defeat the Arabs.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> But Mig-21 couldn't make it to there to guard bombers ..


1200km range is more than enough to go to Tel Aviv and back from Cairo, not talking about the bases in the south, the distance between the two is only 400 kilometers.




Amir_Pharaoh said:


> IAF strongest fighter was F-4 Phantom II


*Fighter*? No, its a fighter bomber, this plane had worse turn rate, roll rate, acceleration and such.
How ever its top speed exceeded the MiG21s but it would take more time to reach its max speed than the MiG21, in other words, the MiG would easily out accelerate it.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> Yet many IAF F-4 were shut down by EAF' Mig-21


"Many"? 
I'll give you an example
the battle of September 13th 1973
12 Phantoms and 8 Mirage 3s fought against dozens of MiG 21s, 1 Mirage plane was shot down, and its pilot ejected safely, while 12 MiG 21s were destroyed.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> An Israeli Centurion tank. It was considered in many respects superior to the Soviet T-54/55


No, it was not
the only better thing on the Centurion was its cannon, but it had a lack of armor, worse speed and so on



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> As for T-62 tanks, yes the T-62 was an effective adversary for Israeli Patton and Centurion main battle tanks armed with 105 mm tank guns. The T-62 had an advantage in its better night-fighting capability.
> But The Egyptian army only received approx. 200 T-62 between 1971-73.
> Unlike Syria that acquired about 500


"Only" Don't forget the fact that Egypt alone had 1700 tanks and Syria 1200 tanks (And more support troops)
and Israel had to deal with them with its 1700 tanks, that weren't even deployed because it was a holiday

In the Syrian border, Israel had 180 tanks against 800 Syrian
In the Egyptian border, it faced 1020 tanks, supported by massive amounts of ground troops and artillery, new advanced (to the time) ATGMs such as the Sagger, that did most of the damage to the Israeli armored battalions.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> Everyone can see how much advanced weapons Israel had during the conflicts in the 60s-70s
> Yet Egypt managed to breach and capture "Bar Lev Line" and occupy 20km east of the canal.
> Egypt's losses only began after "Sadat" gave the order (even with the opposition given by war cabinet)


The Arabs had more advanced weapons and MUCH more of them, from ATGMs to SAMs to the most advanced tanks of the time.
the Israelis were still using many WW2 weapons.
the Arabs used some, but not many.

"


Amir_Pharaoh said:


> By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal.They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army.
> 
> Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, according to Gamasy, the Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads.
> 
> In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."
> For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded
> 
> In the end We don't take many of the posts here seriously .. we know the truth .. we see it .. we live in it!
> Sinai was returned back to us only by war and lots of sacrifices .. a war we fought and goals we achieved
> And that considers wining .. That's victory.



How come our positions were weak, when we flanked your entire third army, destroyed and captured it?
I do not understand how two and three are against Israel, as we already defeated Syrian Air Force and army, we could go all in against Egypt
You don't understand it yet, right?
Israel was about to NUKE YOU, destroy you
That's a victory? Israel gave it to you in 1979, 6 years after the war, after you couldn't even fight by the end of 1973, your air force was destroyed, third army captured, second and first armies couldn't move on
Israel killed 10 for every one of its soldier's deaths
That's a victory.
In the same page you quoted from, you can see
"Israeli military victory" in the result.



AUz said:


> Putting Israel on pedestal as always lol..
> 
> Israelis deserve all the credit for surviving in harsh conditions--but lets be real. They wouldn't and did not stand much of a chance against combine Arab assault.
> 
> In 1948, Israelis outnumbered Arab forces--and actual Arab military didn't even take part in action (Moreover, Israelis got weapons from Europe and their officers also had European military knowledge which was quite latest thanks to WW2).
> 
> 1967--only time Israelis surprised Arabs and struck down their air forces.
> 
> 1973--Egyptians destroyed half of israeli armor in Sinai within first few hours of engagement and totally got Israel by surprise.
> 
> The ONLY way Israel got upper hand was because Egyptians were forced to leave their original plan and go deep into Sinai without aircover.
> 
> Basically, even though Israel fought well, it were mainly Arab mismanagement and shortcomings that gave Israel a chance to survive.
> 
> I have studied and worked with Israeli professors who have served in israeli security establishment and what not. They agree as well.
> 
> One of my Israeli professor smiled and told "IDF isn't as lean and mean, well oiled machine as you think it is"...
> 
> For example, without foreign intervention, Israeli military---no matter how good--wouldn't stand much of a chance against powers like Turkey in the region


1948- the Israelis outnumbered them because untrained "Kibutz" members had some pistols and such that we fought the Arabs with, while the Arabs had more planes, tanks and such.
Israel didn't get weapons from Europe, it bought them. and I agree, we had much more military knowledge than the Arabs

1967- Israel strike the Arabs after they said they will destroy Israel, and after they bought a few Tupelov bombers

1973- the Egyptians were better armed and had more tanks than the Israelis that had to split its forces, AGAIN, in half, and couldn't deploy that fast as it was in a holiday, yet it destroyed its whole third army, capturing 8000 people and killing 15,000
It didn't have air cover because by that time Israel destroyed over 500 Arab aircrafts while 102 Israelis were lost, 
1000 Israeli tanks were destroyed- 2300 Arab tanks were destroyed

Wait, the Arabs gave us chance to survive? Israel had NUKES at the time, they are the only reason the US rushed to supply us

If we are not that well oiled war machine, what does it say about the Arabs, that a tiny country conquered huge amounts of their land?

Israel wont stand much of a chance against Turkey?
Ahahahahaha
First solution: Nuke
Conventional solution: 
Israel have superior air force, superior air defense, Israel can conquer Syria in a click of a button, having borders with Turkey and since it has superior ground troops and tanks, it will easily crush it


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> Your goal wasn't to retake the Sinai?
> How come you started to push into the Sinai, when we captured your whole third army?


we pushed into Sinai without air cover because the bad position Syria was in under pressure from the soviets and arabs that did make some problems with us but in the end nothing we cant handle by the end of the war


Beny Karachun said:


> You don't understand it yet, right?
> Israel was about to NUKE YOU, destroy you
> That's a victory? Israel gave it to you in 1979, 6 years after the war, after you couldn't even fight by the end of 1973, your air force was destroyed, third army captured, second and first armies couldn't move on
> Israel killed 10 for every one of its soldier's deaths
> That's a victory.
> In the same page you quoted from, you can see
> "Israeli military victory" in the result.


isreal couldn't use nukes unless arabs are inside isreal it is not that simple
that was the plan from the start to retake Sinai by negotiations no one said anything about retaking all of Sinai by the military we did not have the air force or mobile air defense to go deep into Sinai

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

khanz said:


> because arabs are f uckin useless treacherous camel jockeys.Israel must be so happy it's bordered by these weak people if it fought against someone competent let's say hypothetically an alliance of pakistan/iran/turkey if they were next to israel - who are also the real "powers" of the muslim world it might have been different.


lolzzzzzzzzzzzz.....wat's up ,,,saw you shootings in other forum ...lolzz



Beny Karachun said:


> Your goal wasn't to retake the Sinai?
> How come you started to push into the Sinai, when we captured your whole third army?
> 
> 
> Ahahaha, is that why the Jordanians still want the West Bank?
> Eventually every nation will collapse
> But Israel will defeat the Arabs.
> 
> 
> 1200km range is more than enough to go to Tel Aviv and back from Cairo, not talking about the bases in the south, the distance between the two is only 400 kilometers.
> 
> 
> 
> *Fighter*? No, its a fighter bomber, this plane had worse turn rate, roll rate, acceleration and such.
> How ever its top speed exceeded the MiG21s but it would take more time to reach its max speed than the MiG21, in other words, the MiG would easily out accelerate it.
> 
> 
> "Many"?
> I'll give you an example
> the battle of September 13th 1973
> 12 Phantoms and 8 Mirage 3s fought against dozens of MiG 21s, 1 Mirage plane was shot down, and its pilot ejected safely, while 12 MiG 21s were destroyed.
> 
> 
> No, it was not
> the only better thing on the Centurion was its cannon, but it had a lack of armor, worse speed and so on
> 
> 
> "Only" Don't forget the fact that Egypt alone had 1700 tanks and Syria 1200 tanks (And more support troops)
> and Israel had to deal with them with its 1700 tanks, that weren't even deployed because it was a holiday
> 
> In the Syrian border, Israel had 180 tanks against 800 Syrian
> In the Egyptian border, it faced 1020 tanks, supported by massive amounts of ground troops and artillery, new advanced (to the time) ATGMs such as the Sagger, that did most of the damage to the Israeli armored battalions.
> 
> 
> The Arabs had more advanced weapons and MUCH more of them, from ATGMs to SAMs to the most advanced tanks of the time.
> the Israelis were still using many WW2 weapons.
> the Arabs used some, but not many.
> 
> "
> 
> 
> How come our positions were weak, when we flanked your entire third army, destroyed and captured it?
> I do not understand how two and three are against Israel, as we already defeated Syrian Air Force and army, we could go all in against Egypt
> You don't understand it yet, right?
> Israel was about to NUKE YOU, destroy you
> That's a victory? Israel gave it to you in 1979, 6 years after the war, after you couldn't even fight by the end of 1973, your air force was destroyed, third army captured, second and first armies couldn't move on
> Israel killed 10 for every one of its soldier's deaths
> That's a victory.
> In the same page you quoted from, you can see
> "Israeli military victory" in the result.
> 
> 
> 1948- the Israelis outnumbered them because untrained "Kibutz" members had some pistols and such that we fought the Arabs with, while the Arabs had more planes, tanks and such.
> Israel didn't get weapons from Europe, it bought them. and I agree, we had much more military knowledge than the Arabs
> 
> 1967- Israel strike the Arabs after they said they will destroy Israel, and after they bought a few Tupelov bombers
> 
> 1973- the Egyptians were better armed and had more tanks than the Israelis that had to split its forces, AGAIN, in half, and couldn't deploy that fast as it was in a holiday, yet it destroyed its whole third army, capturing 8000 people and killing 15,000
> It didn't have air cover because by that time Israel destroyed over 500 Arab aircrafts while 102 Israelis were lost,
> 1000 Israeli tanks were destroyed- 2300 Arab tanks were destroyed
> 
> Wait, the Arabs gave us chance to survive? Israel had NUKES at the time, they are the only reason the US rushed to supply us
> 
> If we are not that well oiled war machine, what does it say about the Arabs, that a tiny country conquered huge amounts of their land?
> 
> Israel wont stand much of a chance against Turkey?
> Ahahahahaha
> First solution: Nuke
> Conventional solution:
> Israel have superior air force, superior air defense, Israel can conquer Syria in a click of a button, having borders with Turkey and since it has superior ground troops and tanks, it will easily crush it


Interesting ....did you read Pakistani pilot comment, about Egyptian pilots, served during Arab-Israel war ? ...(few year ago someone senior member posted in this forum).



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> we pushed into Sinai without air cover because the bad position Syria was in under pressure from the soviets and arabs that did make some problems with us but in the end nothing we cant handle by the end of the war
> 
> isreal couldn't use nukes unless arabs are inside isreal it is not that simple
> that was the plan from the start to retake Sinai by negotiations no one said anything about retaking all of Sinai by the military we did not have the air force or mobile air defense to go deep into Sinai


Agreed , few years ago , lots of US soldiers sick during US - Iraq invasion . Where , later research found , US soldier sick due to the use of depleted Ur on weapon tips. Radiation does more damage in deserts and plain fields.



Amir_Pharaoh said:


> This will be the last post in this thread .
> It's official now .. from the start actually!
> This thread is some sort of cultural exchange like one member added!!! ..
> Any one who see Arab as inferior to his country!
> Any Arab who has sth. in his heart against Egypt!
> All here are sharing the same ideas about the incompetency of Egypt's armed forces!!!
> 
> The armed forces that breached the Bar Lev Line, which costed $300 million at that time
> ^A sand wall, which varied in height from 20–25 metres (66–82 ft), was inclined at an angle of 45–65 degrees
> ^Then was the front line of Israeli fortifications. 22 forts, which incorporated 35 strongpoints. The forts were designed to be manned by a platoon. The strongpoints, which were built several stories into the sand, were on average situated less than 5 km (3 mi) from each other, but at likely crossing points they were less than 900 metres (3,000 ft) apart. The strongpoints incorporated trenches, minefields, barbed wire and a sand embankment.
> ^Then the water obstacle, the Israelis installed an underwater pipe system to pump flammable crude oil into the Suez Canal, thereby creating a sheet of flame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just breaching and occupying this line alone within few hours is considered one of the biggest achievements that ever happened .. As the French minister of defence said post the war "Only you Egyptians who could make such achievement" .


First world war trench design.


----------



## Ceylal

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> *many of what you say is not true I don't know where do you get your information* it was airbone and thunderbolt infantry who defended the city of Ismailia


 I was wondering the same about your sources. It was the Algerian troops that defended Ismailia.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> about algrian help no one is denying it but it is not as effective as you make it sound like if so can you tell me the number of algrian troops sent and the casualties they inflicted



The Algerian contribution is undeniable, no matter how Egypt minimises it. It took several years for Sadat to recognize the Algerian contribution. The 8th BB decimated Ariel Sharon Brigade and his 700 troops considered the cream of the IDF, 
only Ariel Sharon and his aide survived. Algerian Air force played a big role, that the only air force that bombed targets in Israel proper and shot down an American C5...among other things.. But here, we are not discussing the Algerian contribution, but the reasons behind the defeat arab armies.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> *would we have Sinai back if not for victory in the wa*r?


No my friend that is a settlement...Victory went to the victor. Need to consider the clause and the limitation that were put on Egyptians troops movements and their equipments, to seize the defeat. Ex.That color orange on your jet is one of those conditions.



AUz said:


> Israelis deserve all the credit for surviving in harsh conditions--but lets be real. *They wouldn't and did not stand much of a chance against combine Arab assault*.


It wouldn't have made that much difference. Look a the whole arab army fighting the Houthis in Yemen. They haven't made a dent and the Houthis still have the upper hand .
You have to consider that Arabs never had an army in the proper sense of the word. They are led by incompetent officer staff, with almost no training or no will to fight, for most of them it was a position of prestige, and all the officers are recruited from from the upper echelon of the society. Second arab president or monarch have never trusted their armies against a coup, and kept them under armed, undertrained for a survival purpose. And the bigger factor, is that their armies are like their society are tribal. 
in the other side, what make the force of Israel, is not the arsenal at her disposal. It's her citizens and their love for the homeland. Their is a popular army, where the sense of a statehood has a big importance and popular armies have tendency to fight for the last man.


----------



## HAIDER

Amir_Pharaoh said:


> As for the members who claim that Egypt had aircrafts could reach Israel and made Migs among them!
> Go and read some info about military stuff!! you are such ignorants.
> 
> Egypt only had few numbers of Tu-16 .. could make it there of course (range: 7,200 km)
> But Mig-21 couldn't make it to there to guard bombers ..
> It's funny how some even considering to compare between EAF and IAF during 1973 war!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EAF strongest fighter was Mig-21:
> Range 1,210 km
> Armament: 4× K-13 the short-range, infra red homing air-to-air missile
> Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
> 
> IAF strongest fighter was F-4 Phantom II :
> Range :2,600 km
> Armament : 4× AIM-7 Sparrow is an American, medium-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile
> 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder
> Maximum speed: Mach 2.23
> 
> Yet many IAF F-4 were shut down by EAF' Mig-21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An Israeli Centurion tank. It was considered in many respects superior to the Soviet T-54/55*
> View attachment 311727
> 
> 
> T-45/55
> View attachment 311729
> 
> --------------------------
> As for T-62 tanks, yes the T-62 was an effective adversary for Israeli Patton and Centurion main battle tanks armed with 105 mm tank guns. The T-62 had an advantage in its better night-fighting capability.
> But The Egyptian army only received approx. 200 T-62 between 1971-73.
> Unlike Syria that acquired about 500
> 
> View attachment 311730
> 
> "T-62 Main Battle Tank 1965–2005 by Steven J. Zaloga‏"
> 
> 
> In general:
> View attachment 311731
> 
> 
> Everyone can see how much advanced weapons Israel had during the conflicts in the 60s-70s
> Yet Egypt managed to breach and capture "Bar Lev Line" and occupy 20km east of the canal.
> Egypt's losses only began after "Sadat" gave the order (even with the opposition given by war cabinet) to go deeper without AD cover!
> 
> 
> *Final situation on the Egyptian front*
> By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal (Israel claim).They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army.
> 
> Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, according to Gamasy, the Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads.
> 
> In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."
> For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded
> 
> In the end We don't take many of the posts here seriously .. we know the truth .. we see it .. we live in it!
> Sinai was returned back to us only by war and lots of sacrifices .. a war we fought and goals we achieved
> And that considers wining .. That's victory.


You forget to mention , at that time total flying time of Mig21 was around 30 minutes. Known to be gas guzzler.


----------



## AUz

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel wont stand much of a chance against Turkey?
> Ahahahahaha
> First solution: Nuke
> Conventional solution:
> Israel have superior air force, superior air defense, Israel can conquer Syria in a click of a button, having borders with Turkey and since it has superior ground troops and tanks, it will easily crush it



lol, I was gonna reply to you but then I read the last part and thought not to engage with a zealous fanboy.

Have you seen the size and strength of Turkish navy? Turks will be in Tel Aviv by the time you'd finalize your brilliant plan to reach Turkish border via Syria by spreading out your already small forces.

And since when your 120,000 proper land forces became 'superior' to Turkey's 400,000+ land forces armed and trained along NATO standards?

Do you know--in 1948--we (our irregular tribals+ sprinkle of regular troops) conquered *4x *the size of entire Israel in the Northern region (Now called Gilgit-Baltistan. Beautiful land!). We still hold it (while indians hold the rest of kashmir valley and Jamu).

Point is, Jews barely got a state of their own..and that too a small, tiny land with not even 10 million citizens.

For you to think you can just "crush" historical superpowers and modern day regional powers like Turkey etc is only reflective of why Jews could never get their own state and were decimated by big boys in the town (Some big boys like the Turks saved Jews by sending their naval fleet to Spain. Read up). Don't act like the kid who got a lottery and now thinks he is the same league as self-made millionaires.

Show up humility and sense of reality.

Turkey is a far more balanced power--with land area, population, military, international ties, military experience, and historical knowledge of ruling/navigating the region you call Israel now.

You don't want to find out what happens in a Turkey vs Israel war. It's for your own sake.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Guynextdoor2

because the jews were ready to sacrifice themselves in defense of Israel and die. The arabs were ready to fight only as long as there was a possibility of easy victory.



AUz said:


> Putting Israel on pedestal as always lol..
> 
> Israelis deserve all the credit for surviving in harsh conditions--but lets be real. They wouldn't and did not stand much of a chance against combine Arab assault.
> 
> In 1948, Israelis outnumbered Arab forces--and actual Arab military didn't even take part in action (Moreover, Israelis got weapons from Europe and their officers also had European military knowledge which was quite latest thanks to WW2).
> 
> 1967--only time Israelis surprised Arabs and struck down their air forces.
> 
> 1973--Egyptians destroyed half of israeli armor in Sinai within first few hours of engagement and totally got Israel by surprise.
> 
> The ONLY way Israel got upper hand was because Egyptians were forced to leave their original plan and go deep into Sinai without aircover.
> 
> Basically, even though Israel fought well, it were mainly Arab mismanagement and shortcomings that gave Israel a chance to survive.
> 
> I have studied and worked with Israeli professors who have served in israeli security establishment and what not. They agree as well.
> 
> One of my Israeli professor smiled and told "IDF isn't as lean and mean, well oiled machine as you think it is"...
> 
> For example, without foreign intervention, Israeli military---no matter how good--wouldn't stand much of a chance against powers like Turkey in the region



There is always a version where loss is because of some understandable/chance/unseen minor factor. That they built a state out of nothing and built its defense so rapidly that within a period of about 2 years the young state could withstand the combined assault of multiple arab states is not because of the jewish character that had become tough and outstanding above anything that the ARabs displayed? The fact that their spirit did not stop with the Yom Kippur war and in that parched and conflict ridden area they built the most modern and technologically advanced state that can rival the best in the world is not a result of their determination that outclasses anything in the muslim world does not count? Which arab (i might argue larger muslim world for that matter, excepting India) has ade grenadine, iron dome or Merkva?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> There is always a version where loss is because of some understandable/chance/unseen minor factor. That they built a state out of nothing and built its defense so rapidly that within a period of about 2 years the young state could withstand the combined assault of multiple arab states is not because of the jewish character that had become tough and outstanding above anything that the ARabs displayed?



That assessment is wrong and purely romanticized version of Israeli narrative.

I have taken MULTIPLE courses in Israeli history, worked with professors who have played important role in Israeli defence establishment, and have even studied along side some IDF soldiers.

All of what you have written is plain wrong. Facts of history are different, and often favoring Israel over Arab countries.

No credit taken away from Israel--but let's not drool over Israel and its romanticized vision that you might like to have in your mind.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Ceylal said:


> I was wondering the same about your sources. It was the Algerian troops that defended Ismailia.
> .


that is a lie it was our airbone and thunderbolt elite infantry I like to know where did you learn this


Ceylal said:


> The Algerian contribution is undeniable, no matter how Egypt minimises it. It took several years for Sadat to recognize the Algerian contribution. The 8th BB decimated Ariel Sharon Brigade and his 700 troops considered the cream of the IDF,
> only Ariel Sharon and his aide survived. Algerian Air force played a big role, that the only air force that bombed targets in Israel proper and shot down an American C5...among other things.. But here, we are not discussing the Algerian contribution, but the reasons behind the defeat arab armies.


I want numbers and sources whoever told you that is not being honest with you 


Ceylal said:


> No my friend that is a settlement...Victory went to the victor. Need to consider the clause and the limitation that were put on Egyptians troops movements and their equipments, to seize the defeat. Ex.That color orange on your jet is one of those conditions.
> .


we got Sinai back just as planned and like I said many times that was what sadat wanted from the start and what do you mean by orange so the defeated army has to color his jet orange ??? this is the first I hear of that
please continue I am learning a lot from you



AUz said:


> lol, I was gonna reply to you but then I read the last part and thought not to engage with a zealous fanboy.
> 
> Have you seen the size and strength of Turkish navy? Turks will be in Tel Aviv by the time you'd finalize your brilliant plan to reach Turkish border via Syria by spreading out your already small forces.
> 
> And since when your 120,000 proper land forces became 'superior' to Turkey's 400,000+ land forces armed and trained along NATO standards?
> 
> Do you know--in 1948--we (our irregular tribals+ sprinkle of regular troops) conquered *4x *the size of entire Israel in the Northern region (Now called Gilgit-Baltistan. Beautiful land!). We still hold it (while indians hold the rest of kashmir valley and Jamu).
> 
> Point is, Jews barely got a state of their own..and that too a small, tiny land with not even 10 million citizens.
> 
> For you to think you can just "crush" historical superpowers and modern day regional powers like Turkey etc is only reflective of why Jews could never get their own state and were decimated by big boys in the town (Some big boys like the Turks saved Jews by sending their naval fleet to Spain. Read up). Don't act like the kid who got a lottery and now thinks he is the same league as self-made millionaires.
> 
> Show up humility and sense of reality.
> 
> Turkey is a far more balanced power--with land area, population, military, international ties, military experience, and historical knowledge of ruling/navigating the region you call Israel now.
> 
> You don't want to find out what happens in a Turkey vs Israel war. It's for your own sake.


500 was a lot more realistic than him so he after being unable to destroy hezbolah in Lebanon is going to take all Syria and then attack turkey

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUz

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> 500 was a lot more realistic than him so he after being unable to destroy hezbolah in Lebanon is going to take all Syria and then attack turkey



And then he'll "crush" Turkey too 

500 was a person who served in IDF and was mature. I disagreed with lots of his opinions but he was no fanyboy.

This dude is a just a Jewish fanboy putting Israel on such a high pedestal.

He similar to indians who regard their country as "super power" .........

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

Dayan, for long Israel’s icon, was unnerved by the situation Israel now found itself in. Military intelligence had what was supposed to be a fail-safe system that would let it know if the Arabs planned to attack in ample time to mobilize the reserves. It had failed to activate the system because premature activation risked its exposure and Gen. Zeira, despite all the evidence, did not believe the Arabs would dare attack. For two days or so, Dayan suffered a failure of nerve and spread despondency among his peers by warning that Israel faced destruction. When he spoke to the inner cabinet after returning from flying visits to both fronts Sunday morning Meir, who had dark thoughts enough of her own, listened to him “in horror,” as she would write. She would acknowledge that she had thoughts of suicide.

When Meir asked Dayan what his reaction would be if the UN ordered a ceasefire, he said he would grab it

As the cabinet meeting broke up, she telephoned her long-time aide, Ms. Lou Kedar, whose office was next door. “Meet me in the corridor,” she said. There were other people still in Meir’s office and she wanted a private space. Although she had the country’s top political and military advisers on hand she could share her deepest feelings only with an old friend. When Kedar emerged into the corridor, Meir was already waiting for her. Kedar was shocked at her pallor, which matched the gray jacket she was wearing. There was despair in her face. Kedar would remember the prime minister leaning heavily against the wall and saying in a low and terrible voice, “Dayan is speaking of surrender.”

If Dayan had used that word, it is inconceivable that he used it in the conventional sense and none of the many other people who had been in the room would ever suggest he did. But he had spoken of surrendering territory — pulling back from the Bar-Lev Line — and of his belief that it would be impossible to force the Egyptians back across the canal. When Meir asked what his reaction would be if the UN ordered a ceasefire, he said he would grab it. He offered his resignation but she rejected it.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-...r-understood-how-war-could-have-been-avoided/

And then :"all of a sudden" they won!? Any sane, objective and rational person would understand from these lines what have really happened.. Israel lost the war from the start, and diplomacy manoeuvring, mainly by Kissinger the Russians and Sadat that saved it and allowed it to save face..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

AUz said:


> That assessment is wrong and purely romanticized version of Israeli narrative.
> 
> I have taken MULTIPLE courses in Israeli history, worked with professors who have played important role in Israeli defence establishment, and have even studied along side some IDF soldiers.
> 
> All of what you have written is plain wrong. Facts of history are different, and often favoring Israel over Arab countries.
> 
> No credit taken away from Israel--but let's not drool over Israel and its romanticized vision that you might like to have in your mind.



I'm sorry but it is a very common attitude among Pakistanis (and people who have involvement in the Israel conflict) to find narratives where the superiority of Israel, especially interns of human factors is rushed down. Israel Arab difference really is the difference between alexander the great and Darius in some sense. You deploy disorganized and politically divided masses of soldiers against a foe thinking that numbers will give you easy victory. Obviously the scheming within the states and political leaders should not have been missed by you in any reading of the history? The Israeli, on the other hand did put a far greater emphasis on unity, valor and extreme willingness to die. This was the exact opposite of the Arab forces. Is it not true that once the reverses started they were ready to surrender? I*s it not true that the Israeli state continues to be more willing to sacrifice it's people and interests than any other state in the region? * take syria for instance- Assad presides over the massacre of 1000s of his people just to hold on to power. Do you think the jews would allow that? A netanyahu, no matter how much you hate him, would rather resign and wait for a time when he regains his people's confidence than allow the state to go to the drains. (of course you'll give some lame explanation to counter this too)

The reason why you can't accept it is because you can't find the narrative fitting your 'pet' images of jews- cowards, manipulators, given to only wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. You will have no problems if their victory is attributable to 'american weapons' or external factors, but traits of the jewish character is one you can't expect to give victory right?

Arguably the very root of that was the unfortunate strain among the jews to not consolidate their civilization and values in a state of their own. The consequences were clear, and while I have nothing except sympathy for the Palestinians, there really was no alternative outcome possible.



The SC said:


> Dayan, for long Israel’s icon, was unnerved by the situation Israel now found itself in. Military intelligence had what was supposed to be a fail-safe system that would let it know if the Arabs planned to attack in ample time to mobilize the reserves. It had failed to activate the system because premature activation risked its exposure and Gen. Zeira, despite all the evidence, did not believe the Arabs would dare attack. For two days or so, Dayan suffered a failure of nerve and spread despondency among his peers by warning that Israel faced destruction. When he spoke to the inner cabinet after returning from flying visits to both fronts Sunday morning Meir, who had dark thoughts enough of her own, listened to him “in horror,” as she would write. She would acknowledge that she had thoughts of suicide.
> 
> When Meir asked Dayan what his reaction would be if the UN ordered a ceasefire, he said he would grab it
> 
> As the cabinet meeting broke up, she telephoned her long-time aide, Ms. Lou Kedar, whose office was next door. “Meet me in the corridor,” she said. There were other people still in Meir’s office and she wanted a private space. Although she had the country’s top political and military advisers on hand she could share her deepest feelings only with an old friend. When Kedar emerged into the corridor, Meir was already waiting for her. Kedar was shocked at her pallor, which matched the gray jacket she was wearing. There was despair in her face. Kedar would remember the prime minister leaning heavily against the wall and saying in a low and terrible voice, “Dayan is speaking of surrender.”
> 
> If Dayan had used that word, it is inconceivable that he used it in the conventional sense and none of the many other people who had been in the room would ever suggest he did. But he had spoken of surrendering territory — pulling back from the Bar-Lev Line — and of his belief that it would be impossible to force the Egyptians back across the canal. When Meir asked what his reaction would be if the UN ordered a ceasefire, he said he would grab it. He offered his resignation but she rejected it.
> 
> http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-...r-understood-how-war-could-have-been-avoided/
> And then :"all of a sudden" they won!? Any sane, objective and rational person would understand from these lines what have really happened.. Israel lost the war from the start, and diplomacy manoeuvring, mainly by Kissinger the Russians and Sadat that saved it and allowed it to save face..



Being afraid in the face of great odds is not a crime. Fighting on in the face of such horrific odds is true bravery.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

*EXCLUSIVE: How Richard Nixon Helped Save Israel (EXCERPT)*

Stone was a close confidante and adviser to Nixon during his post-presidency.

_Below is an exclusive excerpt where Stone writes of President Nixon’s support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, despite much opposition from both his Cabinet and Congress._

At 6 a.m. on Saturday October 6, 1973 White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig woke up President Nixon at his home in California with news that Egypt and Syria had attacked Israel.

The news of Middle East aggression shocked the American foreign policy and intelligence communities to such an extent that a study prepared by the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence in conjunction with the Nixon Presidential Library concluded, “To intelligence historians, the October 1973 war is almost synonymous with ‘intelligence failure.'”

It became clear in the hours after the attack that the Arabs had surprised Israeli forces and the Israeli state faced the greatest threat to its survival since the original war of independence three decades earlier. Along the border with Syria, along the so-called Golan Heights, 180 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syrian tanks supplied by the Soviet Union; likewise Egypt crossed the Suez with 80,000 soldiers facing little Israeli opposition.

In the days following the Yom Kippur attacks Israel suffered a number of setbacks, and Washington became increasingly concerned. Nixon alone concluded that the US must step in to back Israel against Arab forces whose primary military supplier was the Soviet Union—the 1973 war became more than just necessary to save the Jewish state, it became a struggle between the world’s preeminent Super Powers. Kissinger opposed the US action.

It is one of history’s great ironies that Nixon’s proposed airlift played an integral role in the salvation of the Jewish state, as in the years since the release of the Watergate Tapes it has become one of the established facts of the Nixon mythos that the president was a raving anti-Semite. The tapes continue to damn Nixon, who maintained a cognitive dissonance when it came to several prominent Jewish members of his senior staff-Kissinger, White House counsel Leonard Garment, and speechwriter William Safire as well as economist Herb Stein.

In one rant from 1971, Nixon railed against the Jews who in his estimation were both “all over the government” and disloyal, he told Haldeman that the Jews needed to be controlled by placing someone at the top “who is not Jewish.” Incredible, given the position in which he would find himself in two short years, Nixon would argue to Haldeman that, “most Jews are disloyal,” and “generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you.” In another exchange, just months before the 1973 war, Nixon rants to Kissinger about American Jews and what he saw as their selfish view of foreign policy.

On a call on April 19, 1973, Nixon revealed a concern that American Jews would “torpedo” a US-Soviet summit vowing that, “If they torpedo this summit… I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at nine o’clock at night before eighty million people”. Then, perhaps most damning, Nixon would go on to argue, “I won’t mind one goddamn bit to have a little anti-Semitism if it’s on that issue… they put the Jewish interest above America’s interest and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”

Yet, Nixon would play a pivotal role in protecting the Jewish state, as Nixon recognized that the defeat of Israel was unthinkable for US interests. Nixon went to Congress to request authorization for emergency aid for Israel despite the Gulf States announcing a price increase of seventy percent in the wake of the Arab assault. After Nixon went to Congress for authorization, the Gulf States responded vigorously, announcing a total boycott of the United States, causing the oil shock of 1973.

The Gulf States’ retaliation simply served to further entrench the opposition of many who had fought to slow or halt the shipment of weapons to the Israelis (the former being represented by Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Kissinger, the latter being represented by Secretary of Defense Schlesinger). Nixon hit the roof when he learned that Kissinger was delaying the airlift because of a concern that it would offend the Russians. Despite the opposition of his national security and foreign policy brain trust, Nixon ordered the airlift, saying, “We are going to get blamed just as much for three planes as for three hundred,” and later in exasperation at the slow start of US support, said “Use every [plane] we have—everything that will fly.”

Finally, after several days of internal politicking amongst the upper echelons of the Administration, Nixon got his airlift: “Operation Nickel Grass.” Over the course of the airlift 567 missions were flown, delivering over 22,000 tons of supplies, and an additional 90,000 tons were delivered to Israel by sea. Later in her life, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir would admit that upon hearing of the airlift during a cabinet meeting, she began to cry.

Nixon’s loyalty drove him to save a US ally from the threat of utter destruction despite the real risk of economic crisis, and political cost to himself. To borrow the phrase from the Kennedy clan, Nixon’s decision to aid Israel was a true “profile in courage.”

https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/11/exclusive-how-richard-nixon-helped-save-israel-excerpt/
Anyone on the forum who can challenge these facts and the ones in post # 200?
This is no child's play if you have facts, you are welcome..
This thread has a false (troll) title because it is just not true..



Guynextdoor2 said:


> I'm sorry but it is a very common attitude among Pakistanis (and people who have involvement in the Israel conflict) to find narratives where the superiority of Israel, especially interns of human factors is rushed down. Israel Arab difference really is the difference between alexander the great and Darius in some sense. You deploy disorganized and politically divided masses of soldiers against a foe thinking that numbers will give you easy victory. Obviously the scheming within the states and political leaders should not have been missed by you in any reading of the history? The Israeli, on the other hand did put a far greater emphasis on unity, valor and extreme willingness to die. This was the exact opposite of the Arab forces. Is it not true that once the reverses started they were ready to surrender? I*s it not true that the Israeli state continues to be more willing to sacrifice it's people and interests than any other state in the region? * take syria for instance- Assad presides over the massacre of 1000s of his people just to hold on to power. Do you think the jews would allow that? A netanyahu, no matter how much you hate him, would rather resign and wait for a time when he regains his people's confidence than allow the state to go to the drains. (of course you'll give some lame explanation to counter this too)
> 
> The reason why you can't accept it is because you can't find the narrative fitting your 'pet' images of jews- cowards, manipulators, given to only wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. You will have no problems if their victory is attributable to 'american weapons' or external factors, but traits of the jewish character is one you can't expect to give victory right?
> 
> Arguably the very root of that was the unfortunate strain among the jews to not consolidate their civilization and values in a state of their own. The consequences were clear, and while I have nothing except sympathy for the Palestinians, there really was no alternative outcome possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Being afraid in the face of great odds is not a crime. Fighting on in the face of such horrific odds is true bravery.



Now you say "Great odds"!? They were supposed to be invincible against the Arabs or that is what they thought and made the West masses think..

Read post #202 to see how, why and by which means they continued the war, otherwise it should be recognized that for a strong leader of Usrael to think about committing suicide and her defence minister asking her to surrender to the Arabs or to accept his resignation, Usrael had to be facing very great odds ...
They were brave, because they were facing total defeat and surrender (and guess to whom? their sworn ennemies the Arabs), and mainly when they had the full and inconditional backing of the US.: Even a mouse becomes brave if you corner him somewhere with no escape, more brave if you give him cat's claws..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> we pushed into Sinai without air cover because the bad position Syria was in under pressure from the soviets and arabs that did make some problems with us but in the end nothing we cant handle by the end of the war
> 
> isreal couldn't use nukes unless arabs are inside isreal it is not that simple
> that was the plan from the start to retake Sinai by negotiations no one said anything about retaking all of Sinai by the military we did not have the air force or mobile air defense to go deep into Sinai



You pushed into the Sinai with air cover that was quickly destroyed by our forces
For example- Ofira Air Battle, 2 Israeli Phantoms against 20 MiG 17s and 8 MiG 21s, result? 7 Egyptians down, none Israeli
In the sea? Battle of Baltim, 3 Osa boats sunk against a few Saar ships
What about Egyptian 25th Brigade ambush? when 3 Israeli tanks were destroyed and 60 Egyptian tanks destroyed, and other military vehicles?

"Unless arabs are inside Israel"
Ahahaha, why you think like that?
You did not have the air force because we destroyed, you DID try to retake all the Sinai as you said, " we pushed into Sinai"



HAIDER said:


> Interesting ....did you read Pakistani pilot comment, about Egyptian pilots, served during Arab-Israel war ? ...(few year ago someone senior member posted in this forum).


No I didn't , no idea what you are talking about



AUz said:


> lol, I was gonna reply to you but then I read the last part and thought not to engage with a zealous fanboy.
> 
> Have you seen the size and strength of Turkish navy? Turks will be in Tel Aviv by the time you'd finalize your brilliant plan to reach Turkish border via Syria by spreading out your already small forces.
> 
> And since when your 120,000 proper land forces became 'superior' to Turkey's 400,000+ land forces armed and trained along NATO standards?
> 
> Do you know--in 1948--we (our irregular tribals+ sprinkle of regular troops) conquered *4x *the size of entire Israel in the Northern region (Now called Gilgit-Baltistan. Beautiful land!). We still hold it (while indians hold the rest of kashmir valley and Jamu).
> 
> Point is, Jews barely got a state of their own..and that too a small, tiny land with not even 10 million citizens.
> 
> For you to think you can just "crush" historical superpowers and modern day regional powers like Turkey etc is only reflective of why Jews could never get their own state and were decimated by big boys in the town (Some big boys like the Turks saved Jews by sending their naval fleet to Spain. Read up). Don't act like the kid who got a lottery and now thinks he is the same league as self-made millionaires.
> 
> Show up humility and sense of reality.
> 
> Turkey is a far more balanced power--with land area, population, military, international ties, military experience, and historical knowledge of ruling/navigating the region you call Israel now.
> 
> You don't want to find out what happens in a Turkey vs Israel war. It's for your own sake.



Size? does this mean anything?
Israel got medium fast quick ships with full air cover while you have large slow ships that have equal armament but not technology
Do you understand Israel have nukes? Israel already mounted long range guided artillery missiles on its boats, called "Predator hawks" and Iron Dome, with plans to put new made Iron Beam on it, laser defense

How will you be in Tel Aviv?
if Israel already either nukes you or destroys your navy with either its most advanced submarines made by Germany called the Dolphin class, can destroy your whole navy either with torpedoes, or just launch a nuclear armed Turbo Popeye missile in the middle of its navy

"And since when your 120,000 proper land forces became 'superior' to Turkey's 400,000+ land forces armed and trained along NATO standards?"
You know that Israel have 160,000 active military personal, and 630,000 reserves, all armed with the most modern weapons? 
That's way more than Turkish both active and reserve military personal
We have more fighter aircraft, more tanks, more APCs and IFVs, all of them are better than yours, defense systems, NUKES

"Do you know--in 1948--we (our irregular tribals+ sprinkle of regular troops) conquered *4x *the size of entire Israel in the Northern region (Now called Gilgit-Baltistan. Beautiful land!). We still hold it (while indians hold the rest of kashmir valley and Jamu)."
You know that we conquered land mass 3 times our own size from countries with 100 times our population and size?
Unlike you that you are equal size?

10 million citizens beat up 300 million

"
Turkey is a far more balanced power--with land area, population, military, international ties, military experience, and historical knowledge of ruling/navigating the region you call Israel now."
I already proved that land mass and population do not matter, our military is stronger, you only got stronger international ties with the Arabs, while we are allies with Greece, Cyprus, the US, Russia (We are not allies, but we both hate the Turks), Germany and more?
I've been in military training with foreign NATO armies, including German and American, and they told us that we are in another class, by the quality of training, soldiers and equipment.
You might not forget how we beat the Americans up in air to air fights 60 to 1, in Blue Flag?


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> You pushed into the Sinai with air cover that was quickly destroyed by our forces
> For example- Ofira Air Battle, 2 Israeli Phantoms against 20 MiG 17s and 8 MiG 21s, result? 7 Egyptians down, none Israeli
> In the sea? Battle of Baltim, 3 Osa boats sunk against a few Saar ships
> What about Egyptian 25th Brigade ambush? when 3 Israeli tanks were destroyed and 60 Egyptian tanks destroyed, and other military vehicles?
> 
> "Unless arabs are inside Israel"
> Ahahaha, why you think like that?
> You did not have the air force because we destroyed, you DID try to retake all the Sinai as you said, " we pushed into Sinai"
> 
> 
> 
> ?


there are many battles if you want to mention 1 by 1 we should talk about destroying the barliv line the isreali counter attack the battle for suez and ismalia the mansora air battle
I said the plan was to advance within the cover of our SAMs
if you think that using nuclear weapons is that simple you are wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Solomon2

iajdani said:


> You dont understand the game, do you? Arab want entire Israel. Thats why they will shove Gaza and Westbank inside Israel (2 state solution is a ploy). More muslim live in greater palestine than jews. Israel will eventually collapse.


Declaring the State of Israel was more of a matter of necessity than of choice: the British weren't staying and the surrounding Arab states (and much of the Arab populace in the Mandate) lusted for Jewish blood. However, not only has Israel survived generations surrounded and even infested with such hostility, it has even thrived. 

Nor, I'm sure, are the Arabs the first to bray that Israel would disappear. The post-Alexander Macedonian Greeks ruling the region thought the same 2,200 years ago. The Maccabees drove them out and kept them out. While much grief has happened to Jews since, today more people speak Hebrew than Greek.


----------



## Ceylal

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> I want numbers and sources whoever told you that is not being honest with you


Mahmoud, all you have to do is go to the thread :The October war in this forum...


----------



## jerry_tan

*In 1973 war Egyptian 3rd army is trap in Sinai, did really American threatened Israel so that not to destroy the 3rd army.*


----------



## Solomon2

jerry_tan said:


> In 1973 war Egyptian 3rd army is trap in Sinai, did really American threatened Israel so that not to destroy the 3rd army.


The U.S. told Israel it would not allow the encircle Egyptian Army to be starved into submission IF Sadat agreed to be cooperative in reducing Communist influence in the region. By that the U.S. meant it would provide the trapped army food and water, by airdrops if necessary. But that alone wasn't enough to entice Israel from pressing forward to achieve another smashing victory.

Rather, in exchange for not embarrassing Egypt or conquering Damascus the U.S. promised to arm Israel so it would become the preeminent military power in the region, capable of defeating handily any likely combination of its enemies. This compromise Israel's leaders accepted, and from that day to this neither the U.S. nor Israel has neglected it - the closest to doing so was the Reagan Administration's temporary suspension of F-16s after Israel used them to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Solomon2 said:


> The U.S. told Israel it would not allow the encircle Egyptian Army to be starved into submission IF Sadat agreed to be cooperative in reducing Communist influence in the region. By that the U.S. meant it would provide the trapped army food and water, by airdrops if necessary. But that alone wasn't enough to entice Israel from pressing forward to achieve another smashing victory.
> 
> Rather, in exchange for not embarrassing Egypt or conquering Damascus the U.S. promised to arm Israel so it would become the preeminent military power in the region, capable of defeating handily any likely combination of its enemies. This compromise Israel's leaders accepted, and from that day to this neither the U.S. nor Israel has neglected it - the closest to doing so was the Reagan Administration's temporary suspension of F-16s after Israel used them to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.


may I remind you that isreal has broken the cease fire to better their condition before the war ended
the 3rd army
the most important thing to know is by the end and with the high isreali losses and limited manpower they could not afford more losses they were stretched from Sinai to the other side of the canal
no one can know for sure what would happen if they attack it our army after all we done in the war has proven it is worth this time was trained better under much wiser command and willing to fight till the death if they attempt to starve the 3rd army they would enter a war of attrition and we all know they cant afford

Reactions: Like Like:
 2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> may I remind you that isreal has broken the cease fire to better their condition before the war ended
> the 3rd army
> the most important thing to know is by the end and with the high isreali losses and limited manpower they could not afford more losses they were stretched from Sinai to the other side of the canal
> no one can know for sure what would happen if they attack it our army after all we done in the war has proven it is worth this time was trained better under much wiser command and willing to fight till the death if they attempt to starve the 3rd army they would enter a war of attrition and we all know they cant afford



A surrounded army in the desert without supplies and water is soon a dead army.
Without water, the Army is dead in a week.
But as Solomon2 said, the U.S. wanted a certain outcome and made sure
the outcome would be acceptable both to Egypt and Israel.


----------



## boomslang

Mountain Jew said:


> ...There is much more believe me...



If it wasn't for us Israel wouldn't exist. Period.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Anubis

Mountain Jew said:


> But not:
> When the Assyrian empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Israel
> When the Babylonian Empire attacked the ancient kingdom of Judah
> When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
> When the Spaniards killed deported and converted Jews
> When the Germans burned and choked the Jews
> etc etc....
> 
> 
> There is much more believe me
> 
> 
> But hey
> *One prophecy came true and we are back in Israel*


Do you know the next prophecy? 1,44000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and Jesus will return.(Reason why a majority of American Christians support Israel is to bring about the end of the world)....the rest of the Jews along with the Muslims and Pastafarians will burn...now god forbid one President gets to office who is nutty enough to think that he will bring the Messiah back!


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Why is this still being discussed? 

The facts to why Arabs lost all their wars are clearly written all over the Arab World. Just turn on the news.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> the most important thing to know is by the end and with the high isreali losses and limited manpower they could not afford more losses they were stretched from Sinai to the other side of the canal no one can know for sure what would happen if they attack -


 Sure, the Egyptian Army performed better than in 1967 - at first, when it had the initiative on the offensive. While Israeli losses were great, in the last stages they were not, and by the time of the cease-fire Egypt's ground-to-air missile installations had been destroyed and there was no Egyptian ground force to block the Israelis had they wished to advance to Cairo and its airfields - and if the Israelis had, how long could the war have lasted? How long could the Egyptian Army maintain its strength without supplies or external support, since all war materiel was Soviet-built?



Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Why is this still being discussed? The facts to why Arabs lost all their wars are clearly written all over the Arab World. Just turn on the news.


Point!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

Anubis said:


> Do you know the next prophecy? 1,44000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and Jesus will return.(Reason why a majority of American Christians support Israel is to bring about the end of the world)....the rest of the Jews along with the Muslims and Pastafarians will burn...now god forbid one President gets to office who is nutty enough to think that he will bring the Messiah back!



I know this prophecy but... 
Q:This prophecy belong to who??
A:To stup1d christians who believe in stup1d jew.

(Christians don't be offended)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Anubis said:


> Do you know the next *prophecy*?


None sense, all the three religions have their own prophecies..


----------



## Solomon2

boomslang said:


> If it wasn't for us Israel wouldn't exist. Period.


I really don't see the validity in that claim. U.S. did not supply Israel arms until the Kennedy Administration and reversed the results of the 1956 Sinai Campaign, was not a big arms supplier until after 1967, and if Golda Meir wasn't convinced of eventual U.S. support then Israel would likely have pre-emptively attacked in 1973,likely defeating both Egypt and Syria before the Soviets could send reinforcements or troops.


----------



## Ceylal

Solomon2 said:


> no Egyptian ground force to block the Israelis had they wished to advance to Cairo and its airfields - and if the Israelis had, how long could the war have lasted? How long could the Egyptian Army maintain its strength without supplies or external support, since all war materiel was Soviet-built?


Not really, If Israelis could, they will have had done it. After Ariel Sharon tank brigade was decimated, The IDF didn't venture any further, neither did the IAF for other reasons..
We thought after 43 years, both sides can spill their duffle bags, without any hung ups..


----------



## 19887

boomslang said:


> If it wasn't for us Israel wouldn't exist. Period.


US helped us so much in 1948..not!
US helped us so much in 1956...not!
US helped us so much in 1967...not!
US was so good ally in 1973...not!
And we have to remember when the US invaded iraq and the iraqis launched scuds on us our best ally told us not to respond etc etc etc.....


----------



## Solomon2

Ceylal said:


> Not really, If Israelis could, they will have had done it.


You really don't understand Jews that well, do you? 



> ...After Ariel Sharon tank brigade was decimated,


Yes, the new anti-tank weapons. But by then the U.S. airlift also included M-60 tanks. 



> We thought after 43 years, both sides can spill their duffle bags, without any hung ups..


Ah, but then you have to be prepared to accept answers you don't like!


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Solomon2 said:


> Sure, the Egyptian Army performed better than in 1967 - at first, when it had the initiative on the offensive. While Israeli losses were great, in the last stages they were not, and by the time of the cease-fire Egypt's ground-to-air missile installations had been destroyed and there was no Egyptian ground force to block the Israelis had they wished to advance to Cairo and its airfields - and if the Israelis had, how long could the war have lasted? How long could the Egyptian Army maintain its strength without supplies or external support, since all war materiel was Soviet-built?!


they couldn't even enter suez a small city and nearly half of its population left because of the war no way even 1 isreali think about cairo
our airforce didn't lose much of its jets they could provide air cover

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Please every one read the articles in post #200 and # 202 and stop this vicious cycle talk..

It is clear that Usrael had a near death experience..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

@*M.SAAD*
*
1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all


They Said about the War *


*Introduction 

The October 1973 War, a radical turning-point in the course of Arab-Israeli conflict, has evoked interest by military leaders, strategists, research and study centers and media around the world. This is due to the fact that this war had had far-reaching repercussions and impact on the Middle East region, not only on the military and strategic level but also on the overall political and economic life of the world as a whole. Statements by contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October 1973 War. 

Israeli Testimonies 

Reporting Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister during October War: 

The Egyptians crossed the canal and hit hard our forces in Sinai. The Syrians pushed deep into the Golan Heights. We incurred grave losses on both fronts. The agonizing question at that time was should we or should we not inform the nation of the truth about the bad situation?!. 
In writing on the Yom Kippur War (October war) - not as a military report- but as a close-by disaster or a horrible nightmare that I myself have suffered from and will continue to haunt me throughout my life. 

Reporting Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister during October War: 

The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians. The halo of supremacy and the political and military premise that Israel is stronger than the Arabs; that they would be defeated should they dare to start war did not hold true. It was theory that it would take them the whole night to erect bridges, which we could prevent, using our armored vehicles. But it turned out that it was not easy to prevent them. Our exercise to send tanks to the battle front was very costly. We have never expected that. 
(Press Conference, October 9, 1973) 

The October War was an earthquake that hit Israel. What happened in this war has removed dust off our eyes, revealing to us what we could not see before. All this led to a change in the mentality of Israeli leaders. 
(Statements by Dayan, December 1973) 

Reporting Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister during October War: 

Many changes have taken place since October 6,1973. We should, therefore, not overestimate Israel military supremacy. On the contrary, there is now an overwhelming sense in Israel of the need to review national rhetoric. We have to keep away from hyperboles and be more realistic. (November 1973) 

Reporting Aharon Yarev, Former Director of Israeli Intelligence: 

Undoubtedly, the Arabs came out of the war victorious, while we, in terms of image and feeling, came out torn out and weak. When asked if he won the war, Sadat replied, "Look at what is going on in Israel after the war and you will know the answer to this question". 
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem,September 16, 1974) 

Reporting Haim Hertzog, Former Head of the State of Israel: 

The October war ended up in a major shock to all Israelis. Moshe Dayan is no longer the same man before. Since then he has been bent on himself. He has always had the conviction that he would not and could not afford to attack. Even amidst Egyptian infiltration, Dayan did not admit his miscalculations. 
He turned into a sort of a Hamlet, torn out by suspicion, reluctance, and inability to take decision or impose his will. That was the beginning of fall for labour governments which has ruled Israel for 25 years until then. Similarly the war has caused conceptual changes in the mentality of Israeli leadership, who started looking for a new approach and a realistic policy of dealing with the problem through political solutions. 
(From the Memoirs of Haim Hertzog) 

Before October 6, we used to talk too much, this was one of our problems. While the Egyptians learned how to fight, we learned how to talk. They were patient and their statements were more realistic than ours. They were telling and announcing facts so fully that the external world seemed to trust their statements. 
(Comments by Hertzog, November 1973) 

Reporting Nahom Goldman , Former Head of Jewish Agency: 

One of the most significant results of October 1973 War was that it put an end to the myth of an invincible Israel and its progressive supremacy over the Arabs.This also cost Israel a high price; about $ 5 billion. It caused a radical change to the economic position of the Jewish Agency, which dropped from a state of boom experienced a year earlier (albeit not firmly grounded as it seemed) to an extremely deep, and ever more intensive and serious crisis. The most serious result was that which affected the psychological side. 
Gone was the Israelis' confidence in their sustained supremacy. Their internal morale was tremendously weakened, which is the most serious thing that can face a nation, particularly Israel. This weakness was embodied into two contradictory forms, which led to an extremely serious polarization of Israel. On the one hand, there were some people who began to question the future of Israel. On the other, increasing fanaticism and hard-line trends were visible, leading to what was called "Massada Complex". 
The citadel, where the Jews took refuge during the Jewish rebellion movement against the Roman Empire, but never surrendered and all died). 
Reporting "Whereto Israel" 

Reporting Israeli General Ishio Javitch: 
If we assess achievements against targets, we will find out that the Arabs' victory was more decisive. I should admit that the Arabs have achieved a very large part of their objectives. They proved capable of surmounting the fear barrier; got into war and fought efficiently. They also proved capable of forcing their way into the Suez Canal barrier. For Israel, the war ultimately ended without being able to break up Arab armies. We scored no victories. We could not back the Egyptian nor the Syrian army. Nor could we succeed in restoring the deterrent power to the Israeli army. To our great sorrow, they snatched the canal out of our grips with the force of arms. 
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16, 1974) 

Reporting Amnon Kapelock, Israeli Military Commentator: 

The English proverb says, "The higher the rise the more severe is the fall". On October 6, Israel fell off the top of the tower of peace and tranquility it had built up for itself. 
The shock was as strong and impressive as prior illusions. It seemed as though the Israelis had waked up from a lengthy, sweet dream to see a long lists of self-evident truth, and indisputable principles, illusions and facts they had believed in for several years, shaken and sometimes shattered down by a new, unexpected fact, ununderstandable to most Israelis. 
From the perspective of a plain Israeli, the October War can have more than one name such as; war of recovery from a hangover , collapse of legends , end of illusions , a death of sacred heifers . 
Following prior wars, prestigious military parades were often conducted in the Independence Day, where the public viewed war booty captured from the enemy. On the contrary, this time a large exhibition was made in Cairo, two months after the war, where the public viewed tanks, guns, military vehicles and many Israeli weapons captured from the enemy during the war. 
On prior occasions, soldiers returned home in a flurry of happiness and pride. However, this time, returning soldiers were gripped with sadness and consternation. Many had to frequent the psychiatric section of the Army's Medical Department, for treatment from "combat shock".

"Israel: End of a Myth" 

Reporting Zaev Schev, Israeli Military Commentator: 

This is the first war for the Israeli army, where many soldiers suffering combat shock and needing psychiatric treatment were treated. Some of them forgot their own names and had to refer to hospitals. 
Israel was stunned by the Arabs' success in waging a surprise war on Yum Kippur and scoring military successes. This war has proved that Israel has to reassess the Arab warrior. This time, Israel has paid a very high price. 
The October War has shaken Israel from top to bottom. Instead of overconfidence, suspicions emerged and questions surfaced to the top; should we live for ever on our own devastation? Could we possible stand any other wars?! "The October Earthquake: Yum Kippur War" 

Reporting Israeli Professor Shimon Shamir: 

I can list for the Arabs five important achievements: 

First: They managed to affect a change in the US political strategy that was unfavour to Israel. 

Second: They succeeded in making the military option happen, thus imposing such efforts on Israel that overburdened its resources and economy. 

Third: They managed to achieve a high level of Arab cooperation in both the military and economic fields, particularly as they restored to the oil weapon in October. 

Fourth: Egypt could regain the power of free maneuvering among major powers, which it lost ten years ago. 

Fifth: The Arabs could change their own image; freeing themselves from the 1967 shock, and becoming more capable of hard work. 
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16,1974) 

Reporting Yussi Belin, Member of the Knesset and Labour Party Leader: 

The tension that prevailed in the Labor Party in 1973 had crippled the Party, making it unable to take a decision to enter into peace negotiations with the Arabs. This led to the failure of Junnar Jaring's mission of mediation between Egypt and Israel. The result was the outbreak of the Yum Kippur War (October) the end of tenure by the Lbour Party and consequently a Right-Left equivalence of power, which has until now characterized Israel's political system. Unless an independent leader will have emerged in Israel up to May 4, 1999 ( the date set for declaring a Palestinian State), it would be difficult to prevent the coming disaster from taking place ( following the October 1973 and Intifada 1987 disasters). 

Testimonies by International Experts 

Reporting American military historian Trevor Dubuoy, Chairman, Hero Foundation for Scientific Assessment of Historical Battles: 

As a result of honorable fighting waged by both Egyptian and Syrian armies, the Arabs restored their own pride and self-confidence, which led to the reinforcement of Arab influence on the international arena in general. Strategically and politically speaking, there is no doubt that Egypt has won the war. 
With the professional planning and performance whereby the crossing process was accomplished, no other army in the world could have done better. This precise work on the part of the general staff, particularly the element of surprise already achieved, resulted in remarkable success in crossing the Suez Canal on a wide front. 
The Israel Intelligence categorically failed, as military intelligence activity concentrated on antagonist capabilities, being out of reckoning. Miscalculation of Arab capabilities gave rise to misconceptions of Arab intentions. 
On the other hand, greater credit should be given to Arab security and confidentiality, whereby facts were adequately screened to re-affirm prior Israeli misconceptions. 
While the Egyptians waged maritime war essentially through a strategic approach, the Israeli waged it through a tactical one. The Egyptian had imposed a successful siege on shipping traffic to Ilat sea-port by closing down Bab al-Mandab Strait. Their Mediterranean siege seemed to prevent neutral and Israeli ships from approaching the Israeli coast. On the southern front, Israeli attempts to destroy Egyptian air bases in the Nile Delta categorically failed thanks to the effective Egyptian air defense. 
The Israeli also decided to attempt seizure of the city of Suez. Although their tanks infiltrated into the heart of the city, yet resistance was so severe that they had pull back after being inflicted with heavy losses. 

(International Symposium on October War, Cairo, October 27-31, 1975) 

Reporting British military historian Edger O'Balance: 

For Israel, the October War has caused an "all-out" change in strategy. It was forcefully ejected from an offensive to a defensive position. Since its inception, Israel has adopted an offensive military position. The Israeli general staff have never cared to contemplate a defensive position. 
The Israeli soldier has realized that defense is now vital for his own survival. Conventional defense, which Israel had, for long before the war, vaingloriously looked upon, became acceptable as a military necessity for the protection of Israeli borders. 
After the marvelous military operations achieved by the old Islamic conquests and the Crusades, the prestige of the Arab soldier has continually diminished in western eyes, due to varying reasons beyond his control. In this context, Israel has intensified its publicity, until it was surprised in the October 1973 War with Arab soldiers shattering their fetters, defeating Israelis, capturing hundreds of them, downing hundreds of their craft, destroying hundreds of their tanks. In a nutshell, Arab soldiers shattered the myth of invincible Israeli supremacy. What holds true for the Arabs in Napoleon's saying, "The ratio of marble to military equipment is three to one" 
(Ibid) 

Reporting General Varar Huckly, Combat Development Director, British Army: 

The lessons learned from October War relate to personnel and their capabilities more than the machinery they operate. The impressive achievement made by the Egyptians is the genius and skills of leaders and officers who were trained and waged such an offensive that came as a total surprise to the other party, albeit effected within its sight. As a complement, the soldiers demonstrated such high morale and audacity that would have been, in the past, impossible. 
(Ibid) 

Reporting French General Albert Merglain: 

All military experts and political officials were confident that Arabs would never succeed in taking the Israeli army by surprise. Contrary to what happened in October War, justifying evidence were many and varied. First, there was extreme confidence in Israeli intelligence services, which were said to be some of the best in the world, particularly as it was known to all that the American special agencies were closely related to them. 
US reconnaissance planes and satellites could shoot all the depth of Arab rear area. Such favourable conditions for monitoring antagonist fronts combined could hardly exist. Therefore, the element of surprise was excluded, particularly, as the man-made barrier of the Suez Canal protects the Israeli front line and allows easy and effective resistance. The Arab surprise came at 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973. Contrary to negative assertions by all politicians, military experts, pressmen and specialists everywhere, the unexpected took place. 
(Ibid) 

Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux: *

*Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies. Painful Days in Israel 


Reporting British Journalist David Hurst: 

The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli. 
The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads. 
The Gun and Olive Branch 

World Media and Press Reports *

*As the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, cutting through the Bar lev-line, the October war changed the course of history both for Egypt and the entire Middle East. 
(Daily Telegraph October 7, 1973) 

The image of the Arab fighter in the aftermath of 1967 War as presented by world press was totally negative, giving the impression that a successful military confrontation on the part of the Arab fighter was impossible due to Israel's military strength. 
Accordingly, one can understand the extent of change occurring after the Arab fighter has proved his presence and capabilities and how the world press has conveyed such change to world public opinion. 
(The Times, October 7, 1973) 

The Egyptians and Syrians are demonstrating high efficiency, organization and courage. The Arabs have scored a psychological victory that will have its psychological impact. The retention by the Egyptian of the east bank of the canal is a tremendous, unprecedented victory, whereby Israeli illusions that the Arabs were unfit for war have been shattered. 
( Washington Post, October 10, 1973 ) 

Last week was one of chastisement and torture for Israel. Obviously, Arab armies are fighting with strength, courage and determination. 
The Israelis were grouped with sadness and depression as they found out that the war cost them heavily and that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, as they had been told, unable to fight. 
(Financial Times, October 11, 1973) 

Obviously, the Arabs are fighting with unparalleled valour. Definitely, their fierce fighting had a considerable role in their victories. At the same time, the Israelis were generally afflicted by a feeling of depression upon their agonizing discovery -which cost them a lot- that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, in reality, helpless soldiers. There were indications that the Israelis were retreating all through in front of the progressing Egyptian and Syrian faces. 
( The Times, October 11, 1973) 

It was quite clear that the Israelis had lost initiative in this war. This was admitted by their leaders, including General Shlomo Jonin, commander of southern front in Sinai, who said, this is the most difficult war fought by Israel since its inception in 1948" 
(Sun, October 12, 1973) 

The secure borders theory adopted for expansionist purposes by Israel since its inception up till now has been totally shattered. Israel military mentality must change in the light of October War. This time a psychological myth has been shattered. Israel should, from now on, give up the notion that its security can be realized by merely occupying land. 
( Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1973) 

This war has eliminated the feeling of humiliation for the Arab and injured Israel's pride 
(Daily Mail, October 12, 1973) 

The Egyptian and Syrian troops caught the Israeli leadership stark naked. It was only after three days that the Israeli leadership could mobilize adequate reserve troop to address the situation. The Israeli public opinion was sleeping on the conviction that its intelligence services were the most efficient, its army the strongest. Now the public opinion in Israel wants to know what happened and why. The question circulated by everybody in Tel-Aviv now is why the Israeli leadership had not been aware before hand of Egypt and Syria's plans? 
(United Press Agency correspondent from Tel-Aviv, October 12, 1973) 

The October War has shattered the security borders theory as understood by Tel-Aviv rulers. The war has proved that Israel's security cannot be guaranteed by tanks and missiles but rather by a peaceful, equitable settlement agreed by the Arab states. 
(L'Humanite, October 17, 1973) 

The Arabs are waging an equitable struggle. The Arabs are fighting in defense of their rights. If one fights in defense of his land against an aggressor, he is waging a war of liberation. But to fight in order to continue to occupy others' land is blatant aggression. 
(Zeitung of German Democratic Republic, October 19, 1973) 

Egypt has caught up with and even outstripped Israel in the field of missiles and electronics. 
(The Observer, October 20, 1973) 

The Israelis have faced a foe that was far ahead of it in everything, prepared for an extended war of attrition. Israel has at the same time faced a foe with better training and more skilled leadership. 
(Associated Press, October 20, 1973) 

Today, a feeling of sadness and depression prevails in Israel. The number of prisoners of war returning from Egypt was more than expected. This means that many lost their lives. 
(Jewish Chronicle, Britain, November 23, 1973) 

Israeli soldiers fled breathless from the Bar-lev line, with soiled bodies and pale faces. Flocks of them fled the hell opened against them by the sweeping Egyptian onslaught. 
(Anna Bella (Italy) October 30,1973 ) 

Before the October War, the country was pervaded by wrong feelings; the feeling of our hawks of overwhelming military supremacy. Such conviction has led them into a military reassurance purporting that: "We'll cut them into pieces, should they dare to snap a finger at us. 
(Al Hamishmar, Israeli Newspaper, October 29, 1973) 

Al Ferdan east of the Suez Canal was the first site captured by the Egyptian troops. Then, the Egyptian scored their greatest victories, restoring their land since the first day. Their faces showed signs of pride and victory along the Bar-Lev line, which fell apart in front of them. Thus irreversibly gone was the Israeli Bar-Lev line. 
(The Times, October 31, 1973) 

The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out. 
(Haarts, November 2, 1973) 

General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it. 
(Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973) 

Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing. 
(Haarts, November 18, 1973) 

The Egyptian navy during the October War outstripped the Israeli navy, particularly in the field of missiles. 
(Defense Nationale (French Magazine), November 8, 1973) 

The negligence committed in the Yum Kippur War led to the rise of a protest movement led by an Ishiknazi citizen, calling for investigating causes of the defeat of Israeli army in the war. These investigations led to the fall of officials responsible for such negligence. Following the assassination of former premier Yshaac Rabin, a new movement called Peace Generation emerged. This new movement led by Tal Zilberstein calls for the continuation of the peace process with Palestinians. 
Both movements are in agreement on the prediction that a revolution, which will erupt from the heart of Israel street, is in the way. 
(Maaref, Israeli Newspaper, September 20, 1998) 

The alarm risen sounded at 1.50 p.m. October 6, 1973, in its own connotation, was more than a mere alarm cautioning Israeli citizens to come down to underground shelters. It was rather the outcry reiterated upon burial of the dead. At that time the deceased was the first Israeli republic. When the war was over, the count was restarted and a new history began. After a quarter century from the rise of the State of Israel the pillars and underpinnings of old Israel were turned into a wreckage stranded on road side. *

http://www.sis.gov.eg/newvr/october/english/4.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

The SC said:


> Please every one read the articles in post #200 and # 202 and stop this vicious cycle talk..
> 
> It is clear that Usrael had a near death experience..


they think they are so smart trying to pick which part of the war to talk about if you look back at this thread and every other talking about the 73 war you will find 99 percent talking about when they crossed the canal as if the war started that time but I let them . I am proud of my army and the results from this war from start to finish they leave a great battle like destroying the barliv line the isreali counter attack 2 days after we crossed the canal the mansora air battle the battle for ismalia and the battle for suez and many more the raids carried out by our thunderbolt commandos were hard to believe before and during the war
I can keep talking about this war for years to come

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> would we have Sinai back if not for victory in the war?





Mahmoud_EGY said:


> there are many battles if you want to mention 1 by 1 we should talk about destroying the barliv line the isreali counter attack the battle for suez and ismalia the mansora air battle
> I said the plan was to advance within the cover of our SAMs
> if you think that using nuclear weapons is that simple you are wrong



Of course you destroyed the Bar Lev, it was in a holiday when most of the army was at home and you attacked

You didn't manage to advance with your SAM because the Israelis destroyed them, like in the 16 October 1973 raid on Egyptian missile bases.

And I am pretty sure you missed like 60 other lines that I wrote.


----------



## Anubis

Mountain Jew said:


> I know this prophecy but...
> Q:This prophecy belong to who??
> A:To stup1d christians who believe in stup1d jew.
> 
> (Christians don't be offended)


Say what you will about them...but hey are one of the key reasons of strong American support for Israel...they raised a lot of money for Israel too...but Israel did the smart thing...let the idiots live in their own hallucination and took the money...any other country would have done the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Solomon2 said:


> You really don't understand Jews that well, do you?


..
Please, most the IDF that was on the Suez canal were from North African origin. For a fact I know them better than you do, since they lived among us..



Solomon2 said:


> Yes, the new anti-tank weapons. But by then the U.S. airlift also included M-60 tanks.


The M-60 didn't change the course of the battle..Against the Sagger and the T55, they showed their limitations and Ariel Sharon Tank brigade died upset for not having a rematch with the Algerian tank brigade that laminated him




> Ah, but then you have to be prepared to accept answers you don't like!


Shouldn't you ask yourself that? I have no qualm to recognize a fait d'armes wether it was Israeli or Egyptian.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> Of course you destroyed the Bar Lev, it was in a holiday when most of the army was at home and you attacked
> 
> You didn't manage to advance with your SAM because the Israelis destroyed them, like in the 16 October 1973 raid on Egyptian missile bases.
> 
> And I am pretty sure you missed like 60 other lines that I wrote.


our SAMs were not mobile it couldn't be moved and I did not miss anything I try not to repeat my self

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## boomslang

Mountain Jew said:


> US helped us so much in 1948..not!
> US helped us so much in 1956...not!
> US helped us so much in 1967...not!
> US was so good ally in 1973...not!
> And we have to remember when the US invaded iraq and the iraqis launched scuds on us our best ally told us not to respond etc etc etc.....



So the U.S. has NEVER helped Israel ? Right. And you really don't get the 'scud thing' ? Israel wouldn't exist without the U.S.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> our SAMs were not mobile it couldn't be moved and I did not miss anything I try not to repeat my self


You know what- ok, you pushed into the Sinai without aircover, then you change your story that you didn't have SAM protection but then you are saying that that they were not mobile, it doesn't change the fact that YOU did it, planned it and FAILED. its called a defeat.



boomslang said:


> So the U.S. has NEVER helped Israel ? Right. And you really don't get the 'scud thing' ? Israel wouldn't exist without the U.S.


You only helped us in 1973.
And without your help, Egypt and the Arabs wouldn't exist, you rushed to supply us when you saw the Jerichos out in the open.


----------



## The SC

*The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out. 
(Haarts, November 2, 1973) 

General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it. 
(Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973) 

Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing. 
(Haarts, November 18, 1973) *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> You know what- ok, you pushed into the Sinai without aircover, then you change your story that you didn't have SAM protection but then you are saying that that they were not mobile, it doesn't change the fact that YOU did it, planned it and FAILED. its called a defeat.
> 
> .


ok let us make it more simple
the war starts we cross destroy the barliv line hold of the counter attack isreal calls for peace and end of the war the Syrian front needed help so under pressure from the soviets and arabs we were forced to attack in the desert outside of our air cover in a suicide attack that led to isrealis crossing the canal even after that isrealis could not accomplish much as they failed to enter suez or ismalia


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> ok let us make it more simple
> the war starts we cross destroy the barliv line hold of the counter attack isreal calls for peace and end of the war the Syrian front needed help so under pressure from the soviets and arabs we were forced to attack in the desert outside of our air cover in a suicide attack that led to isrealis crossing the canal even after that isrealis could not accomplish much as they failed to enter suez or ismalia


Israel always called for peace. but in a war, it doesn't
after the Egyptians attacked, Israel tried to counter attack, it didn't exactly succeed, since a lot of ATGMs were launched and Egypt had advanced AA for the time, so the counter attack did kill a lot of Egyptians, but also many Israelis were killed (Significantly lower amount of Israelis died compared to Egyptains in the counter attack)
Later, Israel had many operations against the SAMs, leading to the destruction of them.
And at the time the Egyptian air force was already destroyed by us
We flanked you, killed about 15000 Egyptians and capturing 8000 soldiers along with hundreds of tanks
While only 2000 of ours died, some in the Syrian front too.


----------



## The SC

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel always called for peace. but in a war, it doesn't
> after the Egyptians attacked, Israel tried to counter attack, it didn't exactly succeed, since a lot of ATGMs were launched and Egypt had advanced AA for the time, so the counter attack did kill a lot of Egyptians, but also many Israelis were killed (Significantly lower amount of Israelis died compared to Egyptains in the counter attack)
> Later, Israel had many operations against the SAMs, leading to the destruction of them.
> And at the time the Egyptian air force was already destroyed by us
> We flanked you, killed about 15000 Egyptians and capturing 8000 soldiers along with hundreds of tanks
> While only 2000 of ours died, some in the Syrian front too.



After the 14 th october 1973, The decision was taken, by Sadat and KIissinger to let you save face, because your faith was sealed in the start of war..
On the Syrian front two; An order was given to the Syrian armed brigades not to block your armoured divisions on the frontiers of Usrael , they were at about 20 kms of the bridges and no Usraeli to see!!!!?
You killed 15 thousand! The Egyptians alone had an estimation of 20 000 to be killed just in the crossing and destruction of the Barlev line, they have lost 208 officers and soldiers..
If you can do your search about theincursion and the so called outflanking of the Egyptians , you'll be amazed to find out how it was made possible for you to save face on a tactical level, because Arabs have already won (i.e: we guaranteed a cease fire by both the US and The Russians ), both tactically and stragically, add to it psychologically..

By the way it is Usrael who has asked for war; it is well documented that Sadat asked Mayer for peace many times by handing back the Sinai pininsula and she refused ! Even Kissinger asked her 3 years before the war..


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> After the 14 th october 1973, The decision was taken, by Sadat and KIissinger to let you save face, because your faith was sealed in the start of war..
> On the Syrian front two; An order was given to the Syrian armed brigades not to block your armoured divisions on the frontiers of Usrael , they were at about 20 kms of the bridges and no Usraeli to see!!!!?
> You killed 15 thousand! The Egyptians alone had an estimation of 20 000 to be killed just in the crossing and destruction of the Barlev line, they have lost 208 officers and soldiers..
> If you can do your search about theincursion and the so called outflanking of the Egyptians , you'll be amazed to find out how it was made possible for you to save face on a tactical level, because Arabs have already won (i.e: we guaranteed a cease fire by both the US and The Russians ), both tactically and stragically, add to it psychologically..
> 
> By the way it is Usrael who has asked for war; it is well documented that Sadat asked Mayer for peace many times by handing back the Sinai pininsula and she refused ! Even Kissinger asked her 3 years before the war..


We killed 15,000 Egyptians and captured 8000! took them as hostage, captured hundreds of tanks!
Israel COMPLETELY destroyed their entire third army, which was MUCH better equipped than us, and had MUCH more equipment
We also killed thousands of Syrian soldiers
Israel won the war, Israel killed way more, saved its objectives and gave another beating to the Arabs.


----------



## The SC

*Statements by contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October 1973 War. *

SEE post # 223

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> *Statements by contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October 1973 War. *
> 
> SEE post # 223



How come? statements from Haarts- the media "opposition" that hates Israel, British quotes, that at the time the Arabs threatened that they will not supply them fuel if they will back up Israel in any way, and such?
Statements are not the most truthful, but the most untrue and biased.

You might not understand, Israel won the war, want it or not, Look at the statistics, look at the objectives, look at the strategic destruction.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel always called for peace. but in a war, it doesn't
> after the Egyptians attacked, Israel tried to counter attack, it didn't exactly succeed, since a lot of ATGMs were launched and Egypt had advanced AA for the time, so the counter attack did kill a lot of Egyptians, but also many Israelis were killed (Significantly lower amount of Israelis died compared to Egyptains in the counter attack)
> Later, Israel had many operations against the SAMs, leading to the destruction of them.
> And at the time the Egyptian air force was already destroyed by us
> We flanked you, killed about 15000 Egyptians and capturing 8000 soldiers along with hundreds of tanks
> While only 2000 of ours died, some in the Syrian front too.


1 your prime minster called for end of the war after the failed isreali counter attack
2 our advance outside the air defense range was not our fault no army in the world can fight in open desert without air cover while being bombed by air force and sourronded by tanks
3 even after that we had the numbers and it is true that some of our SAMs were destroyed after the isrealis crossed the canal but our air force losses were not high and it could protect our forces not 100 percent but still could provide cover I remind you of the battle of mansora
4 you tried to flank us but you could not win not in suez or ismalia
5 we captured many men and tanks from you also
6 with the high losses you suffered in the war you could not afford war any longer than us every Egyptian life is important but we were ready to fight to the last man to get a win as our reputation as an army could not survive another defeat after the 67 war

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## boomslang

Beny Karachun said:


> ....You only helped us in 1973.
> And without your help, Egypt and the Arabs wouldn't exist, you rushed to supply us when you saw the Jerichos out in the open.



*U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel:*
*History & Overview*
*(Updated May 2014)*
*Foreign Aid: Table of Contents | Total Aid (1949-Present) | Loan Guarantees*





“It is my responsibility to see that our policy in Israel fits in with our policy throughout the world; second, it is my desire to help build in Palestine a strong, prosperous, free and independent democratic state. It must be large enough, free enough, and strong enough to make its people self-supporting and secure,” President Truman said in a speech October 28, 1948.

Truman's commitment was quickly tested after Israel's victory in its War of Independence when she applied to the U.S. for economic aid to help absorb immigrants. President Truman responded by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities to Israel. In those early years of Israel's statehood (also today), U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace.

In 1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries. Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them, though they had no interest in or use for American aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues to the present.

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73) . Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community. Congress first designated a specific amount of aid for Israel (an "earmark") in 1971.

*Meeting Israel's Special Needs*
Since 1974, Israel has received nearly $100 billion in assistance, including three special aid packages. The first followed the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. The redeployment of Israeli forces and rebuilding of air bases in the Negev cost $5 billion. To partially compensate for this sacrifice, Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was in the form of high-interest loans) in U.S. aid in 1979.

The second special package was approved in 1985, following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445 percent. The $1.5 billion in emergency assistance-disbursed in two installments, in 1985 and 1986-was provided as part of Israel's economic stabilization program, which was implemented under the guidance of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).

An extraordinary package was approved in 1996 to help Israel fight terrorism. Israel is to receive a total of $100 million, divided equally between fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

*Regular Economic and Military Assistance *
Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments. The Cranston Amendment was left out of the FY1999 and subsequent appropriations bills. At that time Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed only $328 million in debt service so the amendment was no longer needed.

In 1998, Israel was designated as a “major non-NATO ally,” which allows it to receive outdated military equipment the U.S. military wishes to sell or give away.

Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amout set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In 2009, the figure was $671 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF was spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program.

At the end of 1998, Israel requested an additional $1.2 billion in aid to fund moving troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the October 23, 1998, Wye agreement. Israel received $600 million of this in military aid in FY1999 and $300 million in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 (see Wye funding table).

In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby and the government of Israel. The 0.65 percent deduction was not aimed at Israel; however, it was an across the board cut of all foreign aid programs for fiscal year 2003. The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance), Congress included a number of provisions in the aid bill viewed as favorable to Israel, including a provision that bars federal assistance to a future Palestinian state until the current Palestinian leadership is replaced, and that state demonstrates a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and takes measures to combat terrorism.

The setbacks were also temporary as the Administration approved a supplementary aid request in 2003 that included $1 billion in FMF and $9 billion in loan guarantees to aid Israel's economic recovery and compensate for the cost of military preparations associated with the war in Iraq. One quarter of the FMF is a cash grant and three quarters will be spent in the United States. The loan guarantees are spread over three years and must be spent within Israel's pre-June 1967 borders. Each year, an amount equal to the funds Israel spends on settlements in the territories will be deducted from the loan amount, along with all fees and subsidies.

Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $106 billion in assistance. This includes the four special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, the $9 billion in guarantees offered in 2003, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.6 billion overall since 1973), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program (ASHA), which supports schools, libraries and medical centers that demonstrate American ideas and practices (($144 million), and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981).

The total does _not_ include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004. The United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow.

Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined. On the other side of the coin, Israel does receive aid on more favorable terms than other nations. For example, all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program. Also, starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly installments as is done for other countries. Israel also receives offsets on FMS purchases (U.S. contractors agree to offset some of the cost of military equipment by buying components or materials from Israel).

*A 10-Year Military Aid Agreement*
In August 2007, the Bush Administration agreed to increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the following decade. Israel is to receive incremental annual increases of $150 mllion, starting at $2.55 billion in FY2009 and reaching $3.15 billion per year for FY2013-2018.

2009
$2.55 billion
2010
$2.70 billion
2011
$2.85 billion
2012
$3.00 billion
2013-2018
$3.15 billion per year
Israel receives the FMF aid in a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year. The funds are placed in an interest bearing account and that interest is used to pay down Israel’s debt to the United States, which was $1 billion as of December 2006.

In addition to FMF, Israel also receives money for the joint development of missile defense systems. These amounts have been growing over the years, with the bulk of the funding going to the Arrow program.

*Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense*
*(FY2006-FY2012*)

*($ millions)*

System Type

David's Sling 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 * 2012
$10.0 $20.4 $37.0 $72.895 $80.092 $47 $69

Arrow-2
$122.866 $117.494 $98.572 $74.342 $72.306 $24 $105

High Altitude Arrow-3
20.0 $30.0 $50.036 $51 $61
Total $132.866 $137.894 $155.572 $177.237 $202.434 $122 $235
*Sources:* Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," Congressional Research Service, (July 12, 2004); U.S. State Department; USAID, Congressional Budget Justification for FY06 Foreign Operations, March 2005; Jeremy M. Sharp, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” (DC: Congressional Research Service, December 4, 2009); Jim Zanotti, "Israel: Background and U.S. Relations," Congressional Research Service (February 28, 2014).



We give you tons of money, access to the best weapons in the world over other countries and we stick up for you at the U.N. (most of the time) when you guys do stupid shit. I'm totally pro-Israel but don't tell me the U.S. does nothing for Israel. That's a crock of shit. How much does Russia do for you ? China ? Exactly.


----------



## The SC

Beny Karachun said:


> How come? statements from Haarts- the media "opposition" that hates Israel, British quotes, that at the time the Arabs threatened that they will not supply them fuel if they will back up Israel in any way, and such?
> Statements are not the most truthful, but the most untrue and biased.
> 
> You might not understand, Israel won the war, want it or not, Look at the statistics, look at the objectives, look at the strategic destruction.


I rather belive those statements than you..
What about Golda Maiyer, Rabin , Moshe Dayan and other official's statement, these guys didn't like Usrael too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> I rather belive those statements than you..
> What about Golda Maiyer, Rabin , Moshe Dayan and other official's statement, these guys didn't like Usrael too?


First of all, learn to spell "Israel"
Second of all, I don't believe statements, I believe facts, sources, None of those were in battle
Like asking some president to teach you how to build a jet fighter, just because he is a president, doesn't mean he knows everything, same about generals and PM



boomslang said:


> *U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel:*
> *History & Overview*
> *(Updated May 2014)*
> *Foreign Aid: Table of Contents | Total Aid (1949-Present) | Loan Guarantees*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It is my responsibility to see that our policy in Israel fits in with our policy throughout the world; second, it is my desire to help build in Palestine a strong, prosperous, free and independent democratic state. It must be large enough, free enough, and strong enough to make its people self-supporting and secure,” President Truman said in a speech October 28, 1948.
> 
> Truman's commitment was quickly tested after Israel's victory in its War of Independence when she applied to the U.S. for economic aid to help absorb immigrants. President Truman responded by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities to Israel. In those early years of Israel's statehood (also today), U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace.
> 
> In 1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries. Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them, though they had no interest in or use for American aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues to the present.
> 
> U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.
> 
> Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73) . Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community. Congress first designated a specific amount of aid for Israel (an "earmark") in 1971.
> 
> *Meeting Israel's Special Needs*
> Since 1974, Israel has received nearly $100 billion in assistance, including three special aid packages. The first followed the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. The redeployment of Israeli forces and rebuilding of air bases in the Negev cost $5 billion. To partially compensate for this sacrifice, Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was in the form of high-interest loans) in U.S. aid in 1979.
> 
> The second special package was approved in 1985, following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445 percent. The $1.5 billion in emergency assistance-disbursed in two installments, in 1985 and 1986-was provided as part of Israel's economic stabilization program, which was implemented under the guidance of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).
> 
> An extraordinary package was approved in 1996 to help Israel fight terrorism. Israel is to receive a total of $100 million, divided equally between fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
> 
> *Regular Economic and Military Assistance *
> Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.
> 
> Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.
> 
> For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments. The Cranston Amendment was left out of the FY1999 and subsequent appropriations bills. At that time Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed only $328 million in debt service so the amendment was no longer needed.
> 
> In 1998, Israel was designated as a “major non-NATO ally,” which allows it to receive outdated military equipment the U.S. military wishes to sell or give away.
> 
> Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amout set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In 2009, the figure was $671 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF was spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program.
> 
> At the end of 1998, Israel requested an additional $1.2 billion in aid to fund moving troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the October 23, 1998, Wye agreement. Israel received $600 million of this in military aid in FY1999 and $300 million in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 (see Wye funding table).
> 
> In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby and the government of Israel. The 0.65 percent deduction was not aimed at Israel; however, it was an across the board cut of all foreign aid programs for fiscal year 2003. The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance), Congress included a number of provisions in the aid bill viewed as favorable to Israel, including a provision that bars federal assistance to a future Palestinian state until the current Palestinian leadership is replaced, and that state demonstrates a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and takes measures to combat terrorism.
> 
> The setbacks were also temporary as the Administration approved a supplementary aid request in 2003 that included $1 billion in FMF and $9 billion in loan guarantees to aid Israel's economic recovery and compensate for the cost of military preparations associated with the war in Iraq. One quarter of the FMF is a cash grant and three quarters will be spent in the United States. The loan guarantees are spread over three years and must be spent within Israel's pre-June 1967 borders. Each year, an amount equal to the funds Israel spends on settlements in the territories will be deducted from the loan amount, along with all fees and subsidies.
> 
> Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $106 billion in assistance. This includes the four special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, the $9 billion in guarantees offered in 2003, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.6 billion overall since 1973), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program (ASHA), which supports schools, libraries and medical centers that demonstrate American ideas and practices (($144 million), and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981).
> 
> The total does _not_ include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004. The United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow.
> 
> Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined. On the other side of the coin, Israel does receive aid on more favorable terms than other nations. For example, all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program. Also, starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly installments as is done for other countries. Israel also receives offsets on FMS purchases (U.S. contractors agree to offset some of the cost of military equipment by buying components or materials from Israel).
> 
> *A 10-Year Military Aid Agreement*
> In August 2007, the Bush Administration agreed to increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the following decade. Israel is to receive incremental annual increases of $150 mllion, starting at $2.55 billion in FY2009 and reaching $3.15 billion per year for FY2013-2018.
> 
> 2009
> $2.55 billion
> 2010
> $2.70 billion
> 2011
> $2.85 billion
> 2012
> $3.00 billion
> 2013-2018
> $3.15 billion per year
> Israel receives the FMF aid in a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year. The funds are placed in an interest bearing account and that interest is used to pay down Israel’s debt to the United States, which was $1 billion as of December 2006.
> 
> In addition to FMF, Israel also receives money for the joint development of missile defense systems. These amounts have been growing over the years, with the bulk of the funding going to the Arrow program.
> 
> *Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense*
> *(FY2006-FY2012*)
> 
> *($ millions)*
> 
> System Type
> 
> David's Sling 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 * 2012
> $10.0 $20.4 $37.0 $72.895 $80.092 $47 $69
> 
> Arrow-2
> $122.866 $117.494 $98.572 $74.342 $72.306 $24 $105
> 
> High Altitude Arrow-3
> 20.0 $30.0 $50.036 $51 $61
> Total $132.866 $137.894 $155.572 $177.237 $202.434 $122 $235
> *Sources:* Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," Congressional Research Service, (July 12, 2004); U.S. State Department; USAID, Congressional Budget Justification for FY06 Foreign Operations, March 2005; Jeremy M. Sharp, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” (DC: Congressional Research Service, December 4, 2009); Jim Zanotti, "Israel: Background and U.S. Relations," Congressional Research Service (February 28, 2014).
> 
> 
> 
> We give you tons of money, access to the best weapons in the world over other countries and we stick up for you at the U.N. (most of the time) when you guys do stupid shit. I'm totally pro-Israel but don't tell me the U.S. does nothing for Israel. That's a crock of shit. How much does Russia do for you ? China ? Exactly.



Dude- I didn't say that you don't give aid for us, I said that you didn't give us any in 1967
And we don't do stupid shit, also, that's not tons of money, but we thank you, its less than 0.3% of our annual GDP


Mahmoud_EGY said:


> 1 your prime minster called for end of the war after the failed isreali counter attack
> 2 our advance outside the air defense range was not our fault no army in the world can fight in open desert without air cover while being bombed by air force and sourronded by tanks
> 3 even after that we had the numbers and it is true that some of our SAMs were destroyed after the isrealis crossed the canal but our air force losses were not high and it could protect our forces not 100 percent but still could provide cover I remind you of the battle of mansora
> 4 you tried to flank us but you could not win not in suez or ismalia
> 5 we captured many men and tanks from you also
> 6 with the high losses you suffered in the war you could not afford war any longer than us every Egyptian life is important but we were ready to fight to the last man to get a win as our reputation as an army could not survive another defeat after the 67 war



1. No she didn't, the US and USSR asked for it.
2. Its your fault that you pushed into the Sinai, while we already destroyed your air force and many SAMs, don't blame us for pushing into the Sinai like that.
3. If your airforce losses were not high, and it was after your troops failed to push into the Sinai, how come you didn't have air cover to support your troops that pushed into the Sinai? 
the Battle of Mansoura in Wikipedia:
"Sometime around 15:30, the Egyptian Air Defense Command issued a warning that around sixty enemy aircraft were approaching from the Mediterranean Sea in three directions; one from Port Said, another from Damietta, and the third from Baltim, to the west of Damietta. Mubarak ordered his pilots in the air to intercept them. The 16 MiG-21s forming the air umbrella over Mansoura moved against the Israeli aircraft with the objective of breaking the enemy formations and forcing them to disperse. 16 MiG-21s took off from Mansoura air base to support those in the air, along with eight fighters from Tanta air base, located west of Mansoura. The MiG-21s intercepted the Israeli formation a few dozen kilometers north of Mansoura.**[_citation needed_]**"
Any ways, Official Israeli Air Force losses of the Yom Kippur War number at 102 aircraft, including 32 F-4 Phantoms, 53 A-4 Skyhawks, 11 Dassault Mirages, and 6 IAI Saars, though total Egyptian losses were between 235 and 242 aircraft, while Syria lost between 135 and 179.
4. That's a victory for you? Its like saying "I smoke cigarettes I'm healthy because I don't have cancer", We already flanked you, capturing 8000 soldiers and the entire Egyptian third army, that's 4 times the amount both Egypt and Syria killed.
5. Nope, only 293 Israeli soldiers were captured, compared to 8783 of yours that were captured.
6. "High losses" you only killed 2512-2800 Israeli soldiers, Israeli air force was in complete dominance over both Egypt and Syria, we were just 25 kilometers away from Damascus, 100 from Cairo, and the Americans and Soviets said to ISRAEL, enough is enough, you were defeated.


----------



## The SC

Beny Karachun said:


> First of all, learn to spell "Israel"
> Second of all, I don't believe statements, I believe facts, sources, None of those were in battle
> Like asking some president to teach you how to build a jet fighter, just because he is a president, doesn't mean he knows everything, same about generals and PM
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- I didn't say that you don't give aid for us, I said that you didn't give us any in 1967
> And we don't do stupid shit, also, that's not tons of money, but we thank you, its less than 0.3% of our annual GDP
> 
> 
> 1. No she didn't, the US and USSR asked for it.
> 2. Its your fault that you pushed into the Sinai, while we already destroyed your air force and many SAMs, don't blame us for pushing into the Sinai like that.
> 3. If your airforce losses were not high, and it was after your troops failed to push into the Sinai, how come you didn't have air cover to support your troops that pushed into the Sinai?
> the Battle of Mansoura in Wikipedia:
> "Sometime around 15:30, the Egyptian Air Defense Command issued a warning that around sixty enemy aircraft were approaching from the Mediterranean Sea in three directions; one from Port Said, another from Damietta, and the third from Baltim, to the west of Damietta. Mubarak ordered his pilots in the air to intercept them. The 16 MiG-21s forming the air umbrella over Mansoura moved against the Israeli aircraft with the objective of breaking the enemy formations and forcing them to disperse. 16 MiG-21s took off from Mansoura air base to support those in the air, along with eight fighters from Tanta air base, located west of Mansoura. The MiG-21s intercepted the Israeli formation a few dozen kilometers north of Mansoura.**[_citation needed_]**"
> Any ways, Official Israeli Air Force losses of the Yom Kippur War number at 102 aircraft, including 32 F-4 Phantoms, 53 A-4 Skyhawks, 11 Dassault Mirages, and 6 IAI Saars, though total Egyptian losses were between 235 and 242 aircraft, while Syria lost between 135 and 179.
> 4. That's a victory for you? Its like saying "I smoke cigarettes I'm healthy because I don't have cancer", We already flanked you, capturing 8000 soldiers and the entire Egyptian third army, that's 4 times the amount both Egypt and Syria killed.
> 5. Nope, only 293 Israeli soldiers were captured, compared to 8783 of yours that were captured.
> 6. "High losses" you only killed 2512-2800 Israeli soldiers, Israeli air force was in complete dominance over both Egypt and Syria, we were just 25 kilometers away from Damascus, 100 from Cairo, and the Americans and Soviets said to ISRAEL, enough is enough, you were defeated.



"and the Americans and Soviets said to ISRAEL, enough is enough, you were defeated" (your last sentence):
Meaning, we have allowed you to save your soul and face, now it is finished , The Arabs won the war and ypu were defeated you can not push them any further and you did put you soldiers on the west side of the Canal in a death trap, we can not protect you anymore..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> "and the Americans and Soviets said to ISRAEL, enough is enough, you were defeated" (your last sentence):
> Meaning, we have allowed you to save your soul and face, now it is finished , The Arabs won the war and ypu were defeated you can not push them any further and you did put you soldiers on the west side of the Canal in a death trap, we can not protect you anymore..


Wait, what??? They said it in the end of the war when the Israelis were winning against the Egyptians and Syrians, while we were on our way to Cairo and Damascus, the result was the entire Egyptian third army is destroyed or captured, huge losses to the armies defending the Suez and Chinese farm, 2/3 of the Egyptian air force destroyed, the whole Syrian destroyed
Look at the statistics for f*ck sake:
Israeli total casualties:
2521 Israeli soldiers
293 captured
1063 tanks destroyed or captured
102 aircraft destroyed

Meanwhile, Arab casualties:
18500 soldiers
2300 tanks
514 aircraft destroyed
19 ships

Now tell me how Israel lost this war


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> 1. No she didn't, the US and USSR asked for it.
> 2. Its your fault that you pushed into the Sinai, while we already destroyed your air force and many SAMs, don't blame us for pushing into the Sinai like that.
> 3. If your airforce losses were not high, and it was after your troops failed to push into the Sinai, how come you didn't have air cover to support your troops that pushed into the Sinai?
> the Battle of Mansoura in Wikipedia:
> "Sometime around 15:30, the Egyptian Air Defense Command issued a warning that around sixty enemy aircraft were approaching from the Mediterranean Sea in three directions; one from Port Said, another from Damietta, and the third from Baltim, to the west of Damietta. Mubarak ordered his pilots in the air to intercept them. The 16 MiG-21s forming the air umbrella over Mansoura moved against the Israeli aircraft with the objective of breaking the enemy formations and forcing them to disperse. 16 MiG-21s took off from Mansoura air base to support those in the air, along with eight fighters from Tanta air base, located west of Mansoura. The MiG-21s intercepted the Israeli formation a few dozen kilometers north of Mansoura.**[_citation needed_]**"
> Any ways, Official Israeli Air Force losses of the Yom Kippur War number at 102 aircraft, including 32 F-4 Phantoms, 53 A-4 Skyhawks, 11 Dassault Mirages, and 6 IAI Saars, though total Egyptian losses were between 235 and 242 aircraft, while Syria lost between 135 and 179.
> 4. That's a victory for you? Its like saying "I smoke cigarettes I'm healthy because I don't have cancer", We already flanked you, capturing 8000 soldiers and the entire Egyptian third army, that's 4 times the amount both Egypt and Syria killed.
> 5. Nope, only 293 Israeli soldiers were captured, compared to 8783 of yours that were captured.
> 6. "High losses" you only killed 2512-2800 Israeli soldiers, Israeli air force was in complete dominance over both Egypt and Syria, we were just 25 kilometers away from Damascus, 100 from Cairo, and the Americans and Soviets said to ISRAEL, enough is enough, you were defeated.


Israel population is smaller than the Egyptian these numbers don't prove a thing
our objectives from the start were to cross the canal destroy the barliv line deal with the isreali counter attack inflict heavy losses until we are in a postion to regain Sinai by negotiations there were set before the war our advance did cause some problems but it was nothing we cant handle our airforce losses were not that high and it is funny that you say you were near cairo when you couldn't even enter suez
success in war is by accomplishing every objectives set and we did that

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

About the gap, Israeli threatened in the media that she can annihilate 3rd army but she concealed from the media that her forces in the gap were surrounded as well. besides, what is the military plan that enables Israel to annihilate 3rd army without:

1- Egyptian forces annihilating Israeli forces in the gap including cutting their own supply lines between 2nd and 3rd army.

2- Loosing any Israeli soldier while annihilating 3rd army

3rd army still had weapons and was able to fight even after cease fire when Israel tried to capture Elsuez (check sources)

15000 total Arab died is the Israeli version, Arab version is 5000, do you think annihilating 3rd army would have happened with 3rd army or rest of Egyptian forces watching ?, this was just a propaganda, the only way to annihilate them is to let them die of hunger, but even that was not gonna happen, cause then 2nd army and 3rd army would have cut off Israeli forces supply lines, then 3rd army would have got supplies through 2nd army & innhilitating Israeli forces in the gap would have started.

USA & Israel made it look to the world as if Israel was the one who had the upper hand, they made it look like Israel gave food & water to 3rd army just from willingness to do so, no that's not right, if they did not allow water and food to reach 3rd army, there would not have been a cease fire.

Yes, Egypt agreed to negotiate with Israel directly (Not the first time) not only to send water & food to 3rd army but also to negotiate disengagement & peace later, which proves that Egypt had the POWER to negotiate which she did not have before the war.

If none of what i said above convinces you, then Just answer me one question, what made Israel return Sinai to Egypt and make peace after 1973 when it refused to do the same before 1973 ?, if you said cause Israel realized how strong is Egypt, then 1973 war is a success, so tell me one logical reason that made Israel change its mind.

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_and_Observers#Sinai_Peacekeeping_Zones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:

1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers, and it was blocked with the start of the war.

2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter attack.

3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their supply lines were stretched for a long distance.

4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in the sources.

5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.

6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an american plane spotted it.

7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main forces were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf

Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/

Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> Israel population is smaller than the Egyptian these numbers don't prove a thing
> our objectives from the start were to cross the canal destroy the barliv line deal with the isreali counter attack inflict heavy losses until we are in a postion to regain Sinai by negotiations there were set before the war our advance did cause some problems but it was nothing we cant handle our airforce losses were not that high and it is funny that you say you were near cairo when you couldn't even enter suez
> success in war is by accomplishing every objectives set and we did that


Oh, so it seems like you were defeated by a country with much smaller population.
Your army was much bigger, and it managed to kill a VERY small number of troops and vehicles.
While the Israeli one managed to kill 10 Arab soldiers (7 Egyptians for every one of its deaths, that number is smaller if I would count the amount of the killed in the Egyptian front, much smaller) for every one of their dead, 5 enemy aircraft for every 1 of our destroyed aircraft, 2 enemy tanks for every one of ours that was destroyed, and we captured 30 times the amount of soldiers you captured. And that's when our army is 2.5 times smaller than yours.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> we are in a postion to regain Sinai by negotiations


Is that why you rushed into the Sinai further? why did you do that?
To capture it. And, it failed to you. 
Result? your entire third army either destroyed or captured, heavy loses to the ones in the Suez
I didn't say we were near Cario (Although we were 100 kilometers away from it)
I said that the Israelis were on their way, and if the Soviets and Americans would not tell us to stop, you most likely wouldn't talk now.


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> About the gap, Israeli threatened in the media that she can annihilate 3rd army but she concealed from the media that her forces in the gap were surrounded as well. besides, what is the military plan that enables Israel to annihilate 3rd army without:
> 
> 1- Egyptian forces annihilating Israeli forces in the gap including cutting their own supply lines between 2nd and 3rd army.
> 
> 2- Loosing any Israeli soldier while annihilating 3rd army
> 
> 3rd army still had weapons and was able to fight even after cease fire when Israel tried to capture Elsuez (check sources)
> 
> 15000 total Arab died is the Israeli version, Arab version is 5000, do you think annihilating 3rd army would have happened with 3rd army or rest of Egyptian forces watching ?, this was just a propaganda, the only way to annihilate them is to let them die of hunger, but even that was not gonna happen, cause then 2nd army and 3rd army would have cut off Israeli forces supply lines, then 3rd army would have got supplies through 2nd army & innhilitating Israeli forces in the gap would have started.
> 
> USA & Israel made it look to the world as if Israel was the one who had the upper hand, they made it look like Israel gave food & water to 3rd army just from willingness to do so, no that's not right, if they did not allow water and food to reach 3rd army, there would not have been a cease fire.
> 
> Yes, Egypt agreed to negotiate with Israel directly (Not the first time) not only to send water & food to 3rd army but also to negotiate disengagement & peace later, which proves that Egypt had the POWER to negotiate which she did not have before the war.
> 
> If none of what i said above convinces you, then Just answer me one question, what made Israel return Sinai to Egypt and make peace after 1973 when it refused to do the same before 1973 ?, if you said cause Israel realized how strong is Egypt, then 1973 war is a success, so tell me one logical reason that made Israel change its mind.
> 
> Source(s):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_and_Observers#Sinai_Peacekeeping_Zones
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:
> 
> 1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers, and it was blocked with the start of the war.
> 
> 2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter attack.
> 
> 3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their supply lines were stretched for a long distance.
> 
> 4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in the sources.
> 
> 5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.
> 
> 6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an american plane spotted it.
> 
> 7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main forces were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!
> 
> Source(s):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
> Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf
> 
> Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/
> 
> Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm




You might not know, but Israel threatened to destroy the third army IN THE START OF THE WAR
And it accomplished it, capturing 8000 soldiers and many more tanks, killing a lot too.
the Egyptians were not annihilating anyone, the Egyptians were being annihilated.
the 2nd army wasn't even in the Sinai, it was in the Suez, after the third army pushed into the Sinai, the Israelis flanked them, destroyed and captured 8000 of them and many tanks.
NO MORE THIRD ARMY

"15000 total Arab died is the Israeli version, Arab version is 5000, do you think annihilating 3rd army would have happened with 3rd army or rest of Egyptian forces watching ?, this was just a propaganda, the only way to annihilate them is to let them die of hunger, but even that was not gonna happen, cause then 2nd army and 3rd army would have cut off Israeli forces supply lines, then 3rd army would have got supplies through 2nd army & innhilitating Israeli forces in the gap would have started."
Arabs always have been saying that they are victorious, Like the Egyptians in 1967, while we destroyed every one of their jets and air bases, they were saying they are winning, and then the Jordanians got into the war, only then they realized Egypt was defeated. That's why I never trust their sources. 
Also, I said 15,000 EGYPTIANS, not 15,000 Arabs, there were additional 3500 Syrians that died.

"cause then 2nd army and 3rd army would have cut off Israeli forces supply lines"
Now that's just stupidity
Israeli supply lines were BEHIND the Israelis, and the Israelis covered the whole Sinai, so you couldn't just go by, while your stupid forces were concentrated, and had no support troops within the matter for hundreds of kilometers, we simply flanked and spanked. You can go into an Israeli tank show and see bunch of Egyptian tanks there.
Arab is not just "would have", but "DID", Every idiot can say "I could have destroyed you if bla bla bla" but you didn't because you cant, either it is lack of knowledge, either that they are not able to.

"USA & Israel made it look to the world as if Israel was the one who had the upper hand, they made it look like Israel gave food & water to 3rd army just from willingness to do so, no that's not right, if they did not allow water and food to reach 3rd army, there would not have been a cease fire."
Of course we gave them water and food (And you claimed that we DID capture the third army, claimed that we didn't feed them) the second army cannot do anything, because it would be destroyed because it have no air cover like the other guy said it was the reason of the destruction of the third army.

"Yes, Egypt agreed to negotiate with Israel directly (Not the first time) not only to send water & food to 3rd army but also to negotiate disengagement & peace later, which proves that Egypt had the POWER to negotiate which she did not have before the war."
Egypt had the power to negotiate? The one that starts to negotiate is the one with the lower hand, If you could have taken the Sinai by force, you would have done that already.

"If none of what i said above convinces you, then Just answer me one question, what made Israel return Sinai to Egypt and make peace after 1973 when it refused to do the same before 1973 ?, if you said cause Israel realized how strong is Egypt, then 1973 war is a success, so tell me one logical reason that made Israel change its mind."
The reason is that your force did do some casualties, and we were sure that we could defeat them again, but again, even with lower casualties it is not worth it, we would rather have peace than war, too bad it doesn't work with the Palestinians.

"Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers, and it was blocked with the start of the war."
It was running low on oil in the end of the war- and the blockade was quickly stopped in the Battle of Baltim and Battle of Marsa Talamat, the destruction of enemy Egyptian ships in Israeli borders and Egyptian.

"Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter attack."
This is bullshit- Israel DID kill or capture the third army, and you cannot understand that, I don't see 2000 dead, in both Syria and Egypt front, out of our 415,000 soldier strong army even related to the term "annihilated"

"They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their supply lines were stretched for a long distance." so 111km, Is it good enough for you?
Israel had total air dominance, so Israel could drop a lot of supplies to the soldiers (Even though we had to fly low because the Egyptians had a lot of SAMs)

"Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in the sources."
That is false- 172 Egyptian aircraft were shot down in air-to-air combat out of the 242 Egyptian jets destroyed, while only 21 Israeli jets were destroyed in air to air combat in all fronts.
(Tell me if you want me to source it all)

"Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in."
EGYPTIAN CLAIM 
"At 22:00 local time Cairo Radio broadcast “Communiqué Number 39”, announcing several air battles that day over a number of Egyptian airfields, the most intensive over the northern Delta area. It claimed that 15 enemy aircraft had been downed by Egyptian fighters for the loss of three Egyptian aircraft, excluding Israeli aircraft shot down near the Suez Canal.[_citation needed_]" See? CITATION NEEDED.
Israeli claim was only 2
What about Ofira Air Battle? when 2 F4 Phantoms fought against 20 MiG 17s and 8 MiG 21s? the Israelis destroyed 7 aircraft.

"The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an american plane spotted it."
Of course we knew about it, we had our own jets that were flying there.


"Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main forces were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!"
They weren't just encircled, they were CAPTURED.
And don't ask me, they were captured, end of story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

I am not asking you anything.. you just try rebuttles, even when faced with documented facts..


----------



## ibnabdulfatah

Hey you. @Beny Karachun
You know very well that you are without US support is not worth anything.
This is the truth that deny many, Israel without America are not worth anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> Oh, so it seems like you were defeated by a country with much smaller population.
> Your army was much bigger, and it managed to kill a VERY small number of troops and vehicles.
> While the Israeli one managed to kill 10 Arab soldiers (7 Egyptians for every one of its deaths, that number is smaller if I would count the amount of the killed in the Egyptian front, much smaller) for every one of their dead, 5 enemy aircraft for every 1 of our destroyed aircraft, 2 enemy tanks for every one of ours that was destroyed, and we captured 30 times the amount of soldiers you captured. And that's when our army is 2.5 times smaller than yours.
> 
> 
> Is that why you rushed into the Sinai further? why did you do that?
> To capture it. And, it failed to you.
> Result? your entire third army either destroyed or captured, heavy loses to the ones in the Suez
> I didn't say we were near Cario (Although we were 100 kilometers away from it)
> I said that the Israelis were on their way, and if the Soviets and Americans would not tell us to stop, you most likely wouldn't talk now.


1 it is no secret that your population smaller than ours these numbers don't prove a thing if this numbers are true what matters is we accomplished our objectives and got back Sinai
2 again every one knew that the advance into Sinai outside the cover of our SAMs is a suicide this was done due to pressure from the soviets and arabs to help the Syrian front and this caused the problem between shazly and sadat even after our losses we did not collapse and still managed to defend seuz and ismalia and if the war continued we were ready
3 an agreement to a cease fire was reach and you attacked after hoping to better your condition it did not work
4 again for the million time our goal was not to regain all of Sinai but a limited war to better our condition to regain our land by negotiations

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ibnabdulfatah

Welcome Mahmoud how I communicate with you. @Mahmoud_EGY


----------



## bosanski vojnik

Among the reasons why Arabs lost most of their wars with Israel was due to Israels vast spy network and edge in military technology. I believe that during the 1967 war the Israelis had a Spy in the Syrian Military's defence council. Also, whilst the Arabs essentially bought Soviet Junk and had very little supplies with them the Israelis had more ammo and better technology. When you can shoot your enemy before he sees you and can reload quicker it does not matter how numerous he is.

That being said this still does not excuse the Arabs defeats as the famous phrase goes "All is fair in Love and War".


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

ibnabdulfatah said:


> Welcome Mahmoud how I communicate with you. @Mahmoud_EGY


see your profile


----------



## Beny Karachun

ibnabdulfatah said:


> Hey you. @Beny Karachun
> You know very well that you are without US support is not worth anything.
> This is the truth that deny many, Israel without America are not worth anything.


What does it say about you? fully supplied by the USSR trough out all of our wars and still defeated by us.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> 1 it is no secret that your population smaller than ours these numbers don't prove a thing if this numbers are true what matters is we accomplished our objectives and got back Sinai
> 2 again every one knew that the advance into Sinai outside the cover of our SAMs is a suicide this was done due to pressure from the soviets and arabs to help the Syrian front and this caused the problem between shazly and sadat even after our losses we did not collapse and still managed to defend seuz and ismalia and if the war continued we were ready
> 3 an agreement to a cease fire was reach and you attacked after hoping to better your condition it did not work
> 4 again for the million time our goal was not to regain all of Sinai but a limited war to better our condition to regain our land by negotiations


Your goal was to take the Sinai by force, and pushing into it was the proof.
I watched a documentary recently. the Soviets were not idiotic- you had many Soviet military advisers in your country, and they did not say to push into the Sinai ESPECIALLY if its a suicide mission

The Israeli army occupied sixteen hundred square kilometers of territory on the southwestern coast of the Suez Canal, within 100 km from Cairo, and encircled an Egyptian enclave in the east bank
So no, you didn't defend the Suez.

I have no information about your third claim

And if you push into the Sinai, so yes, you did start the war to conquer the Sinai, If no, so why did you need Syria for?
They also tried to push into Israel and failed.



bosanski vojnik said:


> Among the reasons why Arabs lost most of their wars with Israel was due to Israels vast spy network and edge in military technology. I believe that during the 1967 war the Israelis had a Spy in the Syrian Military's defence council. Also, whilst the Arabs essentially bought Soviet Junk and had very little supplies with them the Israelis had more ammo and better technology. When you can shoot your enemy before he sees you and can reload quicker it does not matter how numerous he is.
> 
> That being said this still does not excuse the Arabs defeats as the famous phrase goes "All is fair in Love and War".


"Soviet Junk"
This soviet junk was far superior than what we had and they had much more of it, T62s for example, night vision, 115mm smoothbore cannon and MiG 21s.


----------



## Desertfalcon

The IDF wins it's wars because of a dogged adherence to military fundamentals. Each Israeli soldier is valued and because they are valued they are trained and equipped to the highest standard and are expected and trusted to carry out their orders without much supervision. Even in relative peace, they train and train and train, knowing full well that the more you train in peace, the less you bleed in war. Her officer corps is based on competence, intelligence, and valour and nothing more. Israeli officers are expected to share the hardships of their men and are trained as soldiers, first and foremost, officer training follows. The IDF retains corporate knowledge and has a minimum of bullsh*t. Just look at their uniforms. No gold cord and flashy parade ground attire. No rows upon rows of medals for who knows what. Just plain, practical, olive drab utilities, but with small things like great boots, field gear, weapons, communications, even food and water, that is ample and of excellent quality.

The Arab armies in the _Yom Kippur War_ did perform much, much, better than in previous conflicts but they still suffered from basic integral faults like the environment of officers telling superiors what they want to hear, rather than the truth. This is part of the weakness of authoritarian systems. Being a democratic culture, Israel accepted their faults, expected to deal in truth of the situation and corrected mistakes expeditiously. While believing their own propaganda, lack of good field intelligence, lack of follow up initiative in exploiting victories, etc., hampered the Arab cause. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded and strangled until Cairo gave in and the Syrians sued for peace when Israel threatened the gates of Damascus itself, exposing the truth of the Syrian defeat.

I'm not saying these things because I am a cheerleader for Israel. It's just my opinion of the history I know and have studied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Beny Karachun said:


> What does it say about you? fully supplied by the USSR trough out all of our wars and still defeated by us.
> 
> 
> Your goal was to take the Sinai by force, and pushing into it was the proof.
> I watched a documentary recently. the Soviets were not idiotic- you had many Soviet military advisers in your country, and they did not say to push into the Sinai ESPECIALLY if its a suicide mission
> 
> The Israeli army occupied sixteen hundred square kilometers of territory on the southwestern coast of the Suez Canal, within 100 km from Cairo, and encircled an Egyptian enclave in the east bank
> So no, you didn't defend the Suez.
> 
> I have no information about your third claim
> 
> And if you push into the Sinai, so yes, you did start the war to conquer the Sinai, If no, so why did you need Syria for?
> They also tried to push into Israel and failed.
> 
> 
> "Soviet Junk"
> This soviet junk was far superior than what we had and they had much more of it, T62s for example, night vision, 115mm smoothbore cannon and MiG 21s.


we are just repeating ourselves over and over


----------



## The SC

It was an American war( 50$ billion resupply in few days), executed by Usraelis trained on those equipements. Arabs got ressupplied in the Millions of dollars not even 2 billion..

While the Egyptians had 1000 tanks on the Weast side and were ready to apply their plan of annhilating the Usraelis that were encircled and trapped (about 50 000 of them with 200 tanks).. 
It is not for nothing that these Usraeli solders were chanting and dancing with sadat pictures hold high in their hands, he had just saved their lives by accepting the final ceasefire..
So in big wars between the Egyptian and Usrael, 67 was lost because Egypt was not ready and did not expect a war, in 73 Egypt was ready and won its war.. that is it..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Amun

The SC said:


> It was an American war( 50$ billion resupply in few days), executed by Usraelis trained on those equipements. Arabs got ressupplied in the Millions of dollars not even 2 billion..
> 
> While the Egyptians had 1000 tanks on the Weast side and were ready to apply their plan of annhilating the Usraelis that were encircled and trapped (about 50 000 of them with 200 tanks)..
> It is not for nothing that these Usraeli solders were chanting and dancing with sadat pictures hold high in their hands, he had just saved their lives by accepting the final ceasefire..
> So in big wars between the Egyptian and Usrael, 67 was lost because Egypt was not ready and did not expect a war, in 73 Egypt was ready and won its war.. that is it..


Here it is


----------



## fatman17

fat generals..........


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> Here it is
> View attachment 314767


They displayed the picture after the IDF overrun an Egyptian command post. To think that they were happy that Sadat agreed to peace is utmost arab bullshit!


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> They displayed the picture after the IDF overrun an Egyptian command post. To think that they were happy that Sadat agreed to peace is utmost arab bullshit!


Pathetic .


----------



## Desertfalcon

Ceylal said:


> They displayed the picture after the IDF overrun an Egyptian command post.





Amun said:


> Pathetic .



No offence, but I think he is correct. Why else would an Israeli Army unit have it and be so happy in displaying it? That certainly makes more since then that they just happened to have a large framed picture of President Sadat that they carried around with them. And I find it highly unlikely that they produced said photograph in adulation because _"Sadat saved them from annihilation"_. It was not the Israeli Army that was surrounded. They had lines of supply and logistics through the _Bitter Lakes_ area of the Suez after their crossing. It was the Egyptian 3rd Army that was cut-off and surrounded. Egypt certainly did much better in this war than in '67, but Gen. Sharon was daring and exploited the gap between the two Egyptian armies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amun

="Desertfalcon, post: 8427544, member: 16879"]No offence, but I think he is correct. Why else would an Israeli Army unit have it and be so happy in displaying it? That certainly makes more since then that they just happened to have a large framed picture of President Sadat that they carried around with them. And I find it highly unlikely that they produced said photograph in adulation because _"Sadat saved them from annihilation"_. It was not the Israeli Army that was surrounded. They had lines of supply and logistics through the _Bitter Lakes_ area of the Suez after their crossing. It was the Egyptian 3rd Army that was cut-off and surrounded. Egypt certainly did much better in this war than in '67, but Gen. Sharon was daring and exploited the gap between the two Egyptian armies.




[/QUOTE]
They are not surrounding Suez like in your picture....and they are not that near of Ismaelia in the north....your picture probably after the seize fire when Israelis started to move their troops to gain more land for the future negotiations.
That's when US said every territory Israel gained after seize fire MUST withdraw from it.
BTW my grandfather was a policeman in Suez that time and he was with the resistance he told me that water,food and ammo continuously reached the eastern bank....and believe me I Know what I'm talking about.
Surrendering of Israeli officer to Egyptian officer in Porttawfik in Suez.
Israelis are our enemies that time.....but I respect them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> Pathetic .


They must have dropped on your head, not once but several time...You are absolutely superior to stupid..



Desertfalcon said:


> Why else would an Israeli Army unit have it and be so happy in displaying it? That certainly makes more since then that they just happened to have a large framed picture of President Sadat that they carried around with them. And I find it highly unlikely that they produced said photograph in adulation because _"Sadat saved them from annihilation_


Sadat won a battle, the crossing of the Suez, but lost the war. Amun does not understand thatit still in these days Egyptian troops cannot enter the Sinai without prior permission from Israel, the orange color on the wingtip and the rudder of their F16 was an Israeli requirement imposed on Egypt. That is not a sign of a victor, that is a sign of a defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> They must have dropped on your head, not once but several time...You are absolutely superior to stupid..
> 
> 
> Sadat won a battle, the crossing of the Suez, but lost the war. Amun does not understand thatit still in these days Egyptian troops cannot enter the Sinai without prior permission from Israel, the orange color on the wingtip and the rudder of their F16 was an Israeli requirement imposed on Egypt. That is not a sign of a victor, that is a sign of a defeat.





Ceylal said:


> They must have dropped on your head, not once but several time...You are absolutely superior to stupid..
> 
> 
> Sadat won a battle, the crossing of the Suez, but lost the war. Amun does not understand thatit still in these days Egyptian troops cannot enter the Sinai without prior permission from Israel, the orange color on the wingtip and the rudder of their F16 was an Israeli requirement imposed on Egypt. That is not a sign of a victor, that is a sign of a defeat.


Still pathetic.....you are from a country that have not been to war ever.....
More than pathetic....you are ignorant too.....what about the rafales.....not painted...
I'm not blaming you....you are pathetic and I do not take you serious.
But about those who follow your bullshit and rated you.
For any one else other than those pathetic ..,.. Egyptian F-16 painted on orange are for AIR DEFENCE squadrons....
But others are not painted like this photo......don't let those ignorants fool you.


----------



## bsruzm

Amun said:


> Egyptian F-16 painted on orange are for AIR DEFENCE squadrons


Why do you need to paint your air defence squadron's like that? I remember Block 40 F-16C/D's were also painted and Mirage 5's, too.






*A five-ship formation of Egyptian AF F-16C Block 40s over the pyramids. These aircraft were delivered from 1994 to 1995 under the Peace Vector IV program. The day-glo panels help distinguish them from F-16s from neighbouring countries. [Egyptian AF photo]*





*The Egyptian Air Force Mirage 5s operated in the air-superiority role, but were subsequently designed for strike/interdiction tasks.*


----------



## The SC

Kissinger after seeing the Egyptian plan to finish off the Usraelis on the west side of the canal, told Sadat that the US won't allow the russian weapons to beat the American ones..
Sharon said after the war that he didn't know who was surrounding whom..
This is enough to thwart any further talk about the Encircling of the 3rd Egyptian army which in the same period of time was still fighting on the Eastern side of the canal and gained another 2 to 3 km...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amun

bsruzm said:


> Why do you need to paint your air defence squadron's like that? I remember Block 40 F-16C/D's were also painted and Mirage 5's, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A five-ship formation of Egyptian AF F-16C Block 40s over the pyramids. These aircraft were delivered from 1994 to 1995 under the Peace Vector IV program. The day-glo panels help distinguish them from F-16s from neighbouring countries. [Egyptian AF photo]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Egyptian Air Force Mirage 5s operated in the air-superiority role, but were subsequently designed for strike/interdiction tasks.*


It is something related to the DOG FIGHT .... I think.


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> Poor soul! you must be beyond a retard...You are a case study for veterinarians! Algeria's came twice to save Egypt. Algeria is the only country in the Arab league that fought for her independence, while the rest were the rest of the Arab countries waited like a docile quadrupede , for a country to be carved for them..


----------



## Ceylal

The SC said:


> Kissinger after seeing the *Egyptian plan to finish off the Usraelis* on the west side of the canal, told Sadat that the US won't allow the russian weapons to beat the American ones..


Baloney! Egyptian army was famished and suffering from thirst.Kissinger intervened to end the siege of the Egyptians by the IDF.


----------



## 50cent

Main reason air supsuperiority one which has control over skies can easily takeout ground forces


----------



## The SC

Ceylal said:


> Baloney! Egyptian army was famished and suffering from thirst.Kissinger intervened to end the siege of the Egyptians by the IDF.


How come Egypt got back the Sinai pininsula?


----------



## Ceylal

The SC said:


> How come Egypt got back the Sinai pininsula?


Your question should have been how did Israel give up the Sinai? The US help, money, and pressure...with Israel getting the biggest part of the cake...


----------



## The SC

Usrael was getting the whole cake before the war, after that war in 1973 it had to split it with Egypt, so the question remains the same..


----------



## Michael Corleone

Egyptians decimated Israel in tank battles and naval battles. But air battles Israel proved superior and I guess that got Israel out of harm.


----------



## Ceylal

*@Mahmoud_EGY @Amun 

Listen to your compatriots talking about the Algerian 2nd tank Brigade....





 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=294423624238315




*


----------



## FullMetalJacket

Gentlemen, we can surely agree that Israel fought like a cornered tiger. It was literally life and death for them and they fought with such furiousity, that the Arab world will think twice when planning any misadventures.


----------



## Ceylal

FullMetalJacket said:


> Gentlemen, we can surely agree that Israel fought like a cornered tiger. It was literally life and death for them and they fought with such furiousity,* that the Arab world will think twice* when planning any misadventures.



WOW....we lost our bowel


----------



## Taimur Khurram

The Arabs almost destroyed Israel within the first few days of 73, but they had nukes so they couldn't do so and America resupplied them enough to launch a counter attack. Even then, it took Israel a damn lot longer just to push the Arabs back and eventually they realised that if a crippled Egypt and Syria could do such damage, imagine what they could do if they weren't so badly bruised after 67.

In short, Israel realised peace was wise.



FullMetalJacket said:


> Gentlemen, we can surely agree that Israel fought like a cornered tiger. It was literally life and death for them and they fought with such furiousity, that the Arab world will think twice when planning any misadventures.



No, they fought like a shark picking on little seals and claimed because there were more of them, the seals had a better chance.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> The Arabs almost destroyed Israel within the first few days of 73, but they had nukes so they couldn't do so and America resupplied them enough to launch a counter attack. Even then, it took Israel a damn lot longer just to push the Arabs back and eventually they realised that if a crippled Egypt and Syria could do such damage, imagine what they could do if they weren't so badly bruised after 67.
> 
> In short, Israel realised peace was wise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they fought like a shark picking on little seals and claimed because there were more of them, the seals had a better chance.


And I call bullshit.
Really? they "almost" destroyed us? All they did is destroy the Bar Lev line in a surprise attack.
We first destroyed their airforce, destroying over 570 enemy aircraft, while only 104 of ours were destroyed, then destroyed 2300 tanks while only 1063 tanks of ours were, Entire third Egyptian army destroyed and captured (8783 captured)
19 ships sunk, not even one Israeli ship was destroyed, and finally, 18500 Arabs killed while only 2521 of ours were killed. also 43 SAMs destroyed.
No, you didn't "almost" or was close at all to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> We first destroyed their airforce, destroying over 570 enemy aircraft, while only 104 of ours were destroyed, then destroyed 2300 tanks while only 1063 tanks of ours were, Entire third Egyptian army destroyed and captured (8783 captured)


Is the sirocco blowing in Tel Aviv? You must be sufferring a heat stroke to come up with something like that..I accused the Egyptian PDF's for being delusional , but you, you topped the bar. After all the years past, I guess the subject is still sensitive enough to blur any factual truth...Time to put this thread in the forgotten archive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> And I call bullshit.
> Really? they "almost" destroyed us? All they did is destroy the Bar Lev line in a surprise attack.
> We first destroyed their airforce, destroying over 570 enemy aircraft, while only 104 of ours were destroyed, then destroyed 2300 tanks while only 1063 tanks of ours were, Entire third Egyptian army destroyed and captured (8783 captured)
> 19 ships sunk, not even one Israeli ship was destroyed, and finally, 18500 Arabs killed while only 2521 of ours were killed. also 43 SAMs destroyed.
> No, you didn't "almost" or was close at all to.



Please stop saying "you" like that, I have seen you do it to other members from nations not even involved, if you use it again against me I won't reply as it would prove you clearly don't know who was at war with who.

They almost reached your borders, your politicians were scared, so they threatened with nukes and begged the US for help. The US helped so so much, it was almost as if Egypt and Syria were fighting Israel and the US. They almost had a decisive victory, and would have had it if Israel didn't get so much support from the US.

As for casualties, the Arabs only had 452 warplanes so you couldn't have destroyed almost 600 of them, and it can't of been 452 as their Air Force still stood after the war. It was likely 347, that was the figure I found that seemed realistic. For Israel, yes 104 is correct. 

In terms of soldiers, no, the Arabs had 8,000 killed and Israel had 3,000. This statistic seems the most realistic. As for tanks, yes those casualties of yours are also correct.

On the naval front, yes you are correct again.


----------



## ultron

Because the fight was in Israel, not in Arabia.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> Please stop saying "you" like that, I have seen you do it to other members from nations not even involved, if you use it again against me I won't reply as it would prove you clearly don't know who was at war with who.
> 
> They almost reached your borders, your politicians were scared, so they threatened with nukes and begged the US for help. The US helped so so much, it was almost as if Egypt and Syria were fighting Israel and the US. They almost had a decisive victory, and would have had it if Israel didn't get so much support from the US.
> 
> As for casualties, the Arabs only had 452 warplanes so you couldn't have destroyed almost 600 of them, and it can't of been 452 as their Air Force still stood after the war. It was likely 347, that was the figure I found that seemed realistic. For Israel, yes 104 is correct.
> 
> In terms of soldiers, no, the Arabs had 8,000 killed and Israel had 3,000. This statistic seems the most realistic. As for tanks, yes those casualties of yours are also correct.
> 
> On the naval front, yes you are correct again.


When I say you I mean Arabs, sorry.

Again, "almost" is not did reach it. We didn't beg, you just said it, we threatened with nukes, and no, they felt safe, mainly because we had nukes. 
"It was almost" again, stop with that almost. "They almost had a decisive victory" but Israel had it, not the Arabs, you "almost" had it according to you. No, they wouldn't have had it because they wouldn't exist anymore, they would simply be radioactive waste.

the Arabs only had 452 warplanes? I am pretty sure this number is about Egypt, and Egypt only. 
And I didn't say we destroyed 452 warplanes, Israel also destroyed transport aircraft and bombers also aircraft.

There is no "statistic that seems more realistic". If you don't like the actual statistics doesn't mean you have to lie about them. 8000 is an Arab claim, and I would not trust them. in 1967 the Egyptians lied that they were winning, leading to the involvement of Jordan, leading to Israel conquering Judea and Samaria.



Ceylal said:


> Is the sirocco blowing in Tel Aviv? You must be sufferring a heat stroke to come up with something like that..I accused the Egyptian PDF's for being delusional , but you, you topped the bar. After all the years past, I guess the subject is still sensitive enough to blur any factual truth...Time to put this thread in the forgotten archive.


What is your point? Are you going to reply to what I am saying or just say I am delusional?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> When I say you I mean Arabs, sorry.
> 
> Again, "almost" is not did reach it. We didn't beg, you just said it, we threatened with nukes, and no, they felt safe, mainly because we had nukes.
> "It was almost" again, stop with that almost. "They almost had a decisive victory" but Israel had it, not the Arabs, you "almost" had it according to you. No, they wouldn't have had it because they wouldn't exist anymore, they would simply be radioactive waste.
> 
> the Arabs only had 452 warplanes? I am pretty sure this number is about Egypt, and Egypt only.
> And I didn't say we destroyed 452 warplanes, Israel also destroyed transport aircraft and bombers also aircraft.
> 
> There is no "statistic that seems more realistic". If you don't like the actual statistics doesn't mean you have to lie about them. 8000 is an Arab claim, and I would not trust them. in 1967 the Egyptians lied that they were winning, leading to the involvement of Jordan, leading to Israel conquering Judea and Samaria.



Israel didn't have a decisive victory, as the war lasted a fair amount of time (almost a month). 

Yes the Arabs only had 452 warplanes, this includes all of them, not just Egypt. But I didn't think about transport and whatnot, so I will then say that your statistic of 500 now seems fair.

As for casaulties, 8,000 seems fair, and in the 6 day war they only lied because they needed help desperately. 

I still think the war had more for the Arabs to cheer about, considering how their army's were still crippled from the 6 day war, they put up a damn good fight within the first few days of the conflict. It was only when America jumped into the game that they started losing, but even then Israel did not manage to get into Damascus, destroy the 3rd army or push past Suez. The Israeli invasion eventually got put at a halt, so everyone was back to square 1. A stalemate, in every literal sense. But since Israel couldn't have done it without America, and since the Arabs were still crippled from 67, I think the Arabs have more to celebrate.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> Israel didn't have a decisive victory, as the war lasted a fair amount of time (almost a month).
> 
> Yes the Arabs only had 452 warplanes, this includes all of them, not just Egypt. But I didn't think about transport and whatnot, so I will then say that your statistic of 500 now seems fair.
> 
> As for casaulties, 8,000 seems fair, and in the 6 day war they only lied because they needed help desperately.
> 
> I still think the war had more for the Arabs to cheer about, considering how their army's were still crippled from the 6 day war, they put up a damn good fight within the first few days of the conflict. It was only when America jumped into the game that they started losing, but even then Israel did not manage to get into Damascus, destroy the 3rd army or push past Suez. The Israeli invasion eventually got put at a halt, so everyone was back to square 1. A stalemate, in every literal sense. But since Israel couldn't have done it without America, and since the Arabs were still crippled from 67, I think the Arabs have more to celebrate.



You have no idea about war, don't you? War is not fair!
There is no "fair amount of casualties" or such BS.

total Egyptian losses were between 235 and 242 fighter jets, while Syria lost between 135 and 179. Rest were transport and other types of aircrafts.

There were 15,000 EGYPTIANS killed, and 8000 Egyptians captured, the whole third army destroyed and captured.

Their army wasn't crippled at all. They had thousands of T62s that were far more superior than any of our tanks, MiG 21s that were the most advanced eastern jet fighter at the time and full support from the USSR in all the time of the war.

Israel didn't have enough time to push to Damascus, as the war wasn't even for 1 month, the Israelis put most of their forces against the Egyptians.
In the start of the war 27 Israeli tanks were against about 500 Syrian T62s and other armored vehicles, guess what? The Israelis destroyed them all!
Israel DID destroy/capture the third army, that's why we captured 8000 Egyptian soldiers and many tanks, that are being presented in Israel.
Israel was 20 miles from Damascus, and was about to conquer it until the Americans told us to stop.
And Israel was about 100 kilometers away from Cairo, and when it started its invasion (Which it conquered even more 600 square miles) the Americans told us to stop.

Of course we could have, we would just nuke your forces and cities, and that would be the easiest war in Israel's history.
And since the Arabs were not crippled, ISRAEL WON.


----------



## Sinnerman108

If all Arab armies could put Arab behind them, and come up as ONE fighting force with ONE strategy
and worked as a team, Israel stood no chance.
Arab armies were superior in numbers and ground level strength.
Lacked in experience, multinational preparation and technology.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Sinnerman108 said:


> If all Arab armies could put Arab behind them, and come up as ONE fighting force with ONE strategy
> and worked as a team, Israel stood no chance.
> Arab armies were superior in numbers and ground level strength.
> Lacked in experience, multinational preparation and technology.


AHAHAHA
We saw that in 1967, when Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Kuwait, Pakistan, the PLO, Sudan and Tunisia went to war with us, yet you still lost!
You always was superior in numbers yet always lost to us!
You are prone to failures, we are not.


----------



## Natan

Sinnerman108 said:


> If all Arab armies could put Arab behind them, and come up as ONE fighting force with ONE strategy
> and worked as a team, Israel stood no chance.
> Arab armies were superior in numbers and ground level strength.
> Lacked in experience, multinational preparation and technology.


Just like Col. Samuel Colt reduced the power difference between strong men and the week men, so do nuclear warheads reduce the power difference between massive armies and small armies.

Pushing a state with nuclear weapons to a corner with superior numbers leaves it no choice but to use nuclear weapons and remove the threat.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Sinnerman108 said:


> If all Arab armies could put Arab behind them, and come up as ONE fighting force with ONE strategy
> and worked as a team, Israel stood no chance.
> Arab armies were superior in numbers and ground level strength.
> Lacked in experience, multinational preparation and technology.



I remember reading a comment here from a Pakistani trying to train Arab soldiers how to fight.
It was basically useless, because the officers were not interested in anything more than their career,
and if the soldiers were incompetent, their own importance increased.
An American trainer handed out instruction manuals to the tanks crews,
but the officers collected them so that the soldiers would not be able to cope on their own.

*System Fail!*


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> What is your point? Are you going to reply to what I am saying or just say I am delusional?


What I tried to tell you is that you are exaggerating the Arab losses and minimizing the IDF's ones. The truth is that between the Canal of Suez and Israel proper there was nothing that will have stopped the Egyptian army if Sadat had the political courage to stay on the course. It wasn't the USA help that handed Israel her victory but it was Sadat, for refusing to let his army to continue the war, after his brother was shot down. The US via Kissinger took advantage of Israel panic and Sadat war attitude to muzzle both and have the final decision on the end of the conflict. At the finality Israel benefited the most, having Egypt forced to sign a moneyed peace treaty and her armed forces turned to a parading army , facing an IDF super armed and more threatening.
After 50 years, we expected some history facts will emerge from this thread, but bravado and children nationalism took over... Story of the middle east..


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> What I tried to tell you is that you are exaggerating the Arab losses and minimizing the IDF's ones. The truth is that between the Canal of Suez and Israel proper there was nothing that will have stopped the Egyptian army if Sadat had the political courage to stay on the course. It wasn't the USA help that handed Israel her victory but it was Sadat, for refusing to let his army to continue the war, after his brother was shot down. The US via Kissinger took advantage of Israel panic and Sadat war attitude to muzzle both and have the final decision on the end of the conflict. At the finality Israel benefited the most, having Egypt forced to sign a moneyed peace treaty and her armed forces turned to a parading army , facing an IDF super armed and more threatening.
> After 50 years, we expected some history facts will emerge from this thread, but bravado and children nationalism took over... Story of the middle east..


Bullshit again....Sadat brother killed during the first day of the war during the Air strick....stop this ignorance....
The losses during the entire war started when Sadat decided to move the tanks forward out side the Air DEFENCE Umbrilla to decrease the pressure on the Syrian Front.....stop spreading this ignorance.


----------



## The SC

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Egyptians decimated Israel in tank battles and naval battles. But air battles Israel proved superior and I guess that got Israel out of harm.


Their airforce was decimated by SAM's in first days of the war.. they had new fighterplanes coming in from the US bases in Europe and later from the US, almost on a daily base..



FullMetalJacket said:


> Gentlemen, we can surely agree that Israel fought like a cornered tiger. It was literally life and death for them and they fought with such furiousity, that the Arab world will think twice when planning any misadventures.


Tiger!!! more like a cornered mouse, otherwise they wouldn't have threatened to use (American) nuclear bombs and called on the US for intervention and help..
Any small country can claim to fight like a tiger if it has the US fighting on its side! lol



A.P. Richelieu said:


> I remember reading a comment here from a Pakistani trying to train Arab soldiers how to fight.
> It was basically useless, because the officers were not interested in anything more than their career,
> and if the soldiers were incompetent, their own importance increased.
> An American trainer handed out instruction manuals to the tanks crews,
> but the officers collected them so that the soldiers would not be able to cope on their own.
> 
> *System Fail!*



Remember some of your Viking ancestors who went to rampage some costal small towns in Andalusia, and a small Muslim Arab army was sent to face them.. not one of your "legenday" hercules survived the encounter.....your elderly, the women and the kids were sent back home and the Muslims never ever heard of the Vikings again..
*Big Fail!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> You have no idea about war, don't you? War is not fair!
> There is no "fair amount of casualties" or such BS.
> 
> total Egyptian losses were between 235 and 242 fighter jets, while Syria lost between 135 and 179. Rest were transport and other types of aircrafts.
> 
> There were 15,000 EGYPTIANS killed, and 8000 Egyptians captured, the whole third army destroyed and captured.
> 
> Their army wasn't crippled at all. They had thousands of T62s that were far more superior than any of our tanks, MiG 21s that were the most advanced eastern jet fighter at the time and full support from the USSR in all the time of the war.
> 
> Israel didn't have enough time to push to Damascus, as the war wasn't even for 1 month, the Israelis put most of their forces against the Egyptians.
> In the start of the war 27 Israeli tanks were against about 500 Syrian T62s and other armored vehicles, guess what? The Israelis destroyed them all!
> Israel DID destroy/capture the third army, that's why we captured 8000 Egyptian soldiers and many tanks, that are being presented in Israel.
> Israel was 20 miles from Damascus, and was about to conquer it until the Americans told us to stop.
> And Israel was about 100 kilometers away from Cairo, and when it started its invasion (Which it conquered even more 600 square miles) the Americans told us to stop.
> 
> Of course we could have, we would just nuke your forces and cities, and that would be the easiest war in Israel's history.
> And since the Arabs were not crippled, ISRAEL WON.



The Arabs had no technological advantage whatsoever, they had the MiG-21? You had the Mirage V and the F-4 Phantom. They had the T-62? Your Centurion was also better.

In the start of the war it was not 27 tanks vs 500, it was 100 Israeli tanks vs 500 Syrian tanks/other vehicles. And by the end of it, both sides were crippled and Israel barely won. 

As for the 3rd army, nothing happened to them and nothing could have happened to them, they were too big. Please do your research. 

As for casualties, even the US doubts your claim. 

Israel was 100km from Cairo? Yes, but you still didn't manage to push into Cairo. The Egyptians halted your attack, and once you realized you weren't going to break into Cairo or Damascus, you stopped and accepted the ceasefire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sinnerman108

Beny Karachun said:


> AHAHAHA
> We saw that in 1967, when Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Kuwait, Pakistan, the PLO, Sudan and Tunisia went to war with us, yet you still lost!
> You always was superior in numbers yet always lost to us!
> You are prone to failures, we are not.



I'd like to understand this Us Vs You analysis of yours, and how did you come to conclusion that WE are prone to failures while you are not ?



A.P. Richelieu said:


> I remember reading a comment here from a Pakistani trying to train Arab soldiers how to fight.
> It was basically useless, because the officers were not interested in anything more than their career,
> and if the soldiers were incompetent, their own importance increased.
> An American trainer handed out instruction manuals to the tanks crews,
> but the officers collected them so that the soldiers would not be able to cope on their own.
> 
> *System Fail!*



Actually I am aware of somethings very contrary to what you are saying there.
1st hand experience.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> The Arabs had no technological advantage whatsoever, they had the MiG-21? You had the Mirage V and the F-4 Phantom. They had the T-62? Your Centurion was also better.
> 
> In the start of the war it was not 27 tanks vs 500, it was 100 Israeli tanks vs 500 Syrian tanks/other vehicles. And by the end of it, both sides were crippled and Israel barely won.
> 
> As for the 3rd army, nothing happened to them and nothing could have happened to them, they were too big. Please do your research.
> 
> As for casualties, even the US doubts your claim.
> 
> Israel was 100km from Cairo? Yes, but you still didn't manage to push into Cairo. The Egyptians halted your attack, and once you realized you weren't going to break into Cairo or Damascus, you stopped and accepted the ceasefire.


Sorry? a Mirage V that is designed to be a jet bomber and F-4 Phantom which is more of a CAS aircraft is better than a purely fighter jet aka the MiG 21, with better guns, turn rate, acceleration and rate of climb than both the Mirage and Phantom?
LMAO, the Centurion was better than the T62? the T62s had night vision, their armor was stronger.
The Centurion was in service in 1946, the T62 was in service in 1961.
the T62 was 15 years more modern, and you want to say our Centurions were better?

And no, it wasn't 100 Israeli tanks (Unless you say its not fair like you do all the time)
the Syrians attacked two Israeli brigades and eleven artillery batteries with five divisions (the 7th, 9th and 5th, with the 1st and 3rd in reserve) and 188 batteries. They began their attack with an airstrike by about 100 aircraft and a 50-minute artillery barrage. The forward brigades of three divisions then penetrated the cease-fire lines and bypassed United Nations observer posts, followed by the main assault force, which was covered by mobile anti-aircraft batteries, 
in the end of the Battle the Israelis had 180 tanks, against 28,000 Syrian troops, 800 tanks and 600 artillery pieces.

Really? now you deny it? Alright, i'll send you something you might hate, you are going to regret lying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Egypt.27s_trapped_Third_Army

THIS IS WHY WE HAD OVER 8000 CAPTURED EGYPTIANS

Now the US doubts it? Where did you get this from?
Allahuacbar.us?

No, the Egyptians didn't halt our attack, we didn't have time to push, mainly because the US and the USSR demanded from Israel to stop.
We didn't accept the ceasefire, we were forced to, by the US and USSR.



Sinnerman108 said:


> I'd like to understand this Us Vs You analysis of yours, and how did you come to conclusion that WE are prone to failures while you are not ?


Because we won every war you had with us when you were much larger?



Ceylal said:


> What I tried to tell you is that you are exaggerating the Arab losses and minimizing the IDF's ones. The truth is that between the Canal of Suez and Israel proper there was nothing that will have stopped the Egyptian army if Sadat had the political courage to stay on the course. It wasn't the USA help that handed Israel her victory but it was Sadat, for refusing to let his army to continue the war, after his brother was shot down. The US via Kissinger took advantage of Israel panic and Sadat war attitude to muzzle both and have the final decision on the end of the conflict. At the finality Israel benefited the most, having Egypt forced to sign a moneyed peace treaty and her armed forces turned to a parading army , facing an IDF super armed and more threatening.
> After 50 years, we expected some history facts will emerge from this thread, but bravado and children nationalism took over... Story of the middle east..


That's wrong, this is all from Wikipedia, it wasn't me exaggerating it, or me minimizing it.
Wait a second, I smell bullshit
Israel already stopped and destroyed the Egyptian third army, if it wasn't the USA help we would have launched a Jericho up Sadat's ***. He didn't refuse to let his army to continue, he was the one saying to his third army to conquer the whole Sinai, which he failed doing so.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Sorry? a Mirage V that is designed to be a jet bomber and F-4 Phantom which is more of a CAS aircraft is better than a purely fighter jet aka the MiG 21, with better guns, turn rate, acceleration and rate of climb than both the Mirage and Phantom?
> LMAO, the Centurion was better than the T62? the T62s had night vision, their armor was stronger.
> The Centurion was in service in 1946, the T62 was in service in 1961.
> the T62 was 15 years more modern, and you want to say our Centurions were better?
> 
> And no, it wasn't 100 Israeli tanks (Unless you say its not fair like you do all the time)
> the Syrians attacked two Israeli brigades and eleven artillery batteries with five divisions (the 7th, 9th and 5th, with the 1st and 3rd in reserve) and 188 batteries. They began their attack with an airstrike by about 100 aircraft and a 50-minute artillery barrage. The forward brigades of three divisions then penetrated the cease-fire lines and bypassed United Nations observer posts, followed by the main assault force, which was covered by mobile anti-aircraft batteries,
> in the end of the Battle the Israelis had 180 tanks, against 28,000 Syrian troops, 800 tanks and 600 artillery pieces.
> 
> Really? now you deny it? Alright, i'll send you something you might hate, you are going to regret lying
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Egypt.27s_trapped_Third_Army
> 
> THIS IS WHY WE HAD OVER 8000 CAPTURED EGYPTIANS
> 
> Now the US doubts it? Where did you get this from?
> Allahuacbar.us?
> 
> No, the Egyptians didn't halt our attack, we didn't have time to push, mainly because the US and the USSR demanded from Israel to stop.
> We didn't accept the ceasefire, we were forced to, by the US and USSR.



The source doesn't say you destroyed the 3rd army, which is what you claimed. They could have easily fought you off for a few days, but yes they would eventually run out of supplies and die horribly. 

As for Israel having worse equipment, your tanks were upgraded to be better and if something is Western made, it is always better than it's Eastern counterpart and anything that comes after for the next few years. Israel had far superior equipment, don't kid yourself. 

It was 100 Israeli tanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears

And yes the US doubts your claim, they claim the Arabs lost 8,000-10,000 men.


----------



## Michael Corleone

The SC said:


> Their airforce was decimated by SAM's in first days of the war.. they had new fighterplanes coming in from the US bases in Europe and later from the US, almost on a daily base..


Well yeah. Israel used mirage 2000s however. Vs hunters... mig21 etc.

However not a total air superiority either. Many Israeli fighters got shot down when against Pakistani, east Pakistani (Bangladeshi) pilots. One even had the distinction to become ace in a day. The only one after ww2


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> The source doesn't say you destroyed the 3rd army, which is what you claimed. They could have easily fought you off for a few days, but yes they would eventually run out of supplies and die horribly.
> 
> As for Israel having worse equipment, your tanks were upgraded to be better and if something is Western made, it is always better than it's Eastern counterpart and anything that comes after for the next few years. Israel had far superior equipment, don't kid yourself.
> 
> It was 100 Israeli tanks:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears
> 
> And yes the US doubts your claim, they claim the Arabs lost 8,000-10,000 men.


Really? the source doesn't say what I claimed? that's BS
Israel didn't destroy it, mainly because it captured them, and not destroy, Israel captured 8000 of their troops and dozens of tanks, They didn't fight us off, they barley killed 80 of our men, while we captured 8000 and killed many more.
Running out of supplies is called being defeated.

AHAHAHAHA, Our tanks weren't upgraded at all! they were stock tanks, no night vision giving you HUGE advantage in the night, also our tank's armor was weaker, the cannon was also weaker, 105mm rifled against the T62's 115mm smoothbore.
the Centurions were 15 years older than the T62s! and you think we had better tanks?
Their jets were purposed for dogfights while ours were for ground attack and we still fucked them up

And it was after reinforcements, in the start of the battle we only had 27 tanks, and you don't see? Decisive Israeli victory



dsr478 said:


> The source doesn't say you destroyed the 3rd army, which is what you claimed. They could have easily fought you off for a few days, but yes they would eventually run out of supplies and die horribly.
> 
> As for Israel having worse equipment, your tanks were upgraded to be better and if something is Western made, it is always better than it's Eastern counterpart and anything that comes after for the next few years. Israel had far superior equipment, don't kid yourself.
> 
> It was 100 Israeli tanks:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears
> 
> And yes the US doubts your claim, they claim the Arabs lost 8,000-10,000 men.


And where did you get that the US doubts our claim?



Mohammed Khaled said:


> Well yeah. Israel used mirage 2000s however. Vs hunters... mig21 etc.
> 
> However not a total air superiority either. Many Israeli fighters got shot down when against Pakistani, east Pakistani (Bangladeshi) pilots. One even had the distinction to become ace in a day. The only one after ww2


Are you kidding me? There were no Mirage 2000 in 1973, 
Not even one Israeli fighter jet was destroyed by Pakistanis.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Not even one Israeli fighter jet was destroyed by Pakistanis.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattar_Alvi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiful_Azam

What was that about us not shooting down any Israeli jets?



Beny Karachun said:


> Really? the source doesn't say what I claimed? that's BS
> Israel didn't destroy it, mainly because it captured them, and not destroy, Israel captured 8000 of their troops and dozens of tanks, They didn't fight us off, they barley killed 80 of our men, while we captured 8000 and killed many more.
> Running out of supplies is called being defeated.
> 
> AHAHAHAHA, Our tanks weren't upgraded at all! they were stock tanks, no night vision giving you HUGE advantage in the night, also our tank's armor was weaker, the cannon was also weaker, 105mm rifled against the T62's 115mm smoothbore.
> the Centurions were 15 years older than the T62s! and you think we had better tanks?
> Their jets were purposed for dogfights while ours were for ground attack and we still fucked them up
> 
> And it was after reinforcements, in the start of the battle we only had 27 tanks, and you don't see? Decisive Israeli victory
> 
> 
> And where did you get that the US doubts our claim?
> .



Israel didn't capture them, in fact, Israel didn't lay a finger on them because the US said if you did, there would be severe consequences. Also because they would have done some nasty damage. Please go find out about it, you will see my facts.

Your tanks were upgraded, and all of your equipment was better, except for the NV aspect. You guys were pretty clever when it came to combating that Arab advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sho't


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

dsr478 said:


> The Arabs had no technological advantage whatsoever, they had the MiG-21? You had the Mirage V and the F-4 Phantom. They had the T-62? Your Centurion was also better.
> 
> In the start of the war it was not 27 tanks vs 500, it was 100 Israeli tanks vs 500 Syrian tanks/other vehicles. And by the end of it, both sides were crippled and Israel barely won.
> 
> As for the 3rd army, nothing happened to them and nothing could have happened to them, they were too big. Please do your research.
> 
> As for casualties, even the US doubts your claim.
> 
> Israel was 100km from Cairo? Yes, but you still didn't manage to push into Cairo. The Egyptians halted your attack, and once you realized you weren't going to break into Cairo or Damascus, you stopped and accepted the ceasefire.



The MiG-21 proved lethal vs the Phantom in Vietnam...
The Syrian tanks had infrared lights which the Israelis lacked. Still lost the night fight in Golan.
The 3rd Army was surrounded, and would die from lack of water in days, without a supply line.
They certainly were not captured.

The Israelis were stopped by Henry Kissinger, since he saw an opportunity to wrestle Egypt,
out of the Soviet sphere.
There were very little reserves between IDF and Cairo.
The US was the real winners.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The MiG-21 proved lethal vs the Phantom in Vietnam...
> The Syrian tanks had infrared lights which the Israelis lacked. Still lost the night fight in Golan.
> The 3rd Army was surrounded, and would die from lack of water in days, without a supply line.
> They certainly were not captured.
> 
> The Israelis were stopped by Henry Kissinger, since he saw an opportunity to wrestle Egypt,
> out of the Soviet sphere.
> There were very little reserves between IDF and Cairo.
> The US was the real winners.



I agree with everything you said except for the Phantom vs MiG-21 thing, but that's another debate.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Really? the source doesn't say what I claimed? that's BS
> Israel didn't destroy it, mainly because it captured them, and not destroy, Israel captured 8000 of their troops and dozens of tanks, They didn't fight us off, they barley killed 80 of our men, while we captured 8000 and killed many more.
> Running out of supplies is called being defeated.
> 
> AHAHAHAHA, Our tanks weren't upgraded at all! they were stock tanks, no night vision giving you HUGE advantage in the night, also our tank's armor was weaker, the cannon was also weaker, 105mm rifled against the T62's 115mm smoothbore.
> the Centurions were 15 years older than the T62s! and you think we had better tanks?
> Their jets were purposed for dogfights while ours were for ground attack and we still fucked them up
> 
> And it was after reinforcements, in the start of the battle we only had 27 tanks, and you don't see? Decisive Israeli victory
> 
> 
> And where did you get that the US doubts our claim?
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? There were no Mirage 2000 in 1973,
> Not even one Israeli fighter jet was destroyed by Pakistanis.


I watched a Documentary on YouTube of Israeli mirage vs Mig 21 of Egypt long time ago. 

Pakistani pilot? Search safiul Azam and Alan in Arab Israeli war. Safiul shot down most no of Israeli jets by any pilots and also earned the distinction of eagles by United States in 2000s. He served in Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and then Bangladesh Air Force.


----------



## Ceylal

@Beny Karachun said


> That's wrong, this is all from Wikipedia, it wasn't me exaggerating it, or me minimizing it.
> Wait a second, I smell bullshit
> Israel already stopped and destroyed the Egyptian third army, if it wasn't the USA help we would have launched a Jericho up Sadat's ***. He didn't refuse to let his army to continue, he was the one saying to his third army to conquer the whole Sinai, which he failed doing so.


I have never considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy source. The third Egyptian was surrounded, not destroyed or surrendered. The Egyptians had a problem to supplied with water, food , arms, but she was still a fighting force. 
The US were aware that Israel was trying to assemble in a hurry an experimental nuclear device , not a military ready tested device. Kissinger use the Israeli disarray, and the Egyptian indecision to wrestle Egypt from the Soviet sphere and neutralise Israel independency.
But to go back to the subject, they were nothing standing between the Egyptian army and Israel proper, if Sadat had the political courage to let his army continue the fight..


----------



## Genghis khan1

Ceylal said:


> I have never considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy source.


No one does. Anyone can edit info there. Only illiterate retards post wiki links as a credible source.

but for general reference to get an idea, I guess it ok to use wiki links.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

No matter how small the Truth is and no matter how big the lie is , Truth always win .

Now you are free to play with the words as long as you wish .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Ceylal said:


> @Beny Karachun said
> 
> I have never considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy source. The third Egyptian was surrounded, not destroyed or surrendered. The Egyptians had a problem to supplied with water, food , arms, but she was still a fighting force.
> The US were aware that Israel was trying to assemble in a hurry an experimental nuclear device , not a military ready tested device. Kissinger use the Israeli disarray, and the Egyptian indecision to wrestle Egypt from the Soviet sphere and neutralise Israel independency.
> But to go back to the subject, they were nothing standing between the Egyptian army and Israel proper, if Sadat had the political courage to let his army continue the fight..



The Egyptians, once past the SAM umbrella were devastated by the Israeli fighter bombers.
With the supply line in tatters there was no chance of a successful offensive vs Israel proper.
If the third army had tried a move towards the second army, then at least it is debatable.
There is of course then the risk that the second army would have been encircled as well.


----------



## ultron

I think the US would have gotten involved militarily if Arabs thrust into Israel proper. By the 1970s Jews already had significant political influence in the US. Indeed, the civil rights and feminist movements in the US were the action of Jews. The US Open is the first tennis tournament that adopted equal pay in 1973, much earlier than the other major tennis tournaments in doing so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> Bullshit again....Sadat brother killed during the first day of the war during the Air strick....stop this ignorance....


Didn't anybody reminded you that you are the incarnation of stupidity. Read Shazly book and the Yom Kippur written by two military higher up of the Israeli army, that participated in both front, Egyptian and Syrian..And the book written by the Ex Algerian defence minister who participated in both war 67 and 73...


> The losses during the entire war started when Sadat decided to move the tanks forward


Bullshit! it happened when Sadat relieved Chazli from his command and replaced him by one of his crony to implement his battle plan that he hid from Syria and other arab countries that helped Egypt. He used his brother death as an excuse to stop the war. To help the Syrian was never in his plan. Sadat lied to the arab states by using Shazly as a patsy. The only force that was capable to stop the Egyptian army was the one under Ariel Sharon command, and Ariel and his tank column were decimated before and he had never came in sight with either the 1st or the 3rd Egyptian army.
Sadat wanted to get Egypt out of the Soviet sphere by selling every Arab league states and their security as well as the whole palestinian territories, for his own ego. And look what Egypt became...A "Cheggouf el Boul" , a Urinal for any country who can throw a coin in a bottomless tin can.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Egyptians, once past the SAM umbrella *were devastated by the Israeli fighter bombers*.


. In fact that what most observers claimed, but the commanding officers that participated in either side have a different opinion and the war would have had a different ending if the arab armies continued and coordinated the fight.. Israel didn't have much qualitative airforce ( modern aircrafts, as mirages, phontoms..) left after the first day of the hostilities.


----------



## The Next Door

I only know that Pakistan air force also participated and shoot down several Israeli plane successfully
On other hand Pakistan even didn't lost a single plane
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Search page and writer Pakistan and you will get result


----------



## Amun

Ceylal said:


> Didn't anybody reminded you that you are the incarnation of stupidity. Read Shazly book and the Yom Kippur written by two military higher up of the Israeli army, that participated in both front, Egyptian and Syrian..And the book written by the Ex Algerian defence minister who participated in both war 67 and 73...
> 
> Bullshit! it happened when Sadat relieved Chazli from his command and replaced him by one of his crony to implement his battle plan that he hid from Syria and other arab countries that helped Egypt. He used his brother death as an excuse to stop the war. To help the Syrian was never in his plan. Sadat lied to the arab states by using Shazly as a patsy. The only force that was capable to stop the Egyptian army was the one under Ariel Sharon command, and Ariel and his tank column were decimated before and he had never came in sight with either the 1st or the 3rd Egyptian army.
> Sadat wanted to get Egypt out of the Soviet sphere by selling every Arab league states and their security as well as the whole palestinian territories, for his own ego. And look what Egypt became...A "Cheggouf el Boul" , a Urinal for any country who can throw a coin in a bottomless tin can.
> 
> 
> . In fact that what most observers claimed, but the commanding officers that participated in either side have a different opinion and the war would have had a different ending if the arab armies continued and coordinated the fight.. Israel didn't have much qualitative airforce ( modern aircrafts, as mirages, phontoms..) left after the first day of the hostilities.


Pathetic as usual......I don't take your nonsense serious....I'm just saying the truth for the members here in PDF.
You have no dignity or ethics to claim that your army is cabaple of fighting modern war like Egyptian-Israeli war....so keep some dignity and tell the truth which is Sadat Brother killed during the first day of war....any one can google it and reveles the lies that you vomit here.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

You can write books on this subject but it all reduces to one equation. Third World versus First World. Who is going to win? *First World* - unless certain exceptions apply.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> @Beny Karachun said
> 
> I have never considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy source. The third Egyptian was surrounded, not destroyed or surrendered. The Egyptians had a problem to supplied with water, food , arms, but she was still a fighting force.
> The US were aware that Israel was trying to assemble in a hurry an experimental nuclear device , not a military ready tested device. Kissinger use the Israeli disarray, and the Egyptian indecision to wrestle Egypt from the Soviet sphere and neutralise Israel independency.
> But to go back to the subject, they were nothing standing between the Egyptian army and Israel proper, if Sadat had the political courage to let his army continue the fight..


It did surrender!
They did not surrender before they had no food, and then they did, that's why we took 8000 Egyptians as prisoners of war!
Stop trying to kid me!
the Egyptians COULDN'T supply them with water, food, arms or ammunition, because we encircled them!
They were not able to kill more than 120 people!
the US wasn't aware that Israel tried to assemble anything, because we already had nuclear warheads, they were aware that we put the Jericho's out in the open to scare the Egyptians and make the Americans to rush to supply us.
And Sadat tried to make it out with the Third army, and he saw that they failed a lot.



The Next Door said:


> I only know that Pakistan air force also participated and shoot down several Israeli plane successfully
> On other hand Pakistan even didn't lost a single plane
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
> Search page and writer Pakistan and you will get result


PAKISTANI CLAIM.



dsr478 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattar_Alvi
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiful_Azam
> 
> What was that about us not shooting down any Israeli jets?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel didn't capture them, in fact, Israel didn't lay a finger on them because the US said if you did, there would be severe consequences. Also because they would have done some nasty damage. Please go find out about it, you will see my facts.
> 
> Your tanks were upgraded, and all of your equipment was better, except for the NV aspect. You guys were pretty clever when it came to combating that Arab advantage.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sho't


Sattar_Alvi *[_citation needed_]* which means "This claim needs references to reliable sources"
The same on Saiful Azam, its only a Pakistani claim!

Explain this- How did Israel capture 8000 Egyptian prisoners of war, and hundreds of tanks?
the US said this? Like the "Even the US doubts this claim"? Do you have a source?

the Centurion Shot, was only upgraded with a 105mm cannon, other than the 84mm cannon the Centurion Mk3 had.
This 105mm cannon was made in 1956. This was the only upgrade it had and it was worse than the T62s cannon. and the T62s were better in almost every way.


----------



## The Next Door

Beny Karachun said:


> PAKISTANI CLAIM.


Not Pakistani clame it's europ and american controlled Wikipedia which is saying that more over Jordan government honoured two Pakistani air force pilots who shot down Israeli planes 
Israeli weren't even able to put scratch on Pakistan air force planes


----------



## Beny Karachun

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The MiG-21 proved lethal vs the Phantom in Vietnam...
> The Syrian tanks had infrared lights which the Israelis lacked. Still lost the night fight in Golan.
> The 3rd Army was surrounded, and would die from lack of water in days, without a supply line.
> They certainly were not captured.
> 
> The Israelis were stopped by Henry Kissinger, since he saw an opportunity to wrestle Egypt,
> out of the Soviet sphere.
> There were very little reserves between IDF and Cairo.
> The US was the real winners.


All agreed except a few things.
the 3rd army WAS captured, If not- explain the 8000 captured Egyptians.
And give me a reliable source about it.
Its not even really about the pilot in the Phantom (Although a crucial component) the Phantom was designed for ground attack



The Next Door said:


> Not Pakistani clame it's europ and american controlled Wikipedia which is saying that more over Jordan government honoured two Pakistani air force pilots who shot down Israeli planes
> Israeli weren't even able to put scratch on Pakistan air force planes


This is only a Pakistani claim, not European and not American.
This never happened and not even one jet was destroyed by Pakistani pilots.



Mohammed Khaled said:


> I watched a Documentary on YouTube of Israeli mirage vs Mig 21 of Egypt long time ago.
> 
> Pakistani pilot? Search safiul Azam and Alan in Arab Israeli war. Safiul shot down most no of Israeli jets by any pilots and also earned the distinction of eagles by United States in 2000s. He served in Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and then Bangladesh Air Force.


Pakistani claim.
He only got that distinction according to this site- http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
Which I wouldn't trust in any way or form


----------



## The Next Door

Beny Karachun said:


> All agreed except a few things.
> the 3rd army WAS captured, If not- explain the 8000 captured Egyptians.
> And give me a reliable source about it.
> Its not even really about the pilot in the Phantom (Although a crucial component) the Phantom was designed for ground attack
> 
> 
> This is only a Pakistani claim, not European and not American.
> This never happened and not even one jet was destroyed by Pakistani pilots.
> 
> 
> Pakistani claim.
> He only got that distinction according to this site- http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
> Which I wouldn't trust in any way or form


Oh man people like you never understand every one know about this I provide you Wikipedia link you can search you will get results and if you still don't understand leave it reality will not change and it's 100% right you can ask any one


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> .
> Sattar_Alvi *[_citation needed_]* which means "This claim needs references to reliable sources"
> The same on Saiful Azam, its only a Pakistani claim!
> .



http://www.dawn.com/news/488739/tribute-masters-of-the-sky

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm

You can find more info if you look, also, the US has recognized our achievements:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130314...0/au/goe/eagle_archive/eagle_archive_2000.asp


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Beny Karachun said:


> All agreed except a few things.
> the 3rd army WAS captured, If not- explain the 8000 captured Egyptians.



The Third Army was much larger than 8,000.
That is not even a division.



The Next Door said:


> Not Pakistani clame it's europ and american controlled Wikipedia which is saying that more over Jordan government honoured two Pakistani air force pilots who shot down Israeli planes
> Israeli weren't even able to put scratch on Pakistan air force planes



The Pakistani sources claim that he shot down two Super Mystére, one Mirage and a Vautour bomber.
They also claim the Mirage shot down his wingman first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> All agreed except a few things.
> the 3rd army WAS captured, If not- explain the 8000 captured Egyptians.
> And give me a reliable source about it.
> Its not even really about the pilot in the Phantom (Although a crucial component) the Phantom was designed for ground attack
> 
> 
> This is only a Pakistani claim, not European and not American.
> This never happened and not even one jet was destroyed by Pakistani pilots.
> 
> 
> Pakistani claim.
> He only got that distinction according to this site- http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
> Which I wouldn't trust in any way or form


Who safiul azam? Go to Bangladesh Air Force site too you'll see praises about him... as for alam they call him a martyr for some reason I believe becaus he was originally a Bangladeshi (east Pakistani) but pledged allegiance to Pakistan after the war. Search about them in Wikipedia you'll still get verified results. Just search about safiul azam and do more research on him. He is a topgun. Graduated from topgun academy


----------



## Sinnerman108

Amun said:


> Pathetic as usual......I don't take your nonsense serious....I'm just saying the truth for the members here in PDF.
> You have no dignity or ethics to claim that your army is cabaple of fighting modern war like Egyptian-Israeli war....so keep some dignity and tell the truth which is Sadat Brother killed during the first day of war....any one can google it and reveles the lies that you vomit here.



Man,
cool it. Why digging dirt ?
A better use of time is to prepare for future, which unfortunately none of our countries have done since 1967.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jaanbaz

Their BF=USA helped them. Not that I care if Arabs or Israelis win.


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> Pathetic as usual......I don't take your nonsense serious....I'm just saying the truth for the members here in PDF.
> You have no dignity or ethics to claim that your army is cabaple of fighting modern war like Egyptian-Israeli war....so keep some dignity and tell the truth which is Sadat Brother killed during the first day of war....any one can google it and reveles the lies that you vomit here.



Your sawt el 3arab truth! You are freaking delusional like every Egyptian that think that Egypt came out victorious in 73. In 73 if it wasn't for the Algerian armed forces that kept the IDF at bay and protected Cairo sky, Egypt would have been an amuse gueule for Israel. I posted a video for you to see, just to show you and the other doubters of the efficacity of the Algerian troops and there contribution in stabilising the front..the commentators were your folks....@sshole!
For the Algerian capabilities, they gave Egypt and Moubarek an idea in 2010...No need to revisit that!
And if you need to know what the rest of the world think about your armed forces, just ask the Houthis...



Beny Karachun said:


> It did surrender!
> They did not surrender before they had no food, and then they did, that's why we took 8000 Egyptians as prisoners of war!
> Stop trying to kid me!


No they didn't surrender, they were surrounded. 8000 prisoners is false also, maybe in 67 but not in 73. 
73 had a very high casualties in both sides but lot less prisoners of war.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Who safiul azam? Go to Bangladesh Air Force site too you'll see praises about him... as for alam they call him a martyr for some reason I believe becaus he was originally a Bangladeshi (east Pakistani) but pledged allegiance to Pakistan after the war. Search about them in Wikipedia you'll still get verified results. Just search about safiul azam and do more research on him. He is a topgun. Graduated from topgun academy


ITS ONLY YOUR CLAIM!
Pakistan and Bangladesh is the same! Just like Palestinians and Jordanians (But that's another story for another thread)
When I searched in Wikipedia the source they got this bullshit from was a Pakistani airforce sites. not even a government site.
Topgun university? 



Ceylal said:


> Your sawt el 3arab truth! You are freaking delusional like every Egyptian that think that Egypt came out victorious in 73. In 73 if it wasn't for the Algerian armed forces that kept the IDF at bay and protected Cairo sky, Egypt would have been an amuse gueule for Israel. I posted a video for you to see, just to show you and the other doubters of the efficacity of the Algerian troops and there contribution in stabilising the front..the commentators were your folks....@sshole!
> For the Algerian capabilities, they gave Egypt and Moubarek an idea in 2010...No need to revisit that!
> And if you need to know what the rest of the world think about your armed forces, just ask the Houthis...
> 
> 
> No they didn't surrender, they were surrounded. 8000 prisoners is false also, maybe in 67 but not in 73.
> 73 had a very high casualties in both sides but lot less prisoners of war.



Ahahahaha the Algerians only send one squadron of jets to the war, and they didn't even really fight in it.
Nice English btw.

So now you deny history? If so I got nothing to really talk to you.



The Next Door said:


> Oh man people like you never understand every one know about this I provide you Wikipedia link you can search you will get results and if you still don't understand leave it reality will not change and it's 100% right you can ask any one


Sorry but that never happened.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Third Army was much larger than 8,000.
> That is not even a division.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pakistani sources claim that he shot down two Super Mystére, one Mirage and a Vautour bomber.
> They also claim the Mirage shot down his wingman first.


The Third army already sustained casualties while the war was on, the Egyptians themselves estimated 7,000 to 10000 deaths just to invade the Sinai.

the Third army was mostly armored, and not infantry, thus it was smaller in size compared to even infantry divisions men wise. 

the Pakistani claim is just fake, like most claims they say.



dsr478 said:


> http://www.dawn.com/news/488739/tribute-masters-of-the-sky
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm
> 
> You can find more info if you look, also, the US has recognized our achievements:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20130314...0/au/goe/eagle_archive/eagle_archive_2000.asp


You don't understand? the 2 sites here are FORUMS, just as this one, and those are threads and they are not that reliable!

and I cant enter the third site, and its AUSTRALIAN

Anyways, I don't even believe any word you say about what the US did, "Even the US doubts it" and when I ask for source you say "The US estimates 8000 deaths" without giving me source.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Beny Karachun said:


> The Third army already sustained casualties while the war was on, the Egyptians themselves estimated 7,000 to 10000 deaths just to invade the Sinai.
> 
> the Third army was mostly armored, and not infantry, thus it was smaller in size compared to even infantry divisions men wise.



The estimation is that 200,000 Egyptians crossed the canal, so this is but a fraction,
Your claim is not supported by any sources.


----------



## Beny Karachun

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The estimation is that 200,000 Egyptians crossed the canal, so this is but a fraction,
> Your claim is not supported by any sources.


You think just the third army crossed into the Sinai? there were many more staying near the Bar Lev line, neither you have any supporter sources.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> ITS ONLY YOUR CLAIM!
> Pakistan and Bangladesh is the same! Just like Palestinians and Jordanians (But that's another story for another thread)
> When I searched in Wikipedia the source they got this bullshit from was a Pakistani airforce sites. not even a government site.
> Topgun university?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahahahaha the Algerians only send one squadron of jets to the war, and they didn't even really fight in it.
> Nice English btw.
> 
> So now you deny history? If so I got nothing to really talk to you.
> 
> 
> Sorry but that never happened.
> 
> 
> The Third army already sustained casualties while the war was on, the Egyptians themselves estimated 7,000 to 10000 deaths just to invade the Sinai.
> 
> the Third army was mostly armored, and not infantry, thus it was smaller in size compared to even infantry divisions men wise.
> 
> the Pakistani claim is just fake, like most claims they say.
> 
> 
> You don't understand? the 2 sites here are FORUMS, just as this one, and those are threads and they are not that reliable!
> 
> and I cant enter the third site, and its AUSTRALIAN
> 
> Anyways, I don't even believe any word you say about what the US did, "Even the US doubts it" and when I ask for source you say "The US estimates 8000 deaths" without giving me source.


Ot top gun uni. Oh yes? Pak and bd is same? Then why did US award him for his achievements in 2000s?
Top gun academy in luke Air Force base in Arizona. You can google his certificate if you like. He is also ace of aces listed. Don't be a ignorant fool


----------



## Amun

Sinnerman108 said:


> Man,
> cool it. Why digging dirt ?
> A better use of time is to prepare for future, which unfortunately none of our countries have done since 1967.


That pathetic child...claiming things that never happened.....and always tell lies....and we tired of telling him the truth...so he has no dignity or honor.
That's it.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Beny Karachun said:


> You think just the third army crossed into the Sinai? there were many more staying near the Bar Lev line, neither you have any supporter sources.



It was the 2nd and 3rd Army which crossed.

Basically every source on the war supports my view.
None support Yours.

Israel was told by Henry Kissinger to back off, which it did.

https://books.google.se/books?id=pky1Iy0QQ3YC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Simcha+Dinitz,+Kissinger+option&source=bl&ots=q6wN_J0u_r&sig=q50KlXFHPTl9bXRv1hgB3naO0iY&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83b7tmfXNAhXCNJoKHbYoDUcQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Simcha Dinitz, Kissinger option&f=false

What is more important, is that I actually followed the progress of the war, and You were not even born.


----------



## Sinnerman108

Amun said:


> That pathetic child...claiming things that never happened.....and always tell lies....and we tired of telling him the truth...so he has no dignity or honor.
> That's it.



Only kids play with kids; 
adults watch them and enjoy their circus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Ot top gun uni. Oh yes? Pak and bd is same? Then why did US award him for his achievements in 2000s?
> Top gun academy in luke Air Force base in Arizona. You can google his certificate if you like. He is also ace of aces listed. Don't be a ignorant fool


Top gun university funny, I guess he was in it when he was about 60 years old?
Its an ACADEMY, for TRAINING, and only Pakistani F16 pilots are in there, he was in service only until 1979.
the US didn't award him anything! this was a Pakistani claim from this site
http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
Neither an ace neither destroyed any Israeli jet.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> It was the 2nd and 3rd Army which crossed.
> 
> Basically every source on the war supports my view.
> None support Yours.
> 
> Israel was told by Henry Kissinger to back off, which it did.
> 
> https://books.google.se/books?id=pky1Iy0QQ3YC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Simcha+Dinitz,+Kissinger+option&source=bl&ots=q6wN_J0u_r&sig=q50KlXFHPTl9bXRv1hgB3naO0iY&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83b7tmfXNAhXCNJoKHbYoDUcQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Simcha Dinitz, Kissinger option&f=false
> 
> What is more important, is that I actually followed the progress of the war, and You were not even born.


Israel didn't really destroy the third army, (I did have a mistake)
But it destroyed a HUGE part of it, and if the war was just 2 or 3 more days, you could say bye bye of it.
Its a fact that 15,000 Egyptians were killed and 2400 Arab tanks (Most of them are Egyptian) were destroyed.



Sinnerman108 said:


> Only kids play with kids;
> adults watch them and enjoy their circus.


You can call me a child, but I am no liar.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel didn't really destroy the third army, (I did have a mistake)
> But it destroyed a HUGE part of it, and if the war was just 2 or 3 more days, you could say bye bye of it.
> Its a fact that 15,000 Egyptians were killed and 2400 Arab tanks (Most of them are Egyptian) were destroyed.



No, because Israel was not prepared to upset Henry Kissinger.
The War ended the way it ended, because this was the end he wanted.
Something both Israel and Egypt could live with.

Go and talk to Your neighbours which participated, and then You will know.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Top gun university funny, I guess he was in it when he was about 60 years old?
> Its an ACADEMY, for TRAINING, and only Pakistani F16 pilots are in there, he was in service only until 1979.
> the US didn't award him anything! this was a Pakistani claim from this site
> http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
> Neither an ace neither destroyed any Israeli jet.


Read carefully what I wrote. You're the one mentioning university. I said it's an academy fool. Pakistan used to train their pilots from long back... he graduated in 1961. Just google his certificate. He was in service of Pakistan Air Force till 71 not 79. After that he served in Bangladesh Air Force. Pledged allegiance to Bangladesh after its creation. He is one of twenty two people awarded eagles distinction. Yes he did. And it's all recorded and verified. Just don't be a ignorant fool that you're. 
Also only pilot who served in four air force mind you. And he used a hawker hunter to score kills. I bet you don't even know what hawker hunter is. Ignorant noob. And don't keep bringing Pakistani website into this. Do Wikipedia searches. Go to various military research sites and you'll find info about him. Don't be a cu nt


----------



## SouI

Allah was on Israel's side. That is how they have beaten the shit out of arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beny Karachun

A.P. Richelieu said:


> No, because Israel was not prepared to upset Henry Kissinger.
> The War ended the way it ended, because this was the end he wanted.
> Something both Israel and Egypt could live with.
> 
> Go and talk to Your neighbours which participated, and then You will know.


I said IF the war was 2 or 3 more days.



Mohammed Khaled said:


> Read carefully what I wrote. You're the one mentioning university. I said it's an academy fool. Pakistan used to train their pilots from long back... he graduated in 1961. Just google his certificate. He was in service of Pakistan Air Force till 71 not 79. After that he served in Bangladesh Air Force. Pledged allegiance to Bangladesh after its creation. He is one of twenty two people awarded eagles distinction. Yes he did. And it's all recorded and verified. Just don't be a ignorant fool that you're.
> Also only pilot who served in four air force mind you. And he used a hawker hunter to score kills. I bet you don't even know what hawker hunter is. Ignorant noob. And don't keep bringing Pakistani website into this. Do Wikipedia searches. Go to various military research sites and you'll find info about him. Don't be a cu nt


I used synonyms! Academy and university is basically the same!
I already googled that, all I could find is some Pakistani site saying so!
So no, he wasn't in Top Gun Academy or University or how ever you want to call it.
I said IN SERVICE in general and not in Pakistani air force, until 1979 since 1960.
"Ignorant noob" ahahahaha kid, now I know who you are, probably a 12 year old?
Not even one Pakistani pilot destroyed any Israeli jet!
Don't give me forums about him or Pakistani sites!


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Beny Karachun said:


> I said IF the war was 2 or 3 more days.



As Henry Kissinger said: It is (was) not an option.


----------



## Beny Karachun

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As Henry Kissinger said: It is (was) not an option.


Then Henry saved Egypt's ***.


----------



## Tanker88

while Arabs clearly lost in 1967, they performed better in 1973.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> I said IF the war was 2 or 3 more days.
> 
> 
> I used synonyms! Academy and university is basically the same!
> I already googled that, all I could find is some Pakistani site saying so!
> So no, he wasn't in Top Gun Academy or University or how ever you want to call it.
> I said IN SERVICE in general and not in Pakistani air force, until 1979 since 1960.
> "Ignorant noob" ahahahaha kid, now I know who you are, probably a 12 year old?
> Not even one Pakistani pilot destroyed any Israeli jet!
> Don't give me forums about him or Pakistani sites!


If you know me why say probably a 12 year old? @Nilgiri @peonix enlighten this dull prick pls.

Here is a site that is not Pakistani noob. http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/08/21/have-jet-will-travel-the-amazing-story-of-saiful-azam/


----------



## Natan

Tanker88 said:


> while Arabs clearly lost in 1967, they performed better in 1973.


Yes, and still they lost again.

An arab victory looks like killing all the men, fuсking all the women, and looting all the sheep, or the other way round.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beny Karachun

Tanker88 said:


> while Arabs clearly lost in 1967, they performed better in 1973.


Performed better doesn't change the fact they lost.



Mohammed Khaled said:


> If you know me why say probably a 12 year old? @Nilgiri @peonix enlighten this dull prick pls.
> 
> Here is a site that is not Pakistani noob. http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/08/21/have-jet-will-travel-the-amazing-story-of-saiful-azam/


I don't know you, by you saying one word such as a "Noob" in a military thread, I know that you're a kid, but I don't know your exact age, so I said you're probably 12

Also, this is a thread, smartass, made by a certain guy, stop giving me forums!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> *Ahahahaha the Algerians only send one squadron of jets to the war, and they didn't even really fight in it.*


.

Ask the ones who knew. Facts show that the 8th Algerian tank brigade made an enchilada with Ariel Sharon armada and 700 of his troops, the best that Israel ever had. Just him and his aid escaped..Maybe this picture will refresh your memory..









Algeria's air force accomplished all the task that was assigned to her, with no aircraft lost..Just a mig 17 that was hit, but the pilot managed to land the aircraft safely.




> So now you *deny history*? If so I got nothing to really talk to you.



I am not denying history, you are the one who seem under euphoria ! Almost 50 years past and you still like your Egyptian counterpart Amun, inventing things. He use his dad's recollections, a policeman, as the absolute truth. What is your trove of info? Pls share it with us..


----------



## Beny Karachun

Tank BRIGADE, you think a brigade is large? 
Brigade is the smallest form of "army".

Algeria's air force was only assigned for... what exactly? 
Because I searched the world "Alge(ria)" to find any claims that they actually did anything, in Wikipedia, and I didn't find anything.


----------



## Ceylal

SouI said:


> Allah was on Israel's side. That is how they have beaten the shit out of arabs.


I am sure you know best since Turkey got fisted by the IDF on May 31, 2010...Arab armies were defeated by Sadat, who betrayed them...period! Israel was in disarray until Sadat double crossed the Arab's armed coalition.


----------



## SouI

Ceylal said:


> I am sure you know best since Turkey got fisted by the IDF on May 31, 2010...Arab armies were defeated by Sadat, who betrayed them...period! Israel was in disarray until Sadat double crossed the Arab's armed coalition.


Nothing can happen without the desire and permission of Allah, right? That is what islam says. So, Allah must have wanted Israel to beat arabs in those wars. There is no other way around it, isn't there?


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> Tank BRIGADE, you think a brigade is large?
> Brigade is the smallest form of "army".


Really ? have been in the army?




> Algeria's air force was only assigned for... what exactly?


they had objectives assigned to them...In fact from some observers, it was the only force who managed to bomb targets in Israel proper and shot a US C5 that was resupplying the IDF, and maintained Cairo sky unmolested by IAF afterwards.



> Because I searched the world "Alge(ria)" to find any claims that they actually did anything, in Wikipedia, and I didn't find anything.



I know that you will come back at me with that , Algeria contributed as a branch of the Egyptian army and wether is a political choice to show arab unity by the Algerian side, by not acting a separate and distinct force, or for some other reasons. You can search for tom cooper blog, a contributor to airforce montly or for the books that was written by Algerian ex minister of defence.
"
Literature / Algeria / "On the Egyptian front" of General Khaled Nezzar
"On the Egyptian front" of General Khaled Nezzar 



*




General Khaled Nezzar
An Algerian testimony on the war of attrition *
Nearly ten years after the publication of his "fighting Stories" (2002, Shihab Editions, Algiers) which deals with participation in the War of Independence, General Khaled Nezzar published Algiers recently new military memoir "on the Egyptian Front: the 2nd Brigade Algerian reach, 1968-1969" (1). The book recounts his memories of commander of that unit incorporated in the Egyptian army during the "war of attrition" which, after the Arab defeat of June 1967, pitted Egypt to Israeli forces occupying the Sinai and has ended in August 1970. the author is an Algerian military leaders who, in the late 80s, played a political role of the first order.
*The heavy shadow Algerian-Egyptian crisis *"on the Egyptian front" is divided into two parts. The first is devoted to the two years during which General Nezzar led the 2nd Brigade scope, integrated Arab forces on the eastern shores of the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. The second part is a brief evocation of "successive wars in the Middle East" (1948, 1967, 1973, etc.). The book includes several annexes, military maps and charts listing the material and human resources mobilized by the Algerian units deployed in Egypt between 1967 and 1975. The first part alternates anecdotes and quick tactical observations, which makes it look like so little of real "war of memories". Its many imperfections could be explained by the eagerness of the publisher to publish the work, almost without revision, to take advantage of the interest of the audience for everything related to the Algerian-Egyptian relations after the incidents that . marked football matches between teams from Egypt and Algeria (November 2009) edition of the deficiencies are observed in the non-classification of certain content (eg the publication of an annex on "losses Arabic aviation June 5, 1967 "at the end of a chapter on the war of October 1973, page 110). They are also visible in the non-dating of certain events as their dating was possible by the use of other sources - two of which are, moreover, mentioned: a written Egyptian General Saad El Dine Chazli (3) "Victims, history revisited the Arab-Zionist conflict," Israeli historian Benny Morris (4). A more serious editorial work would have avoided the author, on the same page 28, do not start the war of attrition on two dates: March 11 and mid-July 1969 (5). It would, above all, relieved the sentences of narrative are all racist abuse, like that of describing "the true nature of the Egyptians, full of resentment and betrayal" (sic, page 49).
*Important Algerian military aid Egypt between 1967 and 1973.*While we can not say, after Khellas Djilali (the daily "El Watan", April 7, 2010), it is a "historical investigation" and an "impartial account of all Algerians sent to the Middle East for an 'other war'", the Egyptian Khaled Nezzar memories are not deprived of documentary interest. They provide detailed information, drawn from the archives of the Ministry of Defence on the Algerian aid to Egypt between 1967 and 1975. They give a vivid picture of the state of collapse of the Egyptian army after the defeat June 1967 and the difficult conditions in which she overcame her demoralization prepare for the war of 1973. the author emphasizes the benefits of the war of attrition for the Arab armies that participated. She transformed the Suez Canal, he writes, in a real field maneuvers and thus contributed to the success of the October 1973 offensive, reaching two goals, crossing and the destruction of the Bar-Lev line, "has undermined the legend of invincible Israeli army" (page 29). the general Nezzar review some "legends" on the Algerian participation in the Arab-Israeli wars (eg combat aircraft shot down over Tel Aviv, in June 1967, was painted in the colors but his Algerian driver was an officer in the Egyptian Air Force, page 37). He paid tribute to fellow Egyptian weapons, the chief of Staff Abdel Monêem Riad, which he testifies, spared no effort to fulfill its mission (page 63) or the "great gunner" Colonel Abu Ghazala (page 49). Other officers, he speaks with contempt barely contained: Galal the lieutenant colonel who worked to marginalize Algerian brigade (pages 52 and 53) or the other commander, "as the comfort that its troops were abandoned "(page 54).
*Algerian-Egyptian tensions on the frontline *contrary agreed stories," on the Egyptian front "reveals that Algerian officials did not hesitate to disobey when Egyptian officials doubted the well- validity of their orders and they complained that the Egyptian policy towards the "disrespectful" which was made for the repatriation of bodies of soldiers from their brigade combat deaths (page 58). Many Egyptian officers, reads, looked with astonishment and suspicion these "defenders of the Arab land" who were taking notes in French, that Khaled Nezzar comment, saying during a staff meeting: "We have not had the honor to learn Arabic, but we managed to drive the French out of our country" (page 52) the author describes with great severity the operational capabilities of the Egyptian army ( none, according to him, those of the unit he commanded) and the indifference of its executives deprivation of the troops and the enormous losses it suffered (page 56). He criticized the tendency of some of its leaders to hide from their superiors poor performance of their soldiers. In May 1967 he wrote, in a maneuver tanks in the presence of the high command, all targets have been met, letting out thick columns of smoke, which raised the enthusiasm of those present; Later we discover that they had put behind each target a barrel of oil and that all the shots were adjusted in advance (page 32). Despite the general tone of the book, this story does not seem to be an Egyptian anti-settlement account; it is immediately followed by another, describing a layout similar scene during a maneuver of the Algerian army. *A chauvinist upmanship *If the documentary interest of the first part of "On the Egyptian front" is not doubt the usefulness of its second part is questionable; it does not give to "the successive wars in the Middle East" of information that one can find in a serious historical encyclopedia. However, the annexes are of great benefit to the reader. They detail the Algerian aid to Egypt between 1967 and 1975: $ 300 million, a check to fund the purchase of weapons and Russian equipment, 20,000 soldiers, hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles of all- ground and artillery pieces, dozens of combat aircraft ... a considerable part of this arsenal, says General Nezzar, was sold to the Egyptian army. During the release of his book, the author tried to register in the context of diplomatic tension between Algeria and Egypt. In the name of defense of the symbols of the revolution "attacked by the Egyptians" (the daily "Liberté", 25 January 2010), it comes to a real chauvinist upmanship. He spoke about Egypt "a country in decline," where "there is a minority that takes advantage of wealth and a majority that has nothing" (the weekly "Debates, January 27, 2010) as if the fair distribution of national wealth could distinguish the Algeria of the world. He revealed a surprising ignorance of history teaching us that "the Egyptians have never fought a war" (sic) and that "even against England, they showed no resistance" (re-sic, "Freedom", 25 January 2010). *Algerian-Arab Relations in question *a postscript Bashir Medjahed attempts to give an intellectual depth to this attempt to write "on the Egyptian front" in the current context, marked by the deterioration of relations Egyptian-Algerian diplomatic. The researcher compares "Algeria's engagement with Egypt" to "unfortunate Egyptian scenario" to cause the rupture of relations between the two countries (the unfortunate anti-Algerian campaign of many Egyptian media, end of last year). He concludes: "The publication of this book is beneficial for the redefinition of ties between Arab countries and eventually to open a debate on the choice between geopolitical areas that will need to dock." the proposal to open such a debate expresses the viewpoint of a real power within the regime and its elites advocating voluntary loosening of ties between Algeria and the Arab world and its integration in other areas ( Euro-Mediterranean, for example). This view seems based on a fantasized reality completely. Favored by the failure of Arab nationalism and international isolation that Algeria has been during the bloody 90s has gradually detached from political blocs in which she was heavily involved (Arab, African ...). Advocate redefining "geopolitical areas that will need to dock" amounts in reality to theorize _post _a fait accompli, that of the growing rift between the country and its various strategic depths. "
[google translation]




*General Hocine Benhadid, commander of the 8th BB faced Ariel Sharon Brigade*


----------



## ultron

Aren't Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan allies of Israel? The only ones who fought Israel were Egypt and Syria.


----------



## Ceylal

Amun said:


> That pathetic child...claiming things that never happened.....and always tell lies....and we tired of telling him the truth...so he has no dignity or honor.
> That's it.


Recollections of your dad, a policeman are not truth, it is hear say. I showed you a video of your own people, commented by your own people...
You know, you reinforce one trait common in all arabs... You live a life of tales where there is no truth...and even after 50 years, you are still lying to yourselves about historical facts written in blood tears and metal, in your land!
That the arabs for you...wait until the next sandstorm to look for protective eyeglasses... hope that the next time Israel has boner for Egypt, we will be spectators and witness the Egyptian comedy unravel..
Don't worry about my honor, it is still intact..But I am worry about the Egyptian one, you have none, correction you never had one..



ultron said:


> Aren't Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan allies of Israel? The only ones who fought Israel were Egypt and Syria.


Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Lybia , Algeria, and Pakistanis flew aircrafts for Syria. All of these states participated under the umbrella of Egypt or Syria.



SouI said:


> Nothing can happen without the desire and permission of Allah, right? That is what islam says. So, Allah must have wanted Israel to beat arabs in those wars. There is no other way around it, isn't there?



You maybe right, Allah has abandoned the arabs when they volunteered to do their battles...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> Really ? have been in the army?
> 
> 
> 
> they had objectives assigned to them...In fact from some observers, it was the only force who managed to bomb targets in Israel proper and shot a US C5 that was resupplying the IDF, and maintained Cairo sky unmolested by IAF afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you will come back at me with that , Algeria contributed as a branch of the Egyptian army and wether is a political choice to show arab unity by the Algerian side, by not acting a separate and distinct force, or for some other reasons. You can search for tom cooper blog, a contributor to airforce montly or for the books that was written by Algerian ex minister of defence.
> "
> Literature / Algeria / "On the Egyptian front" of General Khaled Nezzar
> "On the Egyptian front" of General Khaled Nezzar
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Khaled Nezzar
> An Algerian testimony on the war of attrition *
> Nearly ten years after the publication of his "fighting Stories" (2002, Shihab Editions, Algiers) which deals with participation in the War of Independence, General Khaled Nezzar published Algiers recently new military memoir "on the Egyptian Front: the 2nd Brigade Algerian reach, 1968-1969" (1). The book recounts his memories of commander of that unit incorporated in the Egyptian army during the "war of attrition" which, after the Arab defeat of June 1967, pitted Egypt to Israeli forces occupying the Sinai and has ended in August 1970. the author is an Algerian military leaders who, in the late 80s, played a political role of the first order.
> *The heavy shadow Algerian-Egyptian crisis *"on the Egyptian front" is divided into two parts. The first is devoted to the two years during which General Nezzar led the 2nd Brigade scope, integrated Arab forces on the eastern shores of the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. The second part is a brief evocation of "successive wars in the Middle East" (1948, 1967, 1973, etc.). The book includes several annexes, military maps and charts listing the material and human resources mobilized by the Algerian units deployed in Egypt between 1967 and 1975. The first part alternates anecdotes and quick tactical observations, which makes it look like so little of real "war of memories". Its many imperfections could be explained by the eagerness of the publisher to publish the work, almost without revision, to take advantage of the interest of the audience for everything related to the Algerian-Egyptian relations after the incidents that . marked football matches between teams from Egypt and Algeria (November 2009) edition of the deficiencies are observed in the non-classification of certain content (eg the publication of an annex on "losses Arabic aviation June 5, 1967 "at the end of a chapter on the war of October 1973, page 110). They are also visible in the non-dating of certain events as their dating was possible by the use of other sources - two of which are, moreover, mentioned: a written Egyptian General Saad El Dine Chazli (3) "Victims, history revisited the Arab-Zionist conflict," Israeli historian Benny Morris (4). A more serious editorial work would have avoided the author, on the same page 28, do not start the war of attrition on two dates: March 11 and mid-July 1969 (5). It would, above all, relieved the sentences of narrative are all racist abuse, like that of describing "the true nature of the Egyptians, full of resentment and betrayal" (sic, page 49).
> *Important Algerian military aid Egypt between 1967 and 1973.*While we can not say, after Khellas Djilali (the daily "El Watan", April 7, 2010), it is a "historical investigation" and an "impartial account of all Algerians sent to the Middle East for an 'other war'", the Egyptian Khaled Nezzar memories are not deprived of documentary interest. They provide detailed information, drawn from the archives of the Ministry of Defence on the Algerian aid to Egypt between 1967 and 1975. They give a vivid picture of the state of collapse of the Egyptian army after the defeat June 1967 and the difficult conditions in which she overcame her demoralization prepare for the war of 1973. the author emphasizes the benefits of the war of attrition for the Arab armies that participated. She transformed the Suez Canal, he writes, in a real field maneuvers and thus contributed to the success of the October 1973 offensive, reaching two goals, crossing and the destruction of the Bar-Lev line, "has undermined the legend of invincible Israeli army" (page 29). the general Nezzar review some "legends" on the Algerian participation in the Arab-Israeli wars (eg combat aircraft shot down over Tel Aviv, in June 1967, was painted in the colors but his Algerian driver was an officer in the Egyptian Air Force, page 37). He paid tribute to fellow Egyptian weapons, the chief of Staff Abdel Monêem Riad, which he testifies, spared no effort to fulfill its mission (page 63) or the "great gunner" Colonel Abu Ghazala (page 49). Other officers, he speaks with contempt barely contained: Galal the lieutenant colonel who worked to marginalize Algerian brigade (pages 52 and 53) or the other commander, "as the comfort that its troops were abandoned "(page 54).
> *Algerian-Egyptian tensions on the frontline *contrary agreed stories," on the Egyptian front "reveals that Algerian officials did not hesitate to disobey when Egyptian officials doubted the well- validity of their orders and they complained that the Egyptian policy towards the "disrespectful" which was made for the repatriation of bodies of soldiers from their brigade combat deaths (page 58). Many Egyptian officers, reads, looked with astonishment and suspicion these "defenders of the Arab land" who were taking notes in French, that Khaled Nezzar comment, saying during a staff meeting: "We have not had the honor to learn Arabic, but we managed to drive the French out of our country" (page 52) the author describes with great severity the operational capabilities of the Egyptian army ( none, according to him, those of the unit he commanded) and the indifference of its executives deprivation of the troops and the enormous losses it suffered (page 56). He criticized the tendency of some of its leaders to hide from their superiors poor performance of their soldiers. In May 1967 he wrote, in a maneuver tanks in the presence of the high command, all targets have been met, letting out thick columns of smoke, which raised the enthusiasm of those present; Later we discover that they had put behind each target a barrel of oil and that all the shots were adjusted in advance (page 32). Despite the general tone of the book, this story does not seem to be an Egyptian anti-settlement account; it is immediately followed by another, describing a layout similar scene during a maneuver of the Algerian army. *A chauvinist upmanship *If the documentary interest of the first part of "On the Egyptian front" is not doubt the usefulness of its second part is questionable; it does not give to "the successive wars in the Middle East" of information that one can find in a serious historical encyclopedia. However, the annexes are of great benefit to the reader. They detail the Algerian aid to Egypt between 1967 and 1975: $ 300 million, a check to fund the purchase of weapons and Russian equipment, 20,000 soldiers, hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles of all- ground and artillery pieces, dozens of combat aircraft ... a considerable part of this arsenal, says General Nezzar, was sold to the Egyptian army. During the release of his book, the author tried to register in the context of diplomatic tension between Algeria and Egypt. In the name of defense of the symbols of the revolution "attacked by the Egyptians" (the daily "Liberté", 25 January 2010), it comes to a real chauvinist upmanship. He spoke about Egypt "a country in decline," where "there is a minority that takes advantage of wealth and a majority that has nothing" (the weekly "Debates, January 27, 2010) as if the fair distribution of national wealth could distinguish the Algeria of the world. He revealed a surprising ignorance of history teaching us that "the Egyptians have never fought a war" (sic) and that "even against England, they showed no resistance" (re-sic, "Freedom", 25 January 2010). *Algerian-Arab Relations in question *a postscript Bashir Medjahed attempts to give an intellectual depth to this attempt to write "on the Egyptian front" in the current context, marked by the deterioration of relations Egyptian-Algerian diplomatic. The researcher compares "Algeria's engagement with Egypt" to "unfortunate Egyptian scenario" to cause the rupture of relations between the two countries (the unfortunate anti-Algerian campaign of many Egyptian media, end of last year). He concludes: "The publication of this book is beneficial for the redefinition of ties between Arab countries and eventually to open a debate on the choice between geopolitical areas that will need to dock." the proposal to open such a debate expresses the viewpoint of a real power within the regime and its elites advocating voluntary loosening of ties between Algeria and the Arab world and its integration in other areas ( Euro-Mediterranean, for example). This view seems based on a fantasized reality completely. Favored by the failure of Arab nationalism and international isolation that Algeria has been during the bloody 90s has gradually detached from political blocs in which she was heavily involved (Arab, African ...). Advocate redefining "geopolitical areas that will need to dock" amounts in reality to theorize _post _a fait accompli, that of the growing rift between the country and its various strategic depths. "
> [google translation]
> View attachment 318074
> 
> *General Hocine Benhadid, commander of the 8th BB faced Ariel Sharon Brigade*



If I was in the army? yes, until I ended my service just this year.

"they had objectives assigned to them...In fact from some observers, it was the only force who managed to bomb targets in Israel proper and shot a US C5 that was resupplying the IDF, and maintained Cairo sky unmolested by IAF afterwards."
You weren't the only one bombing Israel. I doubt any C5 was resupplying Israel, and I am pretty sure that would be an act of war against the Americans.
the Israelis didn't target Cairo, it targeted troops, and the only thing that really had effectiveness if at all against the Israeli jets were the SAMs that were quickly destroyed.



ultron said:


> Aren't Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan allies of Israel? The only ones who fought Israel were Egypt and Syria.


Clearly not allies.
But not the worst enemies, although both of those first countries have connection to funding Hamas


----------



## Amun

Sinnerman108 said:


> Only kids play with kids;
> adults watch them and enjoy their circus.


You are right....my mistake.....I will not go over with him again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Amun said:


> You are right....my mistake.....I will not go over with him again.


I am a kid here... winning on all of you, call me kid it will just hurt you worse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Performed better doesn't change the fact they lost.
> 
> 
> I don't know you, by you saying one word such as a "Noob" in a military thread, I know that you're a kid, but I don't know your exact age, so I said you're probably 12
> 
> Also, this is a thread, smartass, made by a certain guy, stop giving me forums!


Never seen anyone so provoked from the word noob xD also you're the one asking for non Pakistani source. Now you get it. So shut your mouth


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Never seen anyone so provoked from the word noob xD also you're the one asking for non Pakistani source. Now you get it. So shut your mouth


Alright kid
You didn't give me a SOURCE, you are giving me forums!
MADE BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU!


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> Tank BRIGADE, you think a brigade is large?
> Brigade is the smallest form of "army".


Brigade, depending of armies can have 120+ tanks plus support vehicles and troop protection. That the number of tanks Ariel sharon Brigade has and so was the Algerian 8th BB.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Alright kid
> You didn't give me a SOURCE, you are giving me forums!
> MADE BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU!


That is not a forum. And okay if you're so convinced its a forum made by people like me. Why don't you go to American sources. CIA websites offer great details on any person. Don't play your games with me. Play with the Palestinians. Not me. And kid? You hardly know how to debate. Criticising me for calling it a uni and upon realising his mistake. Academy and uni doesn't matter. Shame on you. Learn how to reason fairly first and definitely attend your history class before arguing with me.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> Brigade, depending of armies can have 120+ tanks plus support vehicles and troop protection. That the number of tanks Ariel sharon Brigade has and so was the Algerian 8th BB.


120 tanks out of the 3600 Arab tanks.
Stop thinking you actually did anything in this was, and lets not forget that the Arabs LOST.



Mohammed Khaled said:


> That is not a forum. And okay if you're so convinced its a forum made by people like me. Why don't you go to American sources. CIA websites offer great details on any person. Don't play your games with me. Play with the Palestinians. Not me. And kid? You hardly know how to debate. Criticising me for calling it a uni and upon realising his mistake. Academy and uni doesn't matter. Shame on you. Learn how to reason fairly first and definitely attend your history class before arguing with me.


Sorry? not a forum? A site that I can register in and post a thread and receive comments is a FORUM, unless you don't know this. There are no American sources, this is only a Pakistnai claim!
the CIA never had any source about it.
I didn't criticize you for saying if it was a universe smartass!
I already explained you twice that I used 2 words with the same meaning, which are called
"
Synonyms"
I laughed about you claiming he was in top gun university, when its a training place for STARTER PILOTS, which he was not when you claimed he was in it, he wasn't even in service at that time!
Calling me a "Noob" in a military site and then saying "Don't play your games with me"?
Kid do you realize how STUPID you sound?
And I don't know how to debate? you are the one that is claiming that you are winning and then sourcing out some Pakistani made BS claiming to shoot down a few Israeli jets, You go into a history class if you even learn something kid


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> 120 tanks out of the 3600 Arab tanks.
> Stop thinking you actually did anything in this was, and lets not forget that the Arabs LOST.
> 
> 
> Sorry? not a forum? A site that I can register in and post a thread and receive comments is a FORUM, unless you don't know this. There are no American sources, this is only a Pakistnai claim!
> the CIA never had any source about it.
> I didn't criticize you for saying if it was a universe smartass!
> I already explained you twice that I used 2 words with the same meaning, which are called
> "
> Synonyms"
> I laughed about you claiming he was in top gun university, when its a training place for STARTER PILOTS, which he was not when you claimed he was in it, he wasn't even in service at that time!
> Calling me a "Noob" in a military site and then saying "Don't play your games with me"?
> Kid do you realize how STUPID you sound?
> And I don't know how to debate? you are the one that is claiming that you are winning and then sourcing out some Pakistani made BS claiming to shoot down a few Israeli jets, You go into a history class if you even learn something kid


Saying Americans have no source is pretty stupid don't you think? Talking about synonyms... You were mocking me for calling it a university when clearly you were the only calling it that and I claimed it was an academy. Its not a basic flying training place mind you. Its for advanced combat studies. He was already in a squadron before he went for topgun. You say things so stupid that admittedly makes you sound like a " Noob" calling someone kid without even knowing him makes you look like the monkey in the middle. Pakistani made bullshit? Go to sources linked in wikipedia then. History class for moi? I finished them long time ago mate. I choose to major in medicine. So its not me who needs to attend more classes. Its you.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Saying Americans have no source is pretty stupid don't you think? Talking about synonyms... You were mocking me for calling it a university when clearly you were the only calling it that and I claimed it was an academy. Its not a basic flying training place mind you. Its for advanced combat studies. He was already in a squadron before he went for topgun. You say things so stupid that admittedly makes you sound like a " Noob" calling someone kid without even knowing him makes you look like the monkey in the middle. Pakistani made bullshit? Go to sources linked in wikipedia then. History class for moi? I finished them long time ago mate. I choose to major in medicine. So its not me who needs to attend more classes. Its you.


Oh my god...
No, its not stupid, its only a PAKISTANI/ARAB CLAIM! Why wont you give me the source then if there are a bunch of them like you say.
And now YOU are the one to choose what I said? I said that he WASN'T in the Top Gun university mainly because the FIRST PAKISTANI PILOT entered this academy in 1996, more than 20 years after he ENDED SERVICE
Top gun teaches fighter and strike tactics and techniques to selected Naval Aviators and Naval flight officers
HE WASN'T IN ANY SQUADRON! DON'T REWRITE HISTORY! HE ENDED HIS SERVICE IN ALL OF THE FIELD OF FLIGHT IN 1979!
Saying "Noob" in the middle of a MILITARY CONVERSATION is like saying "Cookie" in a fight, 

THIS IS WHERE I WENT! THE SOURCE LINKED IN THE WIKIPEDIA IS THIS: http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
Don't call me mate and I don't believe to any word coming from you, 12 year old.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Oh my god...
> No, its not stupid, its only a PAKISTANI/ARAB CLAIM! Why wont you give me the source then if there are a bunch of them like you say.
> And now YOU are the one to choose what I said? I said that he WASN'T in the Top Gun university mainly because the FIRST PAKISTANI PILOT entered this academy in 1996, more than 20 years after he ENDED SERVICE
> Top gun teaches fighter and strike tactics and techniques to selected Naval Aviators and Naval flight officers
> HE WASN'T IN ANY SQUADRON! DON'T REWRITE HISTORY! HE ENDED HIS SERVICE IN ALL OF THE FIELD OF FLIGHT IN 1979!
> Saying "Noob" in the middle of a MILITARY CONVERSATION is like saying "Cookie" in a fight,
> 
> THIS IS WHERE I WENT! THE SOURCE LINKED IN THE WIKIPEDIA IS THIS: http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html
> Don't call me mate and I don't believe to any word coming from you, 12 year old.


Get your facts right. I don't want to argue with an uneducated fool. I am sure you'll also deny the asswiping by Egyptian tank forces and sinking of eliyat destroyers too. Those are Arab recorded fact too. But why do I bother saying you this. You'll still claim the opposite.

Alright I won't call you mate. I realise you Jews have problems with Muslims. So yeah whatever

PS. India also denies asswiping of their airforce and tank forces. Just for you to know. (Indians no offence just trying to price my point. I am talking about 65 )


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Get your facts right. I don't want to argue with an uneducated fool. I am sure you'll also deny the asswiping by Egyptian tank forces and sinking of eliyat destroyers too. Those are Arab recorded fact too. But why do I bother saying you this. You'll still claim the opposite.
> 
> Alright I won't call you mate. I realise you Jews have problems with Muslims. So yeah whatever
> 
> PS. India also denies asswiping of their airforce and tank forces. Just for you to know. (Indians no offence just trying to price my point. I am talking about 65 )


Get my facts right? you are not there to prove me wrong!
You just link me some forums that everyone can write!
DESTROYER* not destroyers.
I never denied the "asswiping" when a ship from 1942 was hit by SOVIET made anti ship missiles.
I bet you would deny the 19 Egyptian and Syrian ships and none Israeli ships made by the Israelis in 1973? Or the fact that we destroyed 514~ aircraft while only 104 Israelis were destroyed? Or the fact that we killed 20,000~ while 2500 Israelis were killed?
Or 2300 Arab tanks while only 1063 Israelis were destroyed?
There are no "Arab" facts, you always lied, just as in 1967 the Egyptians lied that they were winning, leading to Jordan's defeat, or "Saiful" what ever shooting down any of our jets.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Get my facts right? you are not there to prove me wrong!
> You just link me some forums that everyone can write!
> DESTROYER* not destroyers.
> I never denied the "asswiping" when a ship from 1942 was hit by SOVIET made anti ship missiles.
> I bet you would deny the 19 Egyptian and Syrian ships and none Israeli ships made by the Israelis in 1973? Or the fact that we destroyed 514~ aircraft while only 104 Israelis were destroyed? Or the fact that we killed 20,000~ while 2500 Israelis were killed?
> Or 2300 Arab tanks while only 1063 Israelis were destroyed?
> There are no "Arab" facts, you always lied, just as in 1967 the Egyptians lied that they were winning, leading to Jordan's defeat, or "Saiful" what ever shooting down any of our jets.


You're not proving the facts wrong either
Alright spelling/grammar Nazi. My bad
I don't deny any of those facts. 
In fact if the Arabs won Israel wouldn't exist would it?
But Egyptians killed your *** in tank warfare. Whereas israels kicked their *** in aerial warfare. No definite one side clear winner.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> You're not proving the facts wrong either
> Alright spelling/grammar Nazi. My bad
> I don't deny any of those facts.
> In fact if the Arabs won Israel wouldn't exist would it?
> But Egyptians killed your *** in tank warfare. Whereas israels kicked their *** in aerial warfare. No definite one side clear winner.


Kid, OF COURSE I AM!
There are no sources like "Pakistan didn't destroy any Israeli jets" the end in the internet and called sources!
You give me forums thinking they are sources! Or Pakistani bullshit!
the Arabs lost 2300 tanks! While Israel lost 1063! And they had superior technology! 
Israel beat the **** out of the Arabs in all fields, ground naval and air.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Kid, OF COURSE I AM!
> There are no sources like "Pakistan didn't destroy any Israeli jets" the end in the internet and called sources!
> You give me forums thinking they are sources! Or Pakistani bullshit!
> the Arabs lost 2300 tanks! While Israel lost 1063! And they had superior technology!
> Israel beat the **** out of the Arabs in all fields, ground naval and air.


Lmao. I get now what you're trying to say. Israel is some aryan superior race that kicked Arab asses without getting a kick in return. Total fucking noob.
If you talk about combined losses it looks huge. Losses against a particular nation... ahem Egypt destroyed y'all.
Not saying their pilots didn't get their *** kicked by Israelis either.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Lmao. I get now what you're trying to say. Israel is some aryan superior race that kicked Arab asses without getting a kick in return. Total fucking noob.
> If you talk about combined losses it looks huge. Losses against a particular nation... ahem Egypt destroyed y'all.
> Not saying their pilots didn't get their *** kicked by Israelis either.


Tell me kid, is Israel a race? Do you see just one race in Israel? If no, then I already proved you wrong
"Noob" kid, you are totally r*tarded
Particular nations? 15,000 Egyptians, 1200 Israelis in Egyptian Israeli front.
You got defeated, as always.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Tell me kid, is Israel a race? Do you see just one race in Israel? If no, then I already proved you wrong
> "Noob" kid, you are totally r*tarded
> Particular nations? 15,000 Egyptians, 1200 Israelis in Egyptian Israeli front.
> You got defeated, as always.


Israel at least portrays itself to be a country of Jews alone. And we have seen all the drama post holocaust. Tell me how come you guys stopped taking revenge on Germans like y'all did till around 70s?
"Kid"? I am not your son or something that you're calling me a kid. 
I never said again that Egypt won. But the fact that they decimated your tank forces is the fact I bring up. And that's according to western military researchers. On tank warfare...
I am not in a war to be defeated boi!


----------



## Ceylal

@Beny Karachun



> 120 tanks out of the 3600 Arab tanks.



That is Sharon's brigade tank size save auxiliary vehicles and support troops and Arab armies didn't engaged that many tanks in both fronts, although the Syrian front used the most with Iraq's involvement. 





> Stop thinking you actually did anything in this was, and lets not forget that the Arabs LOST.



What Algerian troops did is a historical facts that even the Israeli military brass don't deny it, neither the Egyptians!
for the last part of your sentence, it semi true...The arab armies lost battles like Israel did, but they were made to loose war by Sadat and Sadat alone.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Israel at least portrays itself to be a country of Jews alone. And we have seen all the drama post holocaust. Tell me how come you guys stopped taking revenge on Germans like y'all did till around 70s?
> "Kid"? I am not your son or something that you're calling me a kid.
> I never said again that Egypt won. But the fact that they decimated your tank forces is the fact I bring up. And that's according to western military researchers. On tank warfare...
> I am not in a war to be defeated boi!


I ask you, Israelis are a race? yes or not.
Don't talk in the name of Israel. Israel says that this will be the Jewish capital, not that it would be made only of Jews.
Fact- 25% of Israel is not Jewish
Oh hell no I would kill myself if you were my child, I say kid because you bring the word "Noob" to a MILITARY FORUM, GO FIND SOME FRIENDS!
They DIDN'T decimate our tank forces, Israel destroyed 2300 tanks while 1063 Israelis were destroyed!



Ceylal said:


> @Beny Karachun
> 
> 
> 
> That is Sharon's brigade tank size save auxiliary vehicles and support troops and Arab armies didn't engaged that many tanks in both fronts, although the Syrian front used the most with Iraq's involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Algerian troops did is a historical facts that even the Israeli military brass don't deny it, neither the Egyptians!
> for the last part of your sentence, it semi true...The arab armies lost battles like Israel did, but they were made to loose war by Sadat and Sadat alone.





Ceylal said:


> @Beny Karachun
> 
> "Didn't engage that many tanks in both fronts"
> Valley of tears, 500 Syrian tanks and more armored vehicles against 100 Israeli tanks- 60-80 Israeli tanks destroyed, 500 Syrian vehicles (300 tanks and rest are armored vehicles) destroyed
> And also in Egypt.
> 
> the Algerian troops barley did anything!
> Why do you blame Sadat for their defeat?


----------



## Ceylal

@t Beny Karachun,


> he Algerian troops barley did anything!



I agree, somewhat with you, they got to the front late...But her aviation was very busy on the front , with a lot of success..Artillery duels, because of the longue range of the artillery pieces , played a big role against Israeli forces as well as their anti aircraft batteries...They defended also Ismailiya were Israeli losses were high, we suffered losses too, but in the magnitude of Israeli troops..ratio was 2 to one.
They had also a role to defend Cairo and the industrial zone as well as Helouan..later the the defence of Aswan dam were given to them...

The Algerian forces stayed in Egypt until 1975...



> Why do you blame Sadat for their defeat?


He stopped the war after his brother was shot down and change the course of history. Not only he betrayed his army and the Egyptian people, but he betrayed every country that helped him for his own ego...


----------



## Ceylal

[video]


----------



## Ceylal

[video]




[video]



[video]


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> I ask you, Israelis are a race? yes or not.
> Don't talk in the name of Israel. Israel says that this will be the Jewish capital, not that it would be made only of Jews.
> Fact- 25% of Israel is not Jewish
> Oh hell no I would kill myself if you were my child, I say kid because you bring the word "Noob" to a MILITARY FORUM, GO FIND SOME FRIENDS!
> They DIDN'T decimate our tank forces, Israel destroyed 2300 tanks while 1063 Israelis were destroyed!


I will talk about whatever I wish to. I have the right. Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state and Jewish alone. Calm your tits you don't have to kill yourself. You call me a kid because I use the word noob...? Lmao haven't you ever heard military commanders use the word noob? Oh well you're a fucking civilian do I don't expect much. I am not the one saying they decimated your tank forces. US military historians are.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> I will talk about whatever I wish to. I have the right. Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state and Jewish alone. Calm your tits you don't have to kill yourself. You call me a kid because I use the word noob...? Lmao haven't you ever heard military commanders use the word noob? Oh well you're a fucking civilian do I don't expect much. I am not the one saying they decimated your tank forces. US military historians are.


Keep talking some more bullshit.
Yes Israel is a Jewish state, its another way to say that Its the Jew's capital.
No I didn't hear about any military commander using this word.
I am a civilian? Retard I WAS IN THE ARMY, I knew commanders, not from video games like you!
US Historians DON'T SAY THAT, only YOU say it, and then say it was the US Historians and not proving anything!
2300 Arab tanks were destroyed 1063 Israeli were destroyed, GOT IT?


----------



## Sinnerman108

Beny Karachun said:


> Keep talking some more bullshit.
> Yes Israel is a Jewish state, its another way to say that Its the Jew's capital.
> No I didn't hear about any military commander using this word.
> I am a civilian? Retard I WAS IN THE ARMY, I knew commanders, not from video games like you!
> US Historians DON'T SAY THAT, only YOU say it, and then say it was the US Historians and not proving anything!
> 2300 Arab tanks were destroyed 1063 Israeli were destroyed, GOT IT?



What are you talking about ?

Open a thread about Bar Rafeli and the likes 

Lets contribute immensely in that way, spread some love. 

The instruments of love are already with us ... lets use them.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Keep talking some more bullshit.
> Yes Israel is a Jewish state, its another way to say that Its the Jew's capital.
> No I didn't hear about any military commander using this word.
> I am a civilian? Retard I WAS IN THE ARMY, I knew commanders, not from video games like you!
> US Historians DON'T SAY THAT, only YOU say it, and then say it was the US Historians and not proving anything!
> 2300 Arab tanks were destroyed 1063 Israeli were destroyed, GOT IT?


Bullshit? That's like your surname. 
And now you agree Israel is a Jewish state
Well I don't expect you to
Serving conscription doesn't mean you're not a civilian after your term is over
Commanders in Tue video games? Wtf are you even talking about?
Tanks destroyed no. Only you say it
Also about the pilots. Do you expect american airforce praising pilots of some other country? Off course Pakistan praises them because of their distinction. Whom else do you expect to. So you see German fighter aces like Marseille praised by the French or something? Stop with your non sensical comments.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Bullshit? That's like your surname.
> And now you agree Israel is a Jewish state
> Well I don't expect you to
> Serving conscription doesn't mean you're not a civilian after your term is over
> Commanders in Tue video games? Wtf are you even talking about?
> Tanks destroyed no. Only you say it
> Also about the pilots. Do you expect american airforce praising pilots of some other country? Off course Pakistan praises them because of their distinction. Whom else do you expect to. So you see German fighter aces like Marseille praised by the French or something? Stop with your non sensical comments.


You are 100% retard!
Being a Jewish state doesn't mean its only Jewish!
Germany is a Christian state, does it mean all of it is Christian? I cant even understand what is your argument!
You now say that you are not a civilian?, kid you are 9 year old, don't play games!
Sorry, but not only I am saying this. EVERYONE says this, All trusted sources that are talking about many wars outside the Israeli Arab conflict, for example, Garwych.

No I don't expect it! This is why I say that all you said about "Top gun university" and that the Americans say that he did that and such being BULLSHIT. 
Sorry kid, you've lost, go back to mommy.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> You are 100% retard!
> Being a Jewish state doesn't mean its only Jewish!
> Germany is a Christian state, does it mean all of it is Christian? I cant even understand what is your argument!
> You now say that you are not a civilian?, kid you are 9 year old, don't play games!
> Sorry, but not only I am saying this. EVERYONE says this, All trusted sources that are talking about many wars outside the Israeli Arab conflict, for example, Garwych.
> 
> No I don't expect it! This is why I say that all you said about "Top gun university" and that the Americans say that he did that and such being BULLSHIT.
> Sorry kid, you've lost, go back to mommy.


You're 100% stupid. Israel says its land belongs to Jews alone and that's where I disagree. Now one more fuckups by you, I see is that you believe I told you that I am not a civilian. Child grow up. I called you a civilian for reasons mentioned above. Not a word mentioned about me serving in military. Not a word denying it either. According to you all sources that is positive about Israel is correct and negative is wrong. Your logic is bullshit. "Top gun university" and all the horse crap you said was pulled by you. Not me. Flick your beans somewhere else.

"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win one with a stupid person"- Bill Murray. Like yourself. So you win.


----------



## cnleio

nang2 said:


> Because those wars were not a matter of Arab's own life or death. But they were certainly a matter of Israeli's life or death.


Said very well, and they need a great leader like Saladin who can unite all Arab nations and ppl, if there's only one Arab country in Middle-East no doubt it can win Israel.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> You're 100% stupid. Israel says its land belongs to Jews alone and that's where I disagree. Now one more fuckups by you, I see is that you believe I told you that I am not a civilian. Child grow up. I called you a civilian for reasons mentioned above. Not a word mentioned about me serving in military. Not a word denying it either. According to you all sources that is positive about Israel is correct and negative is wrong. Your logic is bullshit. "Top gun university" and all the horse crap you said was pulled by you. Not me. Flick your beans somewhere else.
> 
> "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win one with a stupid person"- Bill Murray. Like yourself. So you win.



Israel NEVER said its only for Jews, YOU made this up, you are retarded for speaking in the name of Israel when you are living in Kuwait. 
You are child! You are calling me a "Noob" which is a gaming term that have NOTHING to do with this thread or site, *DEFENCE*.pk , then saying 


Mohammed Khaled said:


> Lmao haven't you ever heard military commanders use the word noob?



Sorry? did I ever deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down? I deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down by Saiful or any other Pakistani pilot, and all trusted sources are for Israel, I wouldn't trust Allahuackbar.com as a source against Israel.
Neither I would even call a FORUM, a source. 

And now about the Top Gun university/ academy, I was laughing that you said that Saiful went to the Top Gun university/academy, AND YOU GOT IT LIKE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO, And I debunked all the bullshit you said by saying that HE WASN'T EVEN IN SERVICE when you claimed he was in it, and that its only for Pakistani F16 pilots which he wasn't, and only for STARTER PILOTS, which according to you, he wasn't.

Its not near impossible or impossible to win against me, It is hard, you are the dumb one that will continue this fight by changing what ever I said or speaking for other entire NATIONS.
You are the dumb one, and yes, I agree, I won.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> Israel NEVER said its only for Jews, YOU made this up, you are retarded for speaking in the name of Israel when you are living in Kuwait.
> You are child! You are calling me a "Noob" which is a gaming term that have NOTHING to do with this thread or site, *DEFENCE*.pk , then saying
> 
> 
> Sorry? did I ever deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down? I deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down by Saiful or any other Pakistani pilot, and all trusted sources are for Israel, I wouldn't trust Allahuackbar.com as a source against Israel.
> Neither I would even call a FORUM, a source.
> 
> And now about the Top Gun university/ academy, I was laughing that you said that Saiful went to the Top Gun university/academy, AND YOU GOT IT LIKE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO, And I debunked all the bullshit you said by saying that HE WASN'T EVEN IN SERVICE when you claimed he was in it, and that its only for Pakistani F16 pilots which he wasn't, and only for STARTER PILOTS, which according to you, he wasn't.
> 
> Its not near impossible or impossible to win against me, It is hard, you are the dumb one that will continue this fight by changing what ever I said or speaking for other entire NATIONS.
> You are the dumb one, and yes, I agree, I won.[/QUOT





Beny Karachun said:


> Israel NEVER said its only for Jews, YOU made this up, you are retarded for speaking in the name of Israel when you are living in Kuwait.
> You are child! You are calling me a "Noob" which is a gaming term that have NOTHING to do with this thread or site, *DEFENCE*.pk , then saying
> 
> 
> Sorry? did I ever deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down? I deny that Israeli airplanes were shot down by Saiful or any other Pakistani pilot, and all trusted sources are for Israel, I wouldn't trust Allahuackbar.com as a source against Israel.
> Neither I would even call a FORUM, a source.
> 
> And now about the Top Gun university/ academy, I was laughing that you said that Saiful went to the Top Gun university/academy, AND YOU GOT IT LIKE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO, And I debunked all the bullshit you said by saying that HE WASN'T EVEN IN SERVICE when you claimed he was in it, and that its only for Pakistani F16 pilots which he wasn't, and only for STARTER PILOTS, which according to you, he wasn't.
> 
> Its not near impossible or impossible to win against me, It is hard, you are the dumb one that will continue this fight by changing what ever I said or speaking for other entire NATIONS.
> You are the dumb one, and yes, I agree, I won.


no point in arguing with you. Anyone can be called a noob specially when he doesn't know anything. Anyways back to my final point.

This is a reputable Arab news paper company supplying news for can so here is an old article.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/01/229723.html

Now pls shut your damn mouth. And I might tag you in another thread with his certificate from top gun if I can find it.

Now this is an old Pakistani news corporation but this too provided CNN and BBC with regional news and are well known. Specially if you read a lot of newspapers you'll have definitely heard about em atleast once in your lifetime.

http://www.dawn.com/news/488739/tribute-masters-of-the-sky

And don't tell me gathering of eagles foundation and international association of eagles based in Washington US is horseshit now.

http://goefoundation.org/eagles/eaglesbyyear/2000/271/Azam-Saiful

Hawker hunter was an extremely inferior aircraft compared to what Israel had at the time.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> no point in arguing with you. Anyone can be called a noob specially when he doesn't know anything. Anyways back to my final point.
> 
> This is a reputable Arab news paper company supplying news for can so here is an old article.
> 
> http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/01/229723.html
> 
> Now pls shut your damn mouth. And I might tag you in another thread with his certificate from top gun if I can find it.
> 
> Now this is an old Pakistani news corporation but this too provided CNN and BBC with regional news and are well known. Specially if you read a lot of newspapers you'll have definitely heard about em atleast once in your lifetime.
> 
> http://www.dawn.com/news/488739/tribute-masters-of-the-sky
> 
> And don't tell me gathering of eagles foundation and international association of eagles based in Washington US is horseshit now.
> 
> http://goefoundation.org/eagles/eaglesbyyear/2000/271/Azam-Saiful
> 
> Hawker hunter was an extremely inferior aircraft compared to what Israel had at the time.


I did some research and I saw this:
"a person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere or activity, especially computing or the use of the Internet."
DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MILITARY SITES?!

Yes what do you want to prove giving me that site?
It says "How Arabs lost Jerusalem" and doesn't prove any of your points



Mohammed Khaled said:


> And I might tag you in another thread with his certificate from top gun if I can find it.


AHAHHAHA You just admitted that you have no evidence and said it randomly about him being in the top gun university

No it wasn't "provided" in the CNN or BBC. you just lie again, all you can do.
If it was published in the CNN they must have a site on it, give it to me and not a Pakistani site.

Yes it is bullshit and its sources are from the Pakistanis, I am asking you for one thing, give me an American or Israeli or not biased source, NOT A FORUM.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> I did some research and I saw this:
> "a person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere or activity, especially computing or the use of the Internet."
> DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MILITARY SITES?!
> 
> Yes what do you want to prove giving me that site?
> It says "How Arabs lost Jerusalem" and doesn't prove any of your points
> 
> 
> AHAHHAHA You just admitted that you have no evidence and said it randomly about him being in the top gun university
> 
> No it wasn't "provided" in the CNN or BBC. you just lie again, all you can do.
> If it was published in the CNN they must have a site on it, give it to me and not a Pakistani site.
> 
> Yes it is bullshit and its sources are from the Pakistanis, I am asking you for one thing, give me an American or Israeli or not biased source, NOT A FORUM.


Fucking idiot read the last source which is an American one and not a forum.

And no I was searching for the thread from defense ok with his certificate pic attached.
A person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere of activity in this case military history. Certainly fits the bill for describing you. Fucked in the *** by yourself. Shouldn't have posted the meaning of noob to diss me.

Try to understand what I said. I didn't say CNN was mentioning the pilots I sourced some facts from places that are reputable and provides news to CNN etc.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Fucking idiot read the last source which is an American one and not a forum.
> 
> And no I was searching for the thread from defense ok with his certificate pic attached.
> A person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere of activity in this case military history. Certainly fits the bill for describing you. Fucked in the *** by yourself. Shouldn't have posted the meaning of noob to diss me.
> 
> Try to understand what I said. I didn't say CNN was mentioning the pilots I sourced some facts from places that are reputable and provides news to CNN etc.


WHERE DO YOU THINK DID THIS FROM?
THIS ISN'T A SOURCE, THIS IS YOUR EAGLE ASSOCIATION, Copy pasting from a Pakistani website!

SO YOU THINK THAT HE WAS IN THE TOP GUN UNIVERSITY BECAUSE YOU SAW THIS IN A THREAD? 

Military is a sphere of activity now? 
This word originates from gaming, If you would see a general saying the word "Noob" everyone would laugh at him

Then I wouldn't trust a word from CNN if they got it from this news paper


----------



## GuardianRED

Just my 2 Cents!

There is no such thing in the US as "TOP GUN University" Most Institutions that train officers and soldiers for duties and combat is mostly a school or Academy

The Institution that is POPULARLY called TOP GUN is Technically and officially called (earlier) NAVAL STRIKE FIGHTER TACTICAL INSTRUCTOR PROGRAM and of late is changed to NAVAL STRIKE and AIR WARFARE Center . They MOSTLY train US Naval and Marine Combat Pilots - There is no info that any foreign pilot was trained there , BUT THE Base where the center is located has conducted war games (Red Flag) though this is NOT related to the training of the center

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> WHERE DO YOU THINK DID THIS FROM?
> THIS ISN'T A SOURCE, THIS IS YOUR EAGLE ASSOCIATION, Copy pasting from a Pakistani website!
> 
> SO YOU THINK THAT HE WAS IN THE TOP GUN UNIVERSITY BECAUSE YOU SAW THIS IN A THREAD?
> 
> Military is a sphere of activity now?
> This word originates from gaming, If you would see a general saying the word "Noob" everyone would laugh at him
> 
> Then I wouldn't trust a word from CNN if they got it from this news paper


Drop down cunt. End of the page it's clearly written this is based in America. Washington and all graduated of air command who aced in aerial warfare are honored by USAF. I understand why you still reject it because so,e Israelis got their *** kicked by people from Asia. I understand. XD so your immature cunt can't stand this fact and hence the rejection when I explicitly bought a verified source from America. He enjoys the status of one of the twenty two living eagles. But your immature cunt is certainly ovulating at this point with burst of rage. His graduate certificate from Luke Air Force base mentions him as topgun. Military history debate is a sphere of activity cunt. And nobody would laugh at the person who is roasting someone calling him noob. XD moron.

Ps. There are Lots Israeli pilots honored in this association so certainly not one sided and certainly not fake.


----------



## GuardianRED

Sorry to bust your bubble pal ... Not sure why u rated my post as i just told you that there is no TOP GUN University and NOW no such thing as "Living Eagles!" related to Combat Flying!

If you say that a lot of pilots have been honoured best u provided that list , we can research from there!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Drop down cunt. End of the page it's clearly written this is based in America. Washington and all graduated of air command who aced in aerial warfare are honored by USAF. I understand why you still reject it because so,e Israelis got their *** kicked by people from Asia. I understand. XD so your immature cunt can't stand this fact and hence the rejection when I explicitly bought a verified source from America. He enjoys the status of one of the twenty two living eagles. But your immature cunt is certainly ovulating at this point with burst of rage. His graduate certificate from Luke Air Force base mentions him as topgun. Military history debate is a sphere of activity cunt. And nobody would laugh at the person who is roasting someone calling him noob. XD moron.
> 
> Ps. There are Lots Israeli pilots honored in this association so certainly not one sided and certainly not fake.


The quote you said, its near damn impossible to win against a retard?
It was totally right, you will just type it again and again.

SORRY, But eagle bullshit clearly has nothing to do with combat, 

So, lets see what we got trough already where I owned you

1. Top gun university, he was not in it.

2. Giving me sources from FORUMS

3. Saiful destroying Israeli jets? ONLY PAKISTANI/MUSLIM CLAIM

4. Arabs "decimated" our tanks? Nope- 2300 Arab tanks destroyed, 1063 of ours destroyed

5. Israel to be only Jewish? 25% of Israel is not Jewish, 20% of it is Muslim the rest are Christians and more

6. Speaking for other countries and lying, such as the Arabs decimating our countries

and some more

What is left for you to argue about?
What the word "Noob" means and that he is at topgun university WHILE HE ENDED HIS SERVICE
YOU LITERALLY ARGUE ON NOTHING BECAUSE I ALREADY OWNED YOU IN EVERYTHING

And also using the terms "Lmao" and "XD" shows your fucking age.
He wasn't graduated neither certified or anything else.
Now tell me, what does being an "eagle" means?


----------



## Michael Corleone

GuardianRED said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble pal ... Not sure why u rated my post as i just told you that there is no TOP GUN University and NOW no such thing as "Living Eagles!" related to Combat Flying!
> 
> If you say that a lot of pilots have been honoured best u provided that list , we can research from there!


I know it's not called top gun uni. Shit pulled by the other cunt. Living eagles yes there isn't a official title but what it meant to say is he is one of twenty two pilots honored with title of eagle. Yes you can check pilots honored by year, aircraft or name.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> I know it's not called top gun uni. Shit pulled by the other cunt. Living eagles yes there isn't a official title but what it meant to say is he is one of twenty two pilots honored with title of eagle. Yes you can check pilots honored by year, aircraft or name.


ARE YOU RETARDED? ACTUALLY WHY AM I FUCKING ASKING? I said THEY ARE SYNONYMS, he says that it has nothing to do with FOREIGN PILOTS, that this Academy/university is NOT for Pakistani pilots, so you can suck on it, so a "Living eagle" IS NOT an official title, SO YOU CAN SUCK ON IT, AGAIN.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> The quote you said, its near damn impossible to win against a retard?
> It was totally right, you will just type it again and again.
> 
> SORRY, But eagle bullshit clearly has nothing to do with combat,
> 
> So, lets see what we got trough already where I owned you
> 
> 1. Top gun university, he was not in it.
> 
> 2. Giving me sources from FORUMS
> 
> 3. Saiful destroying Israeli jets? ONLY PAKISTANI/MUSLIM CLAIM
> 
> 4. Arabs "decimated" our tanks? Nope- 2300 Arab tanks destroyed, 1063 of ours destroyed
> 
> 5. Israel to be only Jewish? 25% of Israel is not Jewish, 20% of it is Muslim the rest are Christians and more
> 
> 6. Speaking for other countries and lying, such as the Arabs decimating our countries
> 
> and some more
> 
> What is left for you to argue about?
> What the word "Noob" means and that he is at topgun university WHILE HE ENDED HIS SERVICE
> YOU LITERALLY ARGUE ON NOTHING BECAUSE I ALREADY OWNED YOU IN EVERYTHING
> 
> And also using the terms "Lmao" and "XD" shows your fucking age.
> He wasn't graduated neither certified or anything else.
> Now tell me, what does being an "eagle" means?


1. Air command and defense staff college was basically topgun... and it's located at Luke Air Force base where he trained from for advanced fighter tactics and training on f-86 sabres.
2. I provided you news and other source which is American
3. And only Pakistani/Arab claim have earned that dude honor from USAF in 2000s
4. I am talking about Egypt alone. Not the whole Arab group as whole. Plus Egypt had 1000 tanks only.
5. You need to watch Netanyahu's speech on Palestine-Israel unification for a United state.
6. Egypt fucked your tank forces. Not claiming about the whole Arab countries. Plus I also mentioned Israel fucking up Egyptian Air Force so I am on a neutral ground here.

Argue? Haha what a moron.
Lmao and XD shows my fucking age? Good atleast it shows I am not a typical grandpa living under the rock all his life.



Beny Karachun said:


> ARE YOU RETARDED? ACTUALLY WHY AM I FUCKING ASKING? I said THEY ARE SYNONYMS, he says that it has nothing to do with FOREIGN PILOTS, that this Academy/university is NOT for Pakistani pilots, so you can suck on it, so a "Living eagle" IS NOT an official title, SO YOU CAN SUCK ON IT, AGAIN.


Okay but before pulling the synonyms bullshit to defend yourself. You try to poke the fun on me for calling it a uni. Cunt. Cunt you don't have a valid point to argue with after I brought you American source


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> 1. Air command and defense staff college was basically topgun... and it's located at Luke Air Force base where he trained from for advanced fighter tactics and training on f-86 sabres.
> 2. I provided you news and other source which is American
> 3. And only Pakistani/Arab claim have earned that dude distinction from USAF in 2000s
> 4. I am talking about Egypt alone. Not the whole Arab group as whole. Plus Egypt had 1000 tanks only.
> 5. You need to watch Netanyahu's speech on Palestine-Israel unification for a United state.
> 6. Egypt fucked your tank forces. Not claiming about the whole Arab countries. Plus I also mentioned Israel fucking up Egyptian Air Force so I am on a neutral ground here.
> 
> Argue? Haha what a moron.
> Lmao and XD shows my fucking age? Good atleast it shows I am not a typical grandpa living under the rock all his life.
> 
> 
> Okay but before pulling the synonyms bullshit to defend yourself. You try to poke the fun on me for calling it a uni. Cunt. Cunt you don't have a valid point to argue with after I brought you American source


1. There is no report any foreign pilot was in the Top Gun university/academy
2. No, you gave me a Pakistani news site and a site called "Alarabiya"
3. FROM THE EAGLE ASSOCIATION, NOT THE USAF, WHY WOULD THE USAF AWARD HIM ANYTHING?
4. AHAHAHA Egypt had 1700 tanks. 
5. I don't care what Netanyahu said, and I also don't know what he said, it wouldn't prove a thing. Palestine will never be a nation.
6. Egypt didn't. Most of the tanks destroyed were Egyptians and not Syrians, Israel split up its forces and got casualties on both front lines. the Egyptians destroyed our tanks MAINLY with their Soviet made ATGMs which were advanced for the time, more superior technology for the Egyptians.

Oh, by the way, quick story-In one notable engagement during this period, a pair of Israeli F-4E Phantoms challenged 28 Egyptian MiGs over Sharm el-Sheikh and within half an hour, shot down seven or eight MiGs with no losses. One of the Egyptian pilots killed was Captain Atif Sadat, President Sadat's half-brother.

Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, want to say more?
He didn't laugh at you for saying its a university, he laughed at you and explained in the END of his text.



Mohammed Khaled said:


> 1. Air command and defense staff college was basically topgun... and it's located at Luke Air Force base where he trained from for advanced fighter tactics and training on f-86 sabres.
> 2. I provided you news and other source which is American
> 3. And only Pakistani/Arab claim have earned that dude honor from USAF in 2000s
> 4. I am talking about Egypt alone. Not the whole Arab group as whole. Plus Egypt had 1000 tanks only.
> 5. You need to watch Netanyahu's speech on Palestine-Israel unification for a United state.
> 6. Egypt fucked your tank forces. Not claiming about the whole Arab countries. Plus I also mentioned Israel fucking up Egyptian Air Force so I am on a neutral ground here.
> 
> Argue? Haha what a moron.
> Lmao and XD shows my fucking age? Good atleast it shows I am not a typical grandpa living under the rock all his life.
> 
> 
> Okay but before pulling the synonyms bullshit to defend yourself. You try to poke the fun on me for calling it a uni. Cunt. Cunt you don't have a valid point to argue with after I brought you American source


And no, You didn't give ANY American source, you just gave some Al Arabiya and Pakistani news site bullshit to me.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> 1. There is no report any foreign pilot was in the Top Gun university/academy
> 2. No, you gave me a Pakistani news site and a site called "Alarabiya"
> 3. FROM THE EAGLE ASSOCIATION, NOT THE USAF, WHY WOULD THE USAF AWARD HIM ANYTHING?
> 4. AHAHAHA Egypt had 1700 tanks.
> 5. I don't care what Netanyahu said, and I also don't know what he said, it wouldn't prove a thing. Palestine will never be a nation.
> 6. Egypt didn't. Most of the tanks destroyed were Egyptians and not Syrians, Israel split up its forces and got casualties on both front lines. the Egyptians destroyed our tanks MAINLY with their Soviet made ATGMs which were advanced for the time, more superior technology for the Egyptians.
> 
> Oh, by the way, quick story-In one notable engagement during this period, a pair of Israeli F-4E Phantoms challenged 28 Egyptian MiGs over Sharm el-Sheikh and within half an hour, shot down seven or eight MiGs with no losses. One of the Egyptian pilots killed was Captain Atif Sadat, President Sadat's half-brother.
> 
> Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, Cunt, want to say more?
> He didn't laugh at you for saying its a university, he laughed at you and explained in the END of his text.
> 
> 
> And no, You didn't give ANY American source, you just gave some Al Arabiya and Pakistani news site bullshit to me.


1. Then how did he train in Luke Air Force base ?
2. Why don't you mention the 3rd link. Why are you avoiding talking about that?
3. It's formed by air force for honoring all nations best pilots
4. Check in wiki... it states 1000. And the sources are reliable too
5. Palestine atleast was much before world war 2. When you guys flocked from Germany and Europe. Though there was small Jewish population too. 
6. Yeah with the HEAT charges. 

YES I READ ABOUT THAT ENGAGEMENT. I DONT KNOW BUT WAS EGYPTIANS POORLY TRAINED?

He proved your earlier statements wrong too. For which I gave him a thanks rating


----------



## GuardianRED

Mohammed Khaled said:


> I know it's not called top gun uni. Shit pulled by the other cunt. Living eagles yes there isn't a official title but what it meant to say is he is one of twenty two pilots honored with title of eagle. Yes you can check pilots honored by year, aircraft or name.



The site is of a NON profit organization that help that gives scholarship to airmen BUT is not associated with the UASF, even the site is not run by the AF Yes you pilot is mention and honoured for the year 2000 and a lithographs was made of him and his aircraft by the artish Jay ashurst, other than that is no mention of what is he awarded for .

The 22 eagles as mention in the site isn't exclusive, there is a pilot honoured for a number of years

also sorry but the *Air Command and Staff College is an *education and curriculum ,services and supportand distance learning (top gun is as i mentioned in the previous post) You can jusst google and see for your self abt the college

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Michael Corleone

GuardianRED said:


> The site is of a NON profit organization that help that gives scholarship to airmen BUT is not associated with the UASF, even the site is not run by the AF Yes you pilot is mention and honoured for the year 2000 and a lithographs was made of him and his aircraft by the artish Jay ashurst, other than that is no mention of what is he awarded for .
> 
> The 22 eagles as mention in the site isn't exclusive, there is a pilot honoured for a number of years
> 
> also sorry but the *Air Command and Staff College is an *education and curriculum ,services and supportand distance learning (top gun is as i mentioned in the previous post)


I read it's orginally opepend by USAF members? Is that verified? Yes it is not mentioned what he is awarded for but neither is any other pilots... it only speaks of their achievements so I guess based on that they are given the honor?

Air command and staff college curriculum is this topgun institutions you say? (I didn't get your last point)


----------



## GuardianRED

ALSO Guys honestly KNOCK it OFF! .... this argument is going on to like 10 pages on this thread!



Mohammed Khaled said:


> I read it's orginally opepend by USAF members? Is that verified? Yes it is not mentioned what he is awarded for but neither is any other pilots... it only speaks of their achievements so I guess based on that they are given the honor?
> 
> Air command and staff college curriculum is this topgun institutions you say? (I didn't get your last point)



Is is NOT Top Gun ! it is as it is - A College an educational institution ! Top Gun is what i said in my previous post abt it


----------



## Michael Corleone

GuardianRED said:


> ALSO Guys honestly KNOCK it OFF! .... this argument is going on to like 10 pages on this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> Is is NOT Top Gun ! it is as it is - A College an educational institution ! Top Gun is what i said in my previous post abt it


 Why then in his certificate?

Found it. http://urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/gallery/images/sua_05.jpg

Check the certificate pic please


----------



## GuardianRED

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Why then in his certificate?
> 
> Found it. http://urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/gallery/images/sua_05.jpg
> 
> Check the certificate pic please


Sorry but can't access the site, getting a virus warning every thing i do!. .. best u take a screen shot


----------



## Michael Corleone

GuardianRED said:


> Sorry but can't access the site, getting a virus warning every thing i do!. .. best u take a screen shot


----------



## GuardianRED

Mohammed Khaled said:


>


Alright here is a No. of Things u can research easily on your own!

First This is a training Certificate for Pilot for a particular SKILL , in this case Strafing (attack repeatedly with bombs or machine-gun fire from low-flying aircraft.) The Term TOP GUN is used here as First or ACE or Top in the class ! (*nothing* to do with Naval Strike and Air warfare Center popular know as Top Gun)

The Training (POSSIBLE) is to be QFI (qualified flight instructor) for the PAF Pilots on the F86 (see the insignia of the twelfth air force) by the USAF - terms of the contract for inducting the aircraft in the PAF! where in turn the Pilot can be qualified to train other pilots

Now Luke AFB at that time - Tactical Air Command with Command Crew Training Squadron which Captain Madison M. Thomas was an instructor!


----------



## Joe Shearer

AUz said:


> lol, I was gonna reply to you but then I read the last part and thought not to engage with a zealous fanboy.
> 
> Have you seen the size and strength of Turkish navy? Turks will be in Tel Aviv by the time you'd finalize your brilliant plan to reach Turkish border via Syria by spreading out your already small forces.
> 
> And since when your 120,000 proper land forces became 'superior' to Turkey's 400,000+ land forces armed and trained along NATO standards?
> 
> *Do you know--in 1948--we (our irregular tribals+ sprinkle of regular troops) conquered 4x the size of entire Israel in the Northern region (Now called Gilgit-Baltistan. Beautiful land!). We still hold it (while indians hold the rest of kashmir valley and Jamu).*
> 
> Point is, Jews barely got a state of their own..and that too a small, tiny land with not even 10 million citizens.
> 
> For you to think you can just "crush" historical superpowers and modern day regional powers like Turkey etc is only reflective of why Jews could never get their own state and were decimated by big boys in the town (Some big boys like the Turks saved Jews by sending their naval fleet to Spain. Read up). Don't act like the kid who got a lottery and now thinks he is the same league as self-made millionaires.
> 
> Show up humility and sense of reality.
> 
> Turkey is a far more balanced power--with land area, population, military, international ties, military experience, and historical knowledge of ruling/navigating the region you call Israel now.
> 
> You don't want to find out what happens in a Turkey vs Israel war. It's for your own sake.



@AUz 

That was an exaggeration of major proportions.

In 1948, the Gilgit Scouts, the State Forces of Chitral, and no tribals at all took over Gilgit-Baltistan from a couple of battalions of J&K State forces. Most of the casualties were caused by the massacre of a Sikh-Dogra column ambushed by the Gilgit Scouts under Alexander Brown at a time when they had no clue that there was an uprising (Brown got an MBE and the Hilal-e-Pakistan for his mutiny). Most of the resistance was due to a valiant Gurkha officer from the State forces who held out in Skardu until he and his garrison were starved out.

No Indian Army units were involved. 

The Indian Army forced open the Zoji La, and relieved Leh, in Ladakh, also besieged by the same columns that had attacked Skardu, and had gone on to capture Kargil. They then took back Kargil. It was at this point of time that the ceasefire was declared. 

I realise that you are making a point to a fanboy, who needs to be told the facts in clear and plain terms and bluntly. But this throw-away remark was a bit much.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> 1. Then how did he train in Luke Air Force base ?
> 2. Why don't you mention the 3rd link. Why are you avoiding talking about that?
> 3. It's formed by air force for honoring all nations best pilots
> 4. Check in wiki... it states 1000. And the sources are reliable too
> 5. Palestine atleast was much before world war 2. When you guys flocked from Germany and Europe. Though there was small Jewish population too.
> 6. Yeah with the HEAT charges.
> 
> YES I READ ABOUT THAT ENGAGEMENT. I DONT KNOW BUT WAS EGYPTIANS POORLY TRAINED?
> 
> He proved your earlier statements wrong too. For which I gave him a thanks rating


1. HE DIDN'T TRAIN IN THE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Maybe he was a part of Red Flag, which I am not so sure about
2. 3rd link was a part of that Eagle association WHICH IS NOT A SOURCE, its not official, neither a part of the USAF.
3. But this is NOT an official association, and you lied countless times by saying its a part of the USAF LYING AGAIN
4. I checked and its the truth! Egypt had 1700 tanks in the war!
5. No it wasn't! It was never a state! it was only name of land, named by the Romans and Greeks! Israel was much before the Romans even were an empire!
6. What's your point? I said that the Egyptians had advanced ATGMs

The Egyptians were trained by the Soviets, which were also beaten up by the Israelis in operation Rimon 20 in 1970

And no, he didn't prove wrong any of my statement, he said that that Top Gun bullshit is for training Americans and not others.


----------



## GuardianRED

Beny Karachun said:


> 1. HE DIDN'T TRAIN IN THE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Maybe he was a part of Red Flag, which I am not so sure about
> 2. 3rd link was a part of that Eagle association WHICH IS NOT A SOURCE, its not official, neither a part of the USAF.
> 3. But this is NOT an official association, and you lied countless times by saying its a part of the USAF LYING AGAIN
> 4. I checked and its the truth! Egypt had 1700 tanks in the war!
> 5. No it wasn't! It was never a state! it was only name of land, named by the Romans and Greeks! Israel was much before the Romans even were an empire!
> 6. What's your point? I said that the Egyptians had advanced ATGMs
> 
> The Egyptians were trained by the Soviets, which were also beaten up by the Israelis in operation Rimon 20 in 1970
> 
> And no, he didn't prove wrong any of my statement, he said that that Top Gun bullshit is for training Americans and not others.


Pal calm down ! can't say for the rest of the points but for Point 1)

Red flag started in the late 70s , if you see the certificate he has posted and my reply post #394


----------



## Michael Corleone

GuardianRED said:


> Alright here is a No. of Things u can research easily on your own!
> 
> First This is a training Certificate for Pilot for a particular SKILL , in this case Strafing (attack repeatedly with bombs or machine-gun fire from low-flying aircraft.) The Term TOP GUN is used here as First or ACE or Top in the class ! (*nothing* to do with Naval Strike and Air warfare Center popular know as Top Gun)
> 
> The Training (POSSIBLE) is to be QFI (qualified flight instructor) for the PAF Pilots on the F86 (see the insignia of the twelfth air force) by the USAF - terms of the contract for inducting the aircraft in the PAF! where in turn the Pilot can be qualified to train other pilots
> 
> Now Luke AFB at that time - Tactical Air Command with Command Crew Training Squadron which Captain Madison M. Thomas was an instructor!


Yeah. He trained in US for that specific jet. F-86 around the time Pakistan inducted those. After the training he became head of this own squadron. So I think he also served as instructor then.



Beny Karachun said:


> 1. HE DIDN'T TRAIN IN THE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Maybe he was a part of Red Flag, which I am not so sure about
> 2. 3rd link was a part of that Eagle association WHICH IS NOT A SOURCE, its not official, neither a part of the USAF.
> 3. But this is NOT an official association, and you lied countless times by saying its a part of the USAF LYING AGAIN
> 4. I checked and its the truth! Egypt had 1700 tanks in the war!
> 5. No it wasn't! It was never a state! it was only name of land, named by the Romans and Greeks! Israel was much before the Romans even were an empire!
> 6. What's your point? I said that the Egyptians had advanced ATGMs
> 
> The Egyptians were trained by the Soviets, which were also beaten up by the Israelis in operation Rimon 20 in 1970
> 
> And no, he didn't prove wrong any of my statement, he said that that Top Gun bullshit is for training Americans and not others.


1. Check the certificate.
2. Define official source
3. It's said to be founded by members of USAF. Former Graduates among them. Which I mentioned previously.
4. You saying this is the truth doesn't mean it's the truth. Check wiki again. And if you edit wiki for your agenda... it will be reverted back to so careful.
5.




Dates back to 1927. Check world map from that era... no country called Israel. It's only after the Arab defeat that Israel annexed Palestinian land. Since post ww2 and British proposal of land division and the wars. 1946 Israel was still non existent. Well I can only say that about Palestine now.
6. ATGMs were using HEAT round charged explosives basically dating back to end of world war 2 and advancing post war. For which chobham armor was developed by the brits. No points just facts to share.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Yeah. He trained in US for that specific jet. F-86 around the time Pakistan inducted those. After the training he became head of this own squadron. So I think he also served as instructor then.
> 
> 
> 1. Check the certificate.
> 2. Define official source
> 3. It's said to be founded by members of USAF. Former Graduates among them. Which I mentioned previously.
> 4. You saying this is the truth doesn't mean it's the truth. Check wiki again. And if you edit wiki for your agenda... it will be reverted back to so careful.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dates back to 1927. Check world map from that era... no country called Israel. It's only after the Arab defeat that Israel annexed Palestinian land. Since post ww2 and British proposal of land division and the wars. 1946 Israel was still non existent. Well I can only say that about Palestine now.
> 6. ATGMs were using HEAT round charged explosives basically dating back to end of world war 2 and advancing post war. For which chobham armor was developed by the brits. No points just facts to share.


1. I got many claims against this certificate- First of all, It began as the *United States Navy Fighter Weapons School*, established on March 3, 1969, and this certificate claims it to be from 1961. second It was WAY before the 1973 war.
2. Official source- Neutral, reliable, and made by interviews and facts.
3. SO ITS NOT A PART OF THE USAF AS YOU CLAIMED! 
4. This is the coin of BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE, Not Palestine.
If Palestine ever existed for hundreds of years like the Palestinians claim, why wont you give me their currency, passport and president between 1918 (Fall of the Ottoman Empire) to 1922 (Start of the British Mandate)?
5. YES, NO COUNTRY WAS CALLED ISRAEL AT THE TIME! But neither Palestine was, it was a name of an area, originally called "Syria Palestina" by the Romans, named after the PHILISTINES, not Palestinians.
6. Well yeah, but there is no point to share those facts since I already know that


----------



## Michael Corleone

Beny Karachun said:


> 1. I got many claims against this certificate- First of all, It began as the *United States Navy Fighter Weapons School*, established on March 3, 1969, and this certificate claims it to be from 1961. second It was WAY before the 1973 war.
> 2. Official source- Neutral, reliable, and made by interviews and facts.
> 3. SO ITS NOT A PART OF THE USAF AS YOU CLAIMED!
> 4. This is the coin of BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE, Not Palestine.
> If Palestine ever existed for hundreds of years like the Palestinians claim, why wont you give me their currency, passport and president between 1918 (Fall of the Ottoman Empire) to 1922 (Start of the British Mandate)?
> 5. YES, NO COUNTRY WAS CALLED ISRAEL AT THE TIME! But neither Palestine was, it was a name of an area, originally called "Syria Palestina" by the Romans, named after the PHILISTINES, not Palestinians.
> 6. Well yeah, but there is no point to share those facts since I already know that


1. Perhaps you might want to read @GuardianRED explaination #394 and now I understood it well enough
2. Neutral, 3rd link. Reliable 1&2 link. And full of facts! 
3. Read my previous comment carefully. Members of air force graduate school etc and organization made by pilots to honor the best among em. 
4. The question you should be asking is... why was the Palestinian state divided by UN after the war in 1947 and proposed in 46? And why was the European Jews not allowed to settle in their original land in Germany and elsewhere. Why there was a sudden call for establishment of Jewish state within another state. 
5. Palestine is mapped in war maps from world war 2 campaign during Ottoman Empire and till before Arab Israeli war. By then israel was fairly good in size. After the war and over the years illegal settlements on West Bank made Palestine non existent. There is nothing to argue about. Everyone knows this. 
6. Good if you know them. Can you pls calm your tits. Don't act like all typical stereotypes who think cristians and Muslims are your enemy.


----------



## DavidSling

Mohammed Khaled said:


> 1. Perhaps you might want to read @GuardianRED explaination #394 and now I understood it well enough
> 2. Neutral, 3rd link. Reliable 1&2 link. And full of facts!
> 3. Read my previous comment carefully. Members of air force graduate school etc and organization made by pilots to honor the best among em.
> 4. The question you should be asking is... why was the Palestinian state divided by UN after the war in 1947 and proposed in 46? And why was the European Jews not allowed to settle in their original land in Germany and elsewhere. Why there was a sudden call for establishment of Jewish state within another state.
> 5. Palestine is mapped in war maps from world war 2 campaign during Ottoman Empire and till before Arab Israeli war. By then israel was fairly good in size. After the war and over the years illegal settlements on West Bank made Palestine non existent. There is nothing to argue about. Everyone knows this.
> 6. Good if you know them. Can you pls calm your tits. Don't act like all typical stereotypes who think cristians and Muslims are your enemy.


It wasn't "Palestine" state, cause there was no such state, the whole area was called Palestine geograpichly and was ruled by the British Mandate.
The same one that obeyed the UN decision on 2 states and left and only the arabs declined and started to attack palestinian jews.
Don't change "facts" to suit ur needs, cause it's not working like that.


----------



## Michael Corleone

DavidSling said:


> It wasn't "Palestine" state, cause there was no such state, the whole area was called Palestine geograpichly and was ruled by the British Mandate.
> The same one that obeyed the UN decision on 2 states and left and only the arabs declined and started to attack palestinian jews.
> Don't change "facts" to suit ur needs, cause it's not working like that.


You see and that's my question.... was the division necessary? The British uses this doctrine of divide and rule and look they have done to India. This is what I am against. There should've never been division. Now is any single party living in peace? Neither Israelis because hamas and neither are Palestinians because Israel.

The region was called Palestine and wasn't under any other Arab country was it. It was an autonomous region of its own. Until post world war results


----------



## DavidSling

Mohammed Khaled said:


> You see and that's my question.... was the division necessary? The British uses this doctrine of divide and rule and look they have done to India. This is what I am against. There should've never been division. Now is any single party living in peace? Neither Israelis because hamas and neither are Palestinians because Israel.
> 
> The region was called Palestine and wasn't under any other Arab country was it. It was an autonomous region of its own. Until post world war results


Jews wanted a safe home where they can govern themselves, and arabs believed that all the middle east belonged to them.
either way, 1 country for 2 people wouldn't survive


----------



## Michael Corleone

DavidSling said:


> Jews wanted a safe home where they can govern themselves, and arabs believed that all the middle east belonged to them.
> either way, 1 country for 2 people wouldn't survive


But Jews were persecuted in Europe. Oh well... guess they just wanted a country of their own. I am not sure though that everyone wanted a division... Arabs certainly not. Would survive if they learnt to co exist... well human failure. Nothing else to blame here.


----------



## DavidSling

Mohammed Khaled said:


> But Jews were persecuted in Europe. Oh well... guess they just wanted a country of their own. I am not sure though that everyone wanted a division... Arabs certainly not. Would survive if they learnt to co exist... well human failure. Nothing else to blame here.


For that exact reason, Jews wanted a home land where they can defend and live their own life, without going like lambs to the slaughter like in nazy germany


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> 1. Perhaps you might want to read @GuardianRED explaination #394 and now I understood it well enough
> 2. Neutral, 3rd link. Reliable 1&2 link. And full of facts!
> 3. Read my previous comment carefully. Members of air force graduate school etc and organization made by pilots to honor the best among em.
> 4. The question you should be asking is... why was the Palestinian state divided by UN after the war in 1947 and proposed in 46? And why was the European Jews not allowed to settle in their original land in Germany and elsewhere. Why there was a sudden call for establishment of Jewish state within another state.
> 5. Palestine is mapped in war maps from world war 2 campaign during Ottoman Empire and till before Arab Israeli war. By then israel was fairly good in size. After the war and over the years illegal settlements on West Bank made Palestine non existent. There is nothing to argue about. Everyone knows this.
> 6. Good if you know them. Can you pls calm your tits. Don't act like all typical stereotypes who think cristians and Muslims are your enemy.


1. So you are wrong
2. 3rd not reliable, 2nd and 1st not neutral and I will never rely on a site called "Al Arabiya" or a Pakistani site.
3. 


Mohammed Khaled said:


> And only Pakistani/Arab claim have earned that dude honor from USAF in 2000s


LYING AGAIN? So no, you claimed him to be honored by the USAF in the 2000, a lie, AGAIN.
4. It wasn't a Palestinian state. If it was divided according to the UN's plan, the Jordanians would control it, just as it was between 1949 to 67.
It wasn't within another state, and the planning of Israel inside our land was before the holocaust. We wanted it there because it was ours WAY before you Muslims were even created.
5. So what if its mapped? IT WAS A NAME OF AN AREA, when you see in a map for example an Island named "Andros" for example, does it mean Andros is a country?
I asked you If Palestine ever existed for hundreds of years like the Palestinians claim, why wont you give me their currency, passport and president between 1918 (Fall of the Ottoman Empire) to 1922 (Start of the British Mandate)?
This isn't illegal, you started a war even if we agreed to give the whole country of Jordan (Which was supposed to be ours) to the Jordanians, and also half of current Israel, so we conquered back our territory, and you can keep crying until now.


----------



## Nilgiri

Mohammed Khaled said:


> If you know me why say probably a 12 year old? @Nilgiri @peonix enlighten this dull prick pls.
> 
> Here is a site that is not Pakistani noob. http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/08/21/have-jet-will-travel-the-amazing-story-of-saiful-azam/



Its a figure of speech bro, I've been called worse hehe.

What are you doing here anyway getting entangled with the Israelis?

Bangladesh does not mean much to them


----------



## DavidSling

Mohammed Khaled said:


> If you know me why say probably a 12 year old? @Nilgiri @peonix enlighten this dull _*prick*_ pls.
> 
> Here is a site that is not Pakistani noob. http://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/08/21/have-jet-will-travel-the-amazing-story-of-saiful-azam/


 prick - 1. a penis 2. derogatory term used to sum up the existance of a worthless asshole.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Nilgiri said:


> Its a figure of speech bro, I've been called worse hehe.
> 
> What are you doing here anyway getting entangled with the Israelis?
> 
> Bangladesh does not mean much to them


Neither do they to us. But he thinks what I say is lies... considering about safiul azam. You know about him right?


----------



## Nilgiri

Mohammed Khaled said:


> Neither do they to us. But he thinks what I say is lies... considering about safiul azam. You know about him right?



What you interacted with them through your union with Pakistan really only pertains to Pakistan - Israel. I don't know much about the details of Bengali airmen in PAF... other than the veneer of bravado and superiority that some Pakistanis claim in their limited engagements with Israelis in aerial warfare vindicate overall aerial superiority or something is quite silly and just pushes Israelis to believing and accepting Indian accounts on the matter ...which suits us just fine I guess since the Israelis are best to have on your good side be it training, cooperation and development in the military sphere and economic sphere in general.

Anyways why create a beef with Israel over next to nothing? Or Bangladeshis also have major feelings for Palestinian cause? Israel and Palestine are both so far away from Bangladesh.....I feel Bangladesh is better off dealing with its problems closer to home and become a much larger economy in the long run rather than trying to play an attention game with Israel. Like I understand Bangladesh benefits by taking the standard ummah/OIC position of enforcing the travel restrictions on Israelis and general boycott etc since you benefit a lot from the gulf remittances etc and are not as big as India to balance both favourably.....but why take it to another level without much cause? I mean Israel recognized you way before say China did, yet you do not recognize them back and they have no fuss about it....so lets be mature

http://www.jta.org/1972/02/07/archive/israel-recognizes-bangladesh

The recent Bangladesh govt claim that mossad is stirring up terrorism in Bangladesh through a nexus with BNP/JEI was pretty face palm I have to say.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Nilgiri said:


> What you interacted with them through your union with Pakistan really only pertains to Pakistan - Israel. I don't know much about the details of Bengali airmen in PAF... other than the veneer of bravado and superiority that some Pakistanis claim in their limited engagements with Israelis in aerial warfare vindicate overall aerial superiority or something is quite silly and just pushes Israelis to believing and accepting Indian accounts on the matter ...which suits us just fine I guess since the Israelis are best to have on your good side be it training, cooperation and development in the military sphere and economic sphere in general.
> 
> Anyways why create a beef with Israel over next to nothing? Or Bangladeshis also have major feelings for Palestinian cause? Israel and Palestine are both so far away from Bangladesh.....I feel Bangladesh is better off dealing with its problems closer to home and become a much larger economy in the long run rather than trying to play an attention game with Israel. Like I understand Bangladesh benefits by taking the standard ummah/OIC position of enforcing the travel restrictions on Israelis and general boycott etc since you benefit a lot from the gulf remittances etc and are not as big as India to balance both favourably.....but why take it to another level without much cause? I mean Israel recognized you way before say China did, yet you do not recognize them back and they have no fuss about it....so lets be mature
> 
> http://www.jta.org/1972/02/07/archive/israel-recognizes-bangladesh
> 
> The recent Bangladesh govt claim that mossad is stirring up terrorism in Bangladesh through a nexus with BNP/JEI was pretty face palm I have to say.





Nilgiri said:


> What you interacted with them through your union with Pakistan really only pertains to Pakistan - Israel. I don't know much about the details of Bengali airmen in PAF... other than the veneer of bravado and superiority that some Pakistanis claim in their limited engagements with Israelis in aerial warfare vindicate overall aerial superiority or something is quite silly and just pushes Israelis to believing and accepting Indian accounts on the matter ...which suits us just fine I guess since the Israelis are best to have on your good side be it training, cooperation and development in the military sphere and economic sphere in general.
> 
> Anyways why create a beef with Israel over next to nothing? Or Bangladeshis also have major feelings for Palestinian cause? Israel and Palestine are both so far away from Bangladesh.....I feel Bangladesh is better off dealing with its problems closer to home and become a much larger economy in the long run rather than trying to play an attention game with Israel. Like I understand Bangladesh benefits by taking the standard ummah/OIC position of enforcing the travel restrictions on Israelis and general boycott etc since you benefit a lot from the gulf remittances etc and are not as big as India to balance both favourably.....but why take it to another level without much cause? I mean Israel recognized you way before say China did, yet you do not recognize them back and they have no fuss about it....so lets be mature
> 
> http://www.jta.org/1972/02/07/archive/israel-recognizes-bangladesh
> 
> The recent Bangladesh govt claim that mossad is stirring up terrorism in Bangladesh through a nexus with BNP/JEI was pretty face palm I have to say.


The talk about Mossad and terrorism in Bangladesh is bullshit. I agree. Well I think our govt has been against Israel mostly due to the fact of illegal Jewish settlements on West Bank and killing and bombing of innocent civilians. And not finishing off hamas. Well I don't know much about Bangladesh myself. I was born in Kuwait man. And you can say the culture I learnt is Kuwaiti more than Bangladeshi

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Mohammed Khaled said:


> The talk about Mossad and terrorism in Bangladesh is bullshit. I agree. Well I think our govt has been against Israel mostly due to the fact of illegal Jewish settlements on West Bank and killing and bombing of innocent civilians. And not finishing off hamas. Well I don't know much about Bangladesh myself. I was born in Kuwait man. And you can say the culture I learnt is Kuwaiti more than Bangladeshi



OK yah I can see why you might be anti-Israeli.

Just remember the Arabs are no angels either....so its wrong to pick on just the Israelis.


----------



## Michael Corleone

Nilgiri said:


> OK yah I can see why you might be anti-Israeli.
> 
> Just remember the Arabs are no angels either....so its wrong to pick on just the Israelis.


Yes true. This saudis. Truely I hate them so much. Using Islam for their wahabist agenda. Dumbass morons. It's for these bustards that everyone despises Muslims in general. I don't completely blame Israel either. Waging war two times against one nation. Like ganging up on the little guy is cowardly acts of the Arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Mohammed Khaled said:


> The talk about Mossad and terrorism in Bangladesh is bullshit. I agree. Well I think our govt has been against Israel mostly due to the fact of illegal Jewish settlements on West Bank and killing and bombing of innocent civilians. And not finishing off hamas. Well I don't know much about Bangladesh myself. I was born in Kuwait man. And you can say the culture I learnt is Kuwaiti more than Bangladeshi


There are no illegal settlements, the Arab started the war, and tried to conquer us, so we did it to them.
We don't bomb "innocent" civilians that voted for Hamas, we bomb Hamas.
We cant finish off Hamas from the air unless we would destroy Gaza from the air.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

1967 war: surprise attack on arabs airforces changed the war in an hour or so. most of the israeli soldiers were war veterians from around the world with lot of experience from world wars and gorilla wars against nazis.
1973 war: egypt did well. this war educed the fear of israelis from arabs that they are superior in war. first half of war was won by arabs and last half by israelis solely because of superior US technology provided to israel.
2006: hezbullah war was a disaster for them.



Beny Karachun said:


> There are no illegal settlements, the Arab started the war, and tried to conquer us, so we did it to them.
> We don't bomb "innocent" civilians that voted for Hamas, we bomb Hamas.
> We cant finish off Hamas from the air unless we would destroy Gaza from the air.


the settlements are declared illegal by every world organization but because the US is at your back no one can do any thing about it. 
You sieze a complete city. kill people there just to expand your countries boundaries and give shelter to people from around the world who donot belong to the region. you push the native people out of their homes and land of their forefathers and expect no reaction in the form of hamas. 
capturing land and illegally annexing it within israel is your way of doing business.

t


Beny Karachun said:


> 1. So you are wrong
> 2. 3rd not reliable, 2nd and 1st not neutral and I will never rely on a site called "Al Arabiya" or a Pakistani site.
> 3.
> 
> LYING AGAIN? So no, you claimed him to be honored by the USAF in the 2000, a lie, AGAIN.
> 4. It wasn't a Palestinian state. If it was divided according to the UN's plan, the Jordanians would control it, just as it was between 1949 to 67.
> It wasn't within another state, and the planning of Israel inside our land was before the holocaust. We wanted it there because it was ours WAY before you Muslims were even created.
> 5. So what if its mapped? IT WAS A NAME OF AN AREA, when you see in a map for example an Island named "Andros" for example, does it mean Andros is a country?
> I asked you If Palestine ever existed for hundreds of years like the Palestinians claim, why wont you give me their currency, passport and president between 1918 (Fall of the Ottoman Empire) to 1922 (Start of the British Mandate)?
> This isn't illegal, you started a war even if we agreed to give the whole country of Jordan (Which was supposed to be ours) to the Jordanians, and also half of current Israel, so we conquered back our territory, and you can keep crying until now.


israeli president within that time. 
this whole region was under the control of ottoman empire,later controlled by british but arabs were living there from thousand of years.
you people left that region with your free will. your forefathers didn't have the balls to stay in their land and you call your self chosen people. but on the other hand you forced Palestinians out of there and they are still fighting for it even with stones. that is what chosen one would do.
about your land. your god had forbidden you from gathering again. you were scattered in the world due to your sins. even orthodox jews are still against the formation of israel.


----------



## Beny Karachun

naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> 1967 war: surprise attack on arabs airforces changed the war in an hour or so. most of the israeli soldiers were war veterians from around the world with lot of experience from world wars and gorilla wars against nazis.
> 1973 war: egypt did well. this war educed the fear of israelis from arabs that they are superior in war. first half of war was won by arabs and last half by israelis solely because of superior US technology provided to israel.
> 2006: hezbullah war was a disaster for them.


No, Veterans from WW2 would have been at least 50-40 years old, We didn't have many soldiers from that age.
1973- Egyptian surprise attack at the most holy day of the year for the Jews, 
Arabs were never superior than us, especially in war. 
It was more like first fifth of the war was won by the Arabs due to superior technology (Or equal), and last 4 fifths were won by the Israelis because it launched a counter attack, only at the last days of the war we got supply, without any new weapons from the US. 
2006- 750 Hezbollah members died, 121 Israeli soldiers died.



naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> the settlements are declared illegal by every world organization but because the US is at your back no one can do any thing about it.
> You sieze a complete city. kill people there just to expand your countries boundaries and give shelter to people from around the world who donot belong to the region. you push the native people out of their homes and land of their forefathers and expect no reaction in the form of hamas.
> capturing land and illegally annexing it within israel is your way of doing business.


Sorry? I don't see Japan and Russia complain about them being illegal, Also China has no problem with that, Oh, what about most of Africa?
Sorry but that's bullshit
Its more like: Arabs attack Israel and try to seize Israeli cities and conquer us, Israel beats the shit out of those retards, conquers back the cities, the cities are not populated because the Arabs told them to go away as they expected a fight in those cities, Israel doesn't let them come in.
Those people did belong to this region before, and you know that the Muslims conquered this land in the 600s, right? 
They are not native, its not their homes or land, and Hamas doesn't react but attack.



naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> israeli president within that time.
> this whole region was under the control of ottoman empire,later controlled by british but arabs were living there from thousand of years.
> you people left that region with your free will. your forefathers didn't have the balls to stay in their land and you call your self chosen people. but on the other hand you forced Palestinians out of there and they are still fighting for it even with stones. that is what chosen one would do.
> about your land. your god had forbidden you from gathering again. you were scattered in the world due to your sins. even orthodox jews are still against the formation of israel.


Sorry, but Jews lived there before Islam was a religion/ideology.
Palestinians claimed that this land was controlled by them for hundreds of years, I don't think its possible since the Ottomans and British ruled this land.
You think that we chose to leave Israel? Well you might read history, since we were forced out by the Persians and Romans and Greeks.
We didn't force any Palestinian out, we simply didn't let them come back after the fighting was done.
They can keep fighting us with stones, I hope one day we will just start shooting any retarded terrorist with his stone.
Our god never forbidden us to gather, and if you believe in God, you might ask yourself HOW ARE WE HERE THEN?
Orthodox Jews are against Israel because they say Israel cannot be here until the Messiah comes, and that's retarded.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

Beny Karachun said:


> No, Veterans from WW2 would have been at least 50-40 years old, We didn't have many soldiers from that age.
> 1973- Egyptian surprise attack at the most holy day of the year for the Jews,
> Arabs were never superior than us, especially in war.
> It was more like first fifth of the war was won by the Arabs due to superior technology (Or equal), and last 4 fifths were won by the Israelis because it launched a counter attack, only at the last days of the war we got supply, without any new weapons from the US.
> 2006- 750 Hezbollah members died, 121 Israeli soldiers died.
> 
> 
> Sorry? I don't see Japan and Russia complain about them being illegal, Also China has no problem with that, Oh, what about most of Africa?
> Sorry but that's bullshit
> Its more like: Arabs attack Israel and try to seize Israeli cities and conquer us, Israel beats the shit out of those retards, conquers back the cities, the cities are not populated because the Arabs told them to go away as they expected a fight in those cities, Israel doesn't let them come in.
> Those people did belong to this region before, and you know that the Muslims conquered this land in the 600s, right?
> They are not native, its not their homes or land, and Hamas doesn't react but attack.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Jews lived there before Islam was a religion/ideology.
> Palestinians claimed that this land was controlled by them for hundreds of years, I don't think its possible since the Ottomans and British ruled this land.
> You think that we chose to leave Israel? Well you might read history, since we were forced out by the Persians and Romans and Greeks.
> We didn't force any Palestinian out, we simply didn't let them come back after the fighting was done.
> They can keep fighting us with stones, I hope one day we will just start shooting any retarded terrorist with his stone.
> Our god never forbidden us to gather, and if you believe in God, you might ask yourself HOW ARE WE HERE THEN?
> Orthodox Jews are against Israel because they say Israel cannot be here until the Messiah comes, and that's retarded.


if we take your definition then there was no arab land because ottoman were ruling their land. its like saying that israel has a right over california because usa controls it not people of california.
about jews gathering. they are gathered by God to be slaughtered again.
and at last your messiah isn't going to come unless you achieve required land. greater israel plan means israel don't want any peace and is a threat to the whole region.

c


Beny Karachun said:


> No, Veterans from WW2 would have been at least 50-40 years old, We didn't have many soldiers from that age.
> 1973- Egyptian surprise attack at the most holy day of the year for the Jews,
> Arabs were never superior than us, especially in war.
> It was more like first fifth of the war was won by the Arabs due to superior technology (Or equal), and last 4 fifths were won by the Israelis because it launched a counter attack, only at the last days of the war we got supply, without any new weapons from the US.
> 2006- 750 Hezbollah members died, 121 Israeli soldiers died.
> 
> 
> Sorry? I don't see Japan and Russia complain about them being illegal, Also China has no problem with that, Oh, what about most of Africa?
> Sorry but that's bullshit
> Its more like: Arabs attack Israel and try to seize Israeli cities and conquer us, Israel beats the shit out of those retards, conquers back the cities, the cities are not populated because the Arabs told them to go away as they expected a fight in those cities, Israel doesn't let them come in.
> Those people did belong to this region before, and you know that the Muslims conquered this land in the 600s, right?
> They are not native, its not their homes or land, and Hamas doesn't react but attack.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Jews lived there before Islam was a religion/ideology.
> Palestinians claimed that this land was controlled by them for hundreds of years, I don't think its possible since the Ottomans and British ruled this land.
> You think that we chose to leave Israel? Well you might read history, since we were forced out by the Persians and Romans and Greeks.
> We didn't force any Palestinian out, we simply didn't let them come back after the fighting was done.
> They can keep fighting us with stones, I hope one day we will just start shooting any retarded terrorist with his stone.
> Our god never forbidden us to gather, and if you believe in God, you might ask yourself HOW ARE WE HERE THEN?
> Orthodox Jews are against Israel because they say Israel cannot be here until the Messiah comes, and that's retarded.


an you give me some reference book on your messiah and when will he come and what will he look like+his powers. i want to read jewish prespective of end times.


----------



## Beny Karachun

naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> if we take your definition then there was no arab land because ottoman were ruling their land. its like saying that israel has a right over california because usa controls it not people of california.
> about jews gathering. they are gathered by God to be slaughtered again.
> and at last your messiah isn't going to come unless you achieve required land. greater israel plan means israel don't want any peace and is a threat to the whole region.


No. you didn't get what I said at all. the Palestinians said this was a country called "Palestine" controlled by Palestinians with a Palestinian government, and then the 'Zionist enemy" came in and killed everyone.
You really think you are able to slaughter us? First go slaughter the Indians that beat your ***, and the Iranians should first slaughter the Arabs that beat their ***, and the Arabs should surrender and accept that they will never be able to beat us.
Greater Israel plan is to take Gaza and Jordan, which we would have got if the Palestinians (Basically Jordanians) wouldn't steal OUR land, because the British said they will give us both Trans Jordan and Israel.
Sorry, we are not the threat to the region, Arabs are a threat to the world.



naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> an you give me some reference book on your messiah and when will he come and what will he look like+his powers. i want to read jewish prespective of end times.


I'm not an orthodox or even a religious Jew, I have no idea what he really is, all I heard was that he would have a white beard and a white donkey or something.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

yo


Beny Karachun said:


> No. you didn't get what I said at all. the Palestinians said this was a country called "Palestine" controlled by Palestinians with a Palestinian government, and then the 'Zionist enemy" came in and killed everyone.
> You really think you are able to slaughter us? First go slaughter the Indians that beat your ***, and the Iranians should first slaughter the Arabs that beat their ***, and the Arabs should surrender and accept that they will never be able to beat us.
> Greater Israel plan is to take Gaza and Jordan, which we would have got if the Palestinians (Basically Jordanians) wouldn't steal OUR land, because the British said they will give us both Trans Jordan and Israel.
> Sorry, we are not the threat to the region, Arabs are a threat to the world.
> 
> 
> I'm not an orthodox or even a religious Jew, I have no idea what he really is, all I heard was that he would have a white beard and a white donkey or something.


u are talking of taking more arab countries and calling them danger to the world. isn't it ironic.


----------



## Beny Karachun

naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> yo
> 
> u are talking of taking more arab countries and calling them danger to the world. isn't it ironic.


We are danger to the Arab world.
Every country in the Arab states could have a governmental overthrow and bunch of terrorists take over their weapons, this wouldn't happen in Israel.


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

Beny Karachun said:


> We are danger to the Arab world.
> Every country in the Arab states could have a governmental overthrow and bunch of terrorists take over their weapons, this wouldn't happen in Israel.


well its still their internal matter. even if they are all killed by terrorists who gave right to israel to capture their land. by the way the person with a donkey whose ears have distance of 40 feets is called antichrist in islam. so according to our believe you are really gonna be slaughtered.


----------



## Beny Karachun

naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> well its still their internal matter. even if they are all killed by terrorists who gave right to israel to capture their land. by the way the person with a donkey whose ears have distance of 40 feets is called antichrist in islam. so according to our believe you are really gonna be slaughtered.


The same one that let the Muslims take all of this land.
You don't expect that they were simply born from Pakistan to Iran, right?
Messiah is claimed to be with a white beard and a white donkey, no reference to his ears.
And 40 feet ears? what?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

Beny Karachun said:


> The same one that let the Muslims take all of this land.
> You don't expect that they were simply born from Pakistan to Iran, right?
> Messiah is claimed to be with a white beard and a white donkey, no reference to his ears.
> And 40 feet ears? what?



you wouldn't be able to do it until your messiah is here.
thats muslim prophecies. you messiah would be one eyed, ride on white donkey which will be very fast(scholars thiink its a plane),he will have control over weather and would be a very big man. he will rule the world except few places in saudi arabia. isn't it right?


----------



## Beny Karachun

naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> you wouldn't be able to do it until your messiah is here.
> thats muslim prophecies. you messiah would be one eyed, ride on white donkey which will be very fast(scholars thiink its a plane),he will have control over weather and would be a very big man. he will rule the world except few places in saudi arabia. isn't it right?


Read about this in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
I have no idea about him.


----------



## James David

Good Lord I just got a nasty hangover reading the 29 pages or so! What the hell are you guys arguing about!??! The Israelis won!!! All the books around the world says it so.. (unless there is another "world" out there that says otherwise). I am not against Arabs or Pakistanis by the way but Jeeeez!!! 

Oh and I am posting this forum from the Israeli side by the way about the fighter thingy. (*Mods please delete my post if its offensive or whateve*r). Thanks! 

http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=8335


----------



## DavidSling

James Jaevid said:


> Good Lord I just got a nasty hangover reading the 29 pages or so! What the hell are you guys arguing about!??! The Israelis won!!! All the books around the world says it so.. (unless there is another "world" out there that says otherwise). I am not against Arabs or Pakistanis by the way but Jeeeez!!!
> 
> Oh and I am posting this forum from the Israeli side by the way about the fighter thingy. (*Mods please delete my post if its offensive or whateve*r). Thanks!
> 
> http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=8335


Man, let them think that they shoot down fighters, it's common around the muslim world to brag and lie about stuff that didn't happen, specialy when it comes to Israel

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Nilgiri said:


> OK yah I can see why you might be anti-Israeli.
> 
> Just remember the Arabs are no angels either....so its wrong to pick on just the Israelis.





Beny Karachun said:


> There are no illegal settlements, the Arab started the war, and tried to conquer us, so we did it to them.
> We don't bomb "innocent" civilians that voted for Hamas, we bomb Hamas.
> We cant finish off Hamas from the air unless we would destroy Gaza from the air.





Beny Karachun said:


> Sorry? I don't see Japan and Russia complain about them being illegal, Also China has no problem with that, Oh, what about most of Africa?
> Sorry but that's bullshit
> Its more like: Arabs attack Israel and try to seize Israeli cities and conquer us, Israel beats the shit out of those retards, conquers back the cities, the cities are not populated because the Arabs told them to go away as they expected a fight in those cities, Israel doesn't let them come in.
> Those people did belong to this region before, and you know that the Muslims conquered this land in the 600s, right?
> They are not native, its not their homes or land, and Hamas doesn't react but attack.





Beny Karachun said:


> Sorry, but Jews lived there before Islam was a religion/ideology.
> Palestinians claimed that this land was controlled by them for hundreds of years, I don't think its possible since the Ottomans and British ruled this land.
> You think that we chose to leave Israel? Well you might read history, since we were forced out by the Persians and Romans and Greeks.
> We didn't force any Palestinian out, we simply didn't let them come back after the fighting was done.
> They can keep fighting us with stones, I hope one day we will just start shooting any retarded terrorist with his stone.
> Our god never forbidden us to gather, and if you believe in God, you might ask yourself HOW ARE WE HERE THEN?
> Orthodox Jews are against Israel because they say Israel cannot be here until the Messiah comes, and that's retarded.





Beny Karachun said:


> No. you didn't get what I said at all. the Palestinians said this was a country called "Palestine" controlled by Palestinians with a Palestinian government, and then the 'Zionist enemy" came in and killed everyone.
> You really think you are able to slaughter us? First go slaughter the Indians that beat your ***, and the Iranians should first slaughter the Arabs that beat their ***, and the Arabs should surrender and accept that they will never be able to beat us.
> Greater Israel plan is to take Gaza and Jordan, which we would have got if the Palestinians (Basically Jordanians) wouldn't steal OUR land, because the British said they will give us both Trans Jordan and Israel.
> Sorry, we are not the threat to the region, Arabs are a threat to the world.





. Yes they did win, but that still doesn't give them a get out of jail free card when it comes to international matters.

* Israel Apartheid *
- http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538
- http://www.itisapartheid.org/laws.html
- http://www.seamac.org/equalrights.htm
- http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-makdisi-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/racism...alestinians-cannot-ride-israeli-buses/5410760

* UN reports on Israel war crimes and human rights violation *

-http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...crimes-during-israels-51-day-assault-on-gaza/
-http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...crimes-during-israels-51-day-assault-on-gaza/
- https://www.amnesty.org/en/countrie...-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
- http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/country-holding-accountable/
- https://electronicintifada.net/blog...a-report-cant-hide-massive-israeli-war-crimes

* Israel genocide against Palestinians and ethnic cleansing *

- http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
- https://www.sott.net/article/298277...-against-Palestine-during-2014-summer-assault
- http://www.vice.com/read/israels-war-on-gaza-is-it-genocide-813 -https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

* human rights watch report on Israel violations *

- https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/israel/palestine
* un declares Israel as having worlds worst human rights*
- http://yournewswire.com/un-declares-israel-as-having-worlds-worst-human-rights/

http://www.peterloud.co.uk/palestine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/315840-israel-palestine-protests-police/

https://electronicintifada.net/content/top-israeli-rabbis-advocate-genocide/6974

https://electronicintifada.net/blog...onerates-itself-slaughter-children-gaza-beach

http://www.vice.com/read/israels-war-on-gaza-is-it-genocide-813

http://bennorton.com/an-incomplete-list-of-israels-violations-of-human-rights/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ted-crimes-against-humanity-says-Amnesty.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/take-...s-against-palestinians-in-the-last-few-weeks/

https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/tag/israeli-crimes-against-humanity/


http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2...bi-who-endorses-rape-to-improve-troop-morale/

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/israeli-advocated-becomes/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/idf-chief-rabbi-permits-raping-women/

http://newobserveronline.com/idfs-chief-rabbi-rape-gentile-women/

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Storm-erupts-over-past-comments-of-incoming-IDF-Chief-Rabbi-460174

https://electronicintifada.net/cont...-israels-daily-toll-palestinian-children/4263

But let's just ignore that Okay? 

P.S I apologize for going off topic

Cheers to the Israeli victory!


----------



## Ceylal

James Jaevid said:


> Good Lord I just got a nasty hangover reading the 29 pages or so! What the hell are you guys arguing about!??! The Israelis won!!! All the books around the world says it so.. (unless there is another "world" out there that says otherwise). I am not against Arabs or Pakistanis by the way but Jeeeez!!!
> 
> Oh and I am posting this forum from the Israeli side by the way about the fighter thingy. (*Mods please delete my post if its offensive or whateve*r). Thanks!
> 
> http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=8335


 We were discussing the causes of their win...We were not debating if they did win..they did..



EgyptianAmerican said:


> Cheers to the Israeli victory!


Palestinians are not cheering....they consider themselves being sold by their Arab brethren...and their cause was used by some arab leaders to further their own political agenda...


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> Palestinians are not cheering....they consider themselves being sold by their Arab brethren...and their cause was used by some arab leaders to further their own political agenda...



First off, I was just joking as you can see the comments I was replying to were self-obsessed with Israeli victories.

Please explain how they were betrayed by their Arab brethren. Because Frankly going to war is quite a lot for your fellow neighbors.


Israeli War of Independence (1948-1949)
Egypt
1948-1949
total soldiers: 300,000
Total losses: 2,000

Sinai Campaign (1956)
Egypt 1956-1956
total soldiers: 300,000
total losses: 3,000

Six Day War (1967)
Egypt 1967-1967
Total soldiers: 400,000
Total losses: 10,000

Yom Kippur War (1973)
Egypt 1973-1973
total soldiers: 400,000
Total losses :5,000

Approximate Total losses*: 20,000 men! of Egypt ALONE!
*
Please tell me again how these men died if not for the Palestinians? Arab states have lost more then enough men for Palestine. Political agendas come and go but lives matter, and Egypt has lost more then enough men for Palestine let alone Syria, or Jordan.

What are the Palestinian losses?Did they make any offensives? Any strategies? If Palestine wants it's freedom back then they have to fight their own battles. The Arab states realized this when they were doing 99% of the Work for them. If Turkey,Algeria,Iran and Others want to take up the banner and fight, go ahead. Arab states have enough problems as is. Last thing they want to do is get into a full fledged conflict with a regional power, with civil wars,political instability,economic problems and rising insurgency and terrorism in their borders.
*
*


----------



## Ceylal

EgyptianAmerican said:


> ,*Algeria*,Iran and Others want to take up the banner and fight, go


,
Algeria's contribution to the war effort and her troops participation was detrimental to Egypt...I know, Algeria has kept mum about the sacrifices and the blood that her sons spilled along Egyptians and Palestinian troops, (and yes they were present and fought along with Egyptian and Algerian troops). The arrival of the Algerian troops stabilized the eastern front and kept the Cairo, Helouan (industrial lung of egypt,) Ismailiya, Suez and Aswan dam skies safe from IDF craft's intrusion..
And yes, Egypt, Jordan and the GCC cohorts, used the Palestinian case theirs to further their political stand in the area..Only the front of refusal states kept helping materially and diplomatically the Palestinian cause. all these three countries suffered and continue to suffer for their political standing.


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> ,
> Algeria's contribution to the war effort and her troops participation was detrimental to Egypt...I know, Algeria has kept mum about the sacrifices and the blood that her sons spilled along Egyptians and Palestinian troops, (and yes they were present and fought along with Egyptian and Algerian troops). The arrival of the Algerian troops stabilized the eastern front and kept the Cairo, Helouan (industrial lung of egypt,) Ismailiya, Suez and Aswan dam skies safe from IDF craft's intrusion..
> And yes, Egypt, Jordan and the GCC cohorts, used the Palestinian case theirs to further their political stand in the area..Only the front of refusal states kept helping materially and diplomatically the Palestinian cause. all these three countries suffered and continue to suffer for their political standing.




On the Algerian military wiki page for the Yom kippur war it doesn't say anything about the Algerian brigade facing action, if you disagree then I suggest you edit the Wiki page.

"Algeria sent a battalion of infantry and a squadron of MiG-21s to Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War with Israel. While the troops did not see active service, reportedly six MiGs were lost.[4]

The 1973 Yom Kippur War was the fourth major conflict between Israel and the neighboring Arab States. Like many other Arab States, Algeria contributed to the fighting in the Yom Kippur War. The Algerian government sent squadrons of fighters and bombers along with an armored brigade."


There is also no mention of Algerias armored brigade in the Yom kippur wiki page either,

"By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal.[225] They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army. The Israelis had also taken many prisoners after Egyptian soldiers, including many officers, began surrendering in masses towards the end of the war.[226] The Egyptians held a narrow strip on the east bank of the canal, occupying some 1,200 square kilometres of the Sinai.[226] One source estimated that the Egyptians had 70,000 men, 720 tanks and 994 artillery pieces on the east bank of the canal.[227] However, 30,000 to 45,000 of them were now encircled by the Israelis.[228][229]"




"Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, according to Gamasy, the Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads. In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."[230] For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded.


"Algeria sent a squadron each of MiG-21s and Su-7s to Egypt, which arrived at the front between October 9 and October 11. It also sent an armored brigade of 150 tanks, the advance elements of which began to arrive on October 17, but reached the front only on October 24, too late to participate in the fighting. After the war, during the first days of November, Algeria deposited around US$200 million with the Soviet Union to finance arms purchases for Egypt and Syria.[2] Algerian fighter jets however did participate in attacks together with Egyptians and Iraqis.[329]"


Respectfully while we appreciate the money and help in Air combat, I'm not entirely sure you lost or fought any battles on the ground. Of course If you have evidence otherwise I would love to see it.



As for the politics, Arabs have done the vast majority of fighting for Palestine, with very little contribution of Palestinians themselves. This is what I meant, No one betrayed Palestine it was the old generation of Palestinians that had a lack of will and determination to fight and make a state that led Arab states to realize that making Palestine was nearly impossible and just a huge waste of resources and lives. While the current generation of Palestinians may be willing to fight, but the Arab states have way too many problems to actually have a full out war with one of the most advanced combat wise Nations in the WORLD.

Like I said if you care so much, then take up the banner and fight because Arabs are done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Usrael lost all those wars , colonial France and England won them for themselves considering that they consider Jews as pariahs, they helped them by all means so that they stay far away from them, The US is doing the same athough less successful to prevent their state inside state..Sinai is back in Egypt and that was the objective of the Egyptians at that time , so they have won the war ..a total victory..without going much into disturbing details for Usraelis..
Syria did not get the Golan heights back, so it was troubled since that time, and that is from where comes the hatered of the Assads regimes..
Usrael was the most combat advanced in 1973 and yet was defeated, even with more than 50 billion $ of most advanced arms systems supplies in few weeks.. some of thenm Usraelis still live in denial of all this....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-15I

Democary vs Dictator
Hight fight spirit vs Low fight spirit
Fighting for sorvive vs Fighting for hate
High education vs Analfabet
Patriotizm vs Corruption
Usa vs Soviet Union
Soldiers following Comanders vs Comanders following Soldiers
Quality vs Quantity
1 vs 5

And the winner is... Democrscy!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

EgyptianAmerican said:


> On the Algerian military wiki page for the Yom kippur war it doesn't say anything about the Algerian brigade facing action, if you disagree then I suggest you edit the Wiki page


You base your findings on wiki. Wikipedia is not a credible source. No Egyptian has so far recognized the important role that Algerian played in 67 and 73 war. Even Sadat took him awhile to think Algeria for shouldering Egypt. You ask about proof, well if you went thru the whole 29 pages, you would have found plenty! here an Egyptian talking about the subject
[youtube]






EgyptianAmerican said:


> "Algeria sent a battalion of infantry and a squadron of MiG-21s to Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War with Israel. While the troops did not see active service, reportedly six MiGs were lost.[4]


The loss was really to Egypt, since the MIG 21 were flown by Egyptian Pilots, Algerians flew only the Mig 17, the SU7 and the IL28 bomber. 



EgyptianAmerican said:


> Respectfully while we appreciate the money and help in Air combat, I'm not entirely sure you lost or fought any battles on the ground. Of course


In air combat we lost one Mig17 that was shot on its arrival to Egypt by friendly fire with the loss of the pilot, and another by the IDF, but the pilot managed to regain his base and landed safely. Beside these two aircrafts, the Algerian air force achieved all the task that were given to her. 
[youtube]



[youtube]






EgyptianAmerican said:


> Like I said if you care so much, then take up the banner and fight because Arabs are done.


Algeria has never quit supporting the Palestinian whether they are the aggressors or the aggressee. So far its the only country who kept its contribution to Palestine current. It was also the country that hosted the Palestinian Charter and the country that introduced the Palestinian question to be discussed in the UN , with Yasser Arafat presence, where he delivered a memorable speech., with the actual Algerian president ,introduced by the actual Algerian president who was presiding the session. Algerian have Palestine in their hear and nothing is going to stop the country from supporting the cause. There is similarity between the two in their struggle to gain their freedom and Algerian will always support freedom to the ones who live under colonialism.
[youtube]



Now with the arab state debacle , a state for the Palestinian will be achieved politically , since a military solution is out question. 






In another hand Algeria has no complex toward Israel, since they know each other well, her task at hand is to be prepared against the Islamic Nato.

*Arafat on Algerians









Click to expand...


Kamelia Sadat on Algeria
[youtube]



*


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> Algeria has never quit supporting the Palestinian whether they are the aggressors or the aggressee. So far its the only country who kept its contribution to Palestine current. It was also the country that hosted the Palestinian Charter and the country that introduced the Palestinian question to be discussed in the UN , with Yasser Arafat presence, where he delivered a memorable speech., with the actual Algerian president ,introduced by the actual Algerian president who was presiding the session. Algerian have Palestine in their hear and nothing is going to stop the country from supporting the cause. There is similarity between the two in their struggle to gain their freedom and Algerian will always support freedom to the ones who live under colonialism.
> [youtube]
> Now with the arab state debacle , a state for the Palestinian will be achieved politically , since a military solution is out question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another hand Algeria has no complex toward Israel, since they know each other well, her task at hand is to be prepared against the Islamic Nato.



You support them but have you gone to war for them? Arabs did that and you know what happened? We had conflicts with Israel for Decades upon Decades losing thousands upon thousands, putting our economy through a meat grinder and sacrificing the welfare of our own people and STILL Palestinians weren't determined enough or willing to help in a large way or make a serious attempt at creating statehood. NOBODY gets to say we betrayed them. Algeria may be willing to support them on the political side but will it be willing to support it in war? Can Algeria handle a full blown war with Israel? If you could why didn't you join? Arabs did this for decades and it took a long time before we opened up our eyes and realized that if Palestinians aren't determined to get their statehood then it's just useless. Algeria in it's war of independence was determined to get their own state, Palestine when we were fighting weren't. They Squandered their chance and now it is dust in the wind.

Also What Islamic NATO? Are you talking about the Arabs league 40,000 troops? Also how can you support Palestine and have no complex against Israel. If you see this as a war to take back their land then does that not mean you want to remove Israel from the map entirely?


----------



## Ceylal

EgyptianAmerican said:


> Algeria may be willing to support them on the political side but will *it be willing to support it in war*?


Algeria participation in two wars along Egypt was for the Palestinian statehood..She didn't send her troops to visit the Pyramids and fish in the Suez canal. Palestine liberation is the only cause , where the Algerian Troops are allowed to operate beyond her borders. 




> Can *Algeria* handle a full blown war with *Israel*?


You fought a world power with pitch fork and sickle...Like I said in my previous reply, Algeria has no complex toward Israel, Algerian troops battle twice with them, and they are able to do it again...The question you should ask yourself, is Israel is she capable to stand and fight Algeria? For the time being, Israel and Algerian are the only countries that can take war to their enemies, Turkey not included due to her being a NATO member.




EgyptianAmerican said:


> They Squandered their chance and now it is dust in the wind.


They squandered their chance because the Arab state interference, where each Arab state become a important hinge for their freedom . The only thing they accomplished is to keep Arafat to sign a peace agreement with Barak during the Clinton administration. The Arab state are the cause of the Palestinian suffering, and them only them bare the calamities that Palestinians endure everyday.



EgyptianAmerican said:


> Also What Islamic NATO? Are you talking about the Arabs league 40,000 troops? Also how can you support Palestine and have no complex against Israel.


Just 40,000 troops..! All the arab forces are under the Saudi thumb, if the Sauds says jump, they will say how high, your eminence. Our borders problems , like Egypt's are coming from there..





The Arab league meetings seen by North Africans..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> Algeria participation in two wars along Egypt was for the Palestinian statehood..She didn't send her troops to visit the Pyramids and fish in the Suez canal. Palestine liberation is the only cause , where the Algerian Troops are allowed to operate beyond her borders.



I'm talking about a war with Israel alone. 



Ceylal said:


> You fought a world power with pitch fork and sickle...Like I said in my previous reply, Algeria has no complex toward Israel, Algerian troops battle twice with them, and they are able to do it again...The question you should ask yourself, is Israel is she capable to stand and fight Algeria? For the time being, Israel and Algerian are the only countries that can take war to their enemies, Turkey not included due to her being a NATO member.



OK, let's say they can go to war with Israel, how could you do it? Show me your planning and strategies how you plan to use your troops and navy to your advantage, explain how Algeria will plan the invasion of Israel. How can Algeria counter Israeli nukes or Air force.



Ceylal said:


> They squandered their chance because the Arab state interference, where each Arab state become a important hinge for their freedom . The only thing they accomplished is to keep Arafat to sign a peace agreement with Barak during the Clinton administration. The Arab state are the cause of the Palestinian suffering, and them only them bare the calamities that Palestinians endure everyday.



Arab interference? Going to war with Israel is certainly not interference, gosh you criticize us for going to war then complain when we don't go to war? How are Arab states the cause for the suffering of the Palestinians? 




Ceylal said:


> Just 40,000 troops..! All the arab forces are under the Saudi thumb, if the Sauds says jump, they will say how high, your eminence. Our borders problems , like Egypt's are coming from there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab league meetings seen by North Africans..




The Arab league forces are governed by the Arab league not the Saudi government, The U.N peacekeeping forces aren't governed by the U.S or NATO forces aren't only governed by the U.S.


While I may not like the ambitiousness of the Saudi government, that does not mean they support terrorists or enemies of North african countries. 

The Saudi government while ambitious are not evil or support evil. Egyptians don't see the Arab league as that, I'm also pretty sure that people from Morocco doesn't see it like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

EgyptianAmerican said:


> I'm talking about a war with Israel alone.


I don't foresee that happening. Neither Algeria or Israel contemplate that scenario. In the last bombing of Gaza, Algerian transport planes were very active in bringing food supplies and medicine without interference from the Israeli aircraft. It was moubarek that put a stop to it by banning them the use of Rafah airport...





> OK, let's say they can go to war with Israel, how could you do it? Show me your planning and strategies how you plan to use your troops and navy to your advantage, explain how Algeria will plan the invasion of Israel. How can Algeria counter Israeli nukes or Air force.


Like I said, this scenario is unlikely to happen..And Algeria is not known to start hostilities unless , she was attacked..But if it does happen, Algeria has the means, the ability and the will to reply in kind to any aggressor..You talk about Israel nukes? let me answer that this way...Algeria's nuclear preceded the Pakistani's . the AAF combat aircrafts from the MIG 29s to the SU30 MKA can be used as vecteurs as well as the submarine force. Israel very well , that war with Algeria wouldn't be a 6hrs or a month affaire...





> *Arab interference*? Going to war with Israel is certainly not interference, gosh you criticize us for going to war then complain when we don't go to war? How are Arab states the cause for the suffering of the Palestinians?


, 
If Arab states , the usual ones, didn't threaten Arafat, Palestinians would have had a state, not all the land they claim, nevertheless a state of their own where they can live in peace.







> The Arab league forces are governed by the Arab league not the Saudi government, The U.N peacekeeping forces aren't governed by the U.S or NATO forces aren't only governed by the U.S.


The Arab league is controlled by the Sauds, all her actions are decided and dictated by the Sauds using Egypt as a lampost. The Arab league is not the UN. and the Sunni forces, as it is called, will be used at Sauds will. Just look at Yemen. Tell me why your country and others like Morocco, participating in the Killing of Yemenis...Does Egypt was attacked by Yemen? No..Does Marocco feels aggressed by Yemen, the answer is still No. The answer is simple , the Sauds said jump, all the arab league states jumped, save a few which were immediately tagged of rafidis..


While I may not like the ambitiousness of the Saudi government, that does not mean they support terrorists or enemies of North african countries.



> The Saudi government while ambitious are *not evil* or *support evi*l. Egyptians don't see the Arab league as that, I'm also pretty sure that people from Morocco doesn't see it like that.



The Sauds are the personalization of evil on earth. They destroyed every muslim country that doesn't follow them. I don't know that can say that with a straight face . Egyptians Lybians, Tunisians, Algerians and Moroccans lambda, all think the Arab League is no more than a Saudi stable. It shows that you don't even know your countrymen, unless you are not Egyptian, just another Saudi false flagger.


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> I don't foresee that happening. Neither Algeria or Israel contemplate that scenario. In the last bombing of Gaza, Algerian transport planes were very active in bringing food supplies and medicine without interference from the Israeli aircraft. It was moubarek that put a stop to it by banning them the use of Rafah airport...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, this scenario is unlikely to happen..And Algeria is not known to start hostilities unless , she was attacked..But if it does happen, Algeria has the means, the ability and the will to reply in kind to any aggressor..You talk about Israel nukes? let me answer that this way...Algeria's nuclear preceded the Pakistani's . the AAF combat aircrafts from the MIG 29s to the SU30 MKA can be used as vecteurs as well as the submarine force. Israel very well , that war with Algeria wouldn't be a 6hrs or a month affaire...
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> If Arab states , the usual ones, didn't threaten Arafat, Palestinians would have had a state, not all the land they claim, nevertheless a state of their own where they can live in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab league is controlled by the Sauds, all her actions are decided and dictated by the Sauds using Egypt as a lampost. The Arab league is not the UN. and the Sunni forces, as it is called, will be used at Sauds will. Just look at Yemen. Tell me why your country and others like Morocco, participating in the Killing of Yemenis...Does Egypt was attacked by Yemen? No..Does Marocco feels aggressed by Yemen, the answer is still No. The answer is simple , the Sauds said jump, all the arab league states jumped, save a few which were immediately tagged of rafidis..
> 
> 
> While I may not like the ambitiousness of the Saudi government, that does not mean they support terrorists or enemies of North african countries.
> 
> 
> 
> The Sauds are the personalization of evil on earth. They destroyed every muslim country that doesn't follow them. I don't know that can say that with a straight face . Egyptians Lybians, Tunisians, Algerians and Moroccans lambda, all think the Arab League is no more than a Saudi stable. It shows that you don't even know your countrymen, unless you are not Egyptian, just another Saudi false flagger.



No, not even one Algerian plane was even nearby Israel for the last 40 years.
And if there would have been they would have been shot down, we don't allow enemy countries to fly over our territory.

Stop over glorifying Algeria, your country isn't even in the top 20 strongest nations
We will beat you just as we did last time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> No, not even one Algerian plane was even nearby Israel for the last 40 years.


I didn't think Rafah is Israeli territory..So read before you start showing your bravado. Algerian air force plane were landing there, bringing supply to the Gazans, until Mubarek denied them landing..



> Stop over glorifying Algeria, your country isn't even in the top 20 strongest nations
> *We will beat you just as we did last time*.


, Algerian troops travelled of 3000 kms by road and handed your hero Ariel Sharon his @ss on his lap..I am sure Israel is not looking for a third serving..


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> I didn't think Rafah is Israeli territory..So read before you start showing your bravado. Algerian air force plane were landing there, bringing supply to the Gazans, until Mubarek denied them landing..
> 
> 
> , Algerian troops travelled of 3000 kms by road and handed your your hero Ariel Sharon his @ss on his lap..I am sure Israel is not looking for a third serving..


There is no aid from Rafah, especially by Algeria, the only way Algeria has ever gave aid to Gaza is by ships
I like how you don't save Gaza with your almighty airforce that if was in Rafah then could have fought our weak and inferior airforce

Algerian troops didn't do anything, in fact they stayed behind the Suez and waited out there, saw no action

We are stronger than you in any way
Economy, army, military budget, more jet fighters, more tanks and APCs, and better everything

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> There is no aid from Rafah, especially by Algeria, the only way Algeria has ever gave aid to Gaza is by ships
> I like how you don't save Gaza with your almighty airforce that if was in Rafah then could have fought our weak and inferior airforce


You are dealing with facts..you can't ignore



> Algerian troops didn't do anything, in fact they stayed behind the Suez and waited out there, saw no action


Ariel Sharon thought different.



> We are stronger than you in any way
> Economy, army, military budget, more jet fighters, more tanks and APCs, and better everything


You maybe all that, but it come to that point, hoping it will never you will have no chance...It going to far from 6 hrs or a month bout...like Israel used to. You should learn your past ...Hazbollah, in 2006 destroyed the myth of the super Israeli Soldier, with Algeria , that soldier will be buried, once for all...
Read a blog from one your fellow journalist....on Algeria...Its in french, hope you can catch the big picture on what he wrote.

*http://frblogs.timesofisrael.com/lalgerie-lennemi-discrete-disrael/*


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> You are dealing with facts..you can't ignore
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon thought different.
> 
> 
> You maybe all that, but it come to that point, hoping it will never you will have no chance...It going to far from 6 hrs or a month bout...like Israel used to. You should learn your past ...Hazbollah, in 2006 destroyed the myth of the super Israeli Soldier, with Algeria , that soldier will be buried, once for all...
> Read a blog from one your fellow journalist....on Algeria...Its in french, hope you can catch the big picture on what he wrote.
> 
> *http://frblogs.timesofisrael.com/lalgerie-lennemi-discrete-disrael/*


Yeah of course, facts...

You didn't even face Ariel Sharon, you hidden behind the Egyptian defenses like cowards and have done nothing in the entire war.

We will beat the crap out of you, we have better and more tanks, better and more jets, better and more attack submarines etc
And, we have nukes, so don't think any conflict will take more than 10 minutes, it will end bad for you

Hezbollah? Oh the one that proved that the Israeli soldiers had more kill and death ratio than any other country in an asymmetrical warfare, even though its generals were complete idiots which said "Go to there" and the next day "Go to there"? Your soldiers have nothing. Hell, your army is made of T72s, T62s and T55s/54s, you don't even have guided missile MLRS's, you still use S125, S75 and mostly rely on damn 2K12 Kub SA6 missiles!
You don't have any BMS system, no anti ballistic missile or cruise missile defense system, no ship missile defense systems, no jamming pods and mainly uses AK47s and 74s without any sights!
Oh, and when was the last time the world heard of a glorious Algerian special forces operation?

And no, I have no idea what this article talks about

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

Beny Karachun said:


> Yeah of course, facts...
> 
> You didn't even face Ariel Sharon, you hidden behind the Egyptian defenses like cowards and have done nothing in the entire war.










Guess who gave that headache. He and his aid were the only survivors...all his tank destroyed, all his troops, the best Israel ever had, killed...


> We will beat the crap out of you, we have better and more tanks, better and more jets, better and more attack submarines etc


You have no idea...what we reserve for Israel, if to comes to that...


> And, we have nukes, so don't think any conflict will take more than 10 minutes, it will end bad for you


That's where you are wrong...



> Hezbollah? Oh the one that proved that the Israeli soldiers had more kill and death ratio than any other country in an asymmetrical warfare, even though its generals were complete idiots which said "Go to there" and the next day "Go to there"? Your soldiers have nothing. Hell, your army is made of T72s, T62s and T55s/54s, you don't even have guided missile MLRS's, you still use S125, S75 and mostly rely on damn 2K12 Kub SA6 missiles!


Bullshit , that's the only group in the middle east that carved you...and showed to the world the value of the mighty Israeli army...



> You don't have any BMS system, no anti ballistic missile or cruise missile defense system, no ship missile defense systems, no jamming pods and mainly uses AK47s and 74s without any sights!


We don't have any those..just slingshots and olive sticks..


> Oh, and when was the last time the world heard of a glorious Algerian special forces operation?


Their last operation was capturing a rare striped hyena.



> And no, *I have no idea* what this article talks about


that's the only true thing , you said so far...


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> The Arab league is controlled by the Sauds, all her actions are decided and dictated by the Sauds using Egypt as a lampost. The Arab league is not the UN. and the Sunni forces, as it is called, will be used at Sauds will. Just look at Yemen. Tell me why your country and others like Morocco, participating in the Killing of Yemenis...Does Egypt was attacked by Yemen? No..Does Marocco feels aggressed by Yemen, the answer is still No. The answer is simple , the Sauds said jump, all the arab league states jumped, save a few which were immediately tagged of rafidis..
> 
> 
> While I may not like the ambitiousness of the Saudi government, that does not mean they support terrorists or enemies of North african countries.
> 
> The Sauds are the personalization of evil on earth. They destroyed every muslim country that doesn't follow them. I don't know that can say that with a straight face . Egyptians Lybians, Tunisians, Algerians and Moroccans lambda, all think the Arab League is no more than a Saudi stable. It shows that you don't even know your countrymen, unless you are not Egyptian, just another Saudi false flagger.



The reason why Egypt joined in the Yemen war is because Houthis are ARMED REBELS, they want to scrap the current government with violence, which is terrible. If Algeria had a group of citizens that openly declared war on the government would you not want help?

Every Muslim country that doesn't follow them? Then how come when Egyptian courts overruled the choice to sell the Saudis their Islands back, Egypt didn't erupt into civil war and NATO coalition bombings? Libya was bound to fall, their dictator while arguably nice and quite generous, he was going off the deep end. Iraq and Syria has nothing to do with the Saudis so I don't see how they ruined them, can we please keep this conversation from going to Conspiracy theories? 

Also I'm not a Saudi false flagger, if you call every north african person who doesn't hate Saudis a false flagger, no wonder your notorious. I recently visited Egypt to visit relatives and every person I asked wether they be my relative or just a family friend they didn't hate Saudi Arabia in fact the majority of average people I asked were impressed by the Saudis and how much they have progressed. The Arab league is essential to building a better middle east.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pts_m_h_2016

Ceylal said:


> View attachment 329724
> View attachment 329725
> 
> Guess who gave that headache. He and his aid were the only survivors...all his tank destroyed, all his troops, the best Israel ever had, killed...




That was done by Egyptians. 

Never have I seen anybodies as shameless as Berbers truly despicable pathetic liars low IQ sandfarming desert cults.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Ceylal said:


> View attachment 329724
> View attachment 329725
> 
> Guess who gave that headache. He and his aid were the only survivors...all his tank destroyed, all his troops, the best Israel ever had, killed...
> 
> You have no idea...what we reserve for Israel, if to comes to that...
> 
> That's where you are wrong...
> 
> 
> Bullshit , that's the only group in the middle east that carved you...and showed to the world the value of the mighty Israeli army...
> 
> 
> We don't have any those..just slingshots and olive sticks..
> 
> Their last operation was capturing a rare striped hyena.
> 
> 
> that's the only true thing , you said so far...


Guess who? The Egyptians of course, not you, you hid behind the Egyptians

Yeah, you too have no idea, my government knows and knows how to stop you.

No, this is not where I am wrong, even if you think that you have a nuclear weapon (And you don't) it wouldn't matter to our defense systems.

"Bullshit"? 
The Russians and Americans did worse against unorganized Taliban and Mujahedins, we did much better against Hezbollah and killed 6 Hezbollah members for every soldier that died on our side. Asymmetrical warfare is much harder.
I also like the fact that you just simply ignored my whole explanation about how old and useless your equipment is

You have absolutely nothing against us that could posses a threat, mostly because the one that is using and not only the equipment

Yes, I have no idea how to talk French, that's why I have no idea what it says


----------



## Ceylal

pts_m_h_2016 said:


> That was done by Egyptians.


Ask your owners, the Israelis.



> Never have I seen anybodies as shameless as Berbers truly despicable pathetic liars low IQ sandfarming desert cults.


Our history put yours to shame. And be careful what you say, you may need us to save your @ss from Angela. Toads , are just toads dixit Hitler.







.
*Vietnam









*


----------



## Ceylal




----------



## mike2000 is back

No country in the middle East and Muslim world can beat/defeat Israel militarily. Israel is far ahead of them in almost every field. This is a fact, not a discussion. The only country I can think of who will give Israel a run for its money is Turkey.



Ceylal said:


> Algeria participation in two wars along Egypt was for the Palestinian statehood..She didn't send her troops to visit the Pyramids and fish in the Suez canal. Palestine liberation is the only cause , where the Algerian Troops are allowed to operate beyond her borders.
> 
> 
> 
> You fought a world power with pitch fork and sickle...Like I said in my previous reply, Algeria has no complex toward Israel, Algerian troops battle twice with them, and they are able to do it again...The question you should ask yourself, is Israel is she capable to stand and fight Algeria? For the time being, Israel and Algerian are the only countries that can take war to their enemies, Turkey not included due to her being a NATO member.
> 
> 
> 
> They squandered their chance because the Arab state interference, where each Arab state become a important hinge for their freedom . The only thing they accomplished is to keep Arafat to sign a peace agreement with Barak during the Clinton administration. The Arab state are the cause of the Palestinian suffering, and them only them bare the calamities that Palestinians endure everyday.
> 
> 
> Just 40,000 troops..! All the arab forces are under the Saudi thumb, if the Sauds says jump, they will say how high, your eminence. Our borders problems , like Egypt's are coming from there..
> View attachment 329538
> 
> The Arab league meetings seen by North Africans..
> View attachment 329537



You as an Algerian,why are you ranting against Israel so much like the mullahs?lol 
I don't think Algeria ever had any conflict of interests with Israel. so I fail to understand your hatred. Lol 
If Algeria was so against Israel, why don't you attack/fight them directly then? Ranting and rhetoric never achieved anything(as I said before to the Iranians) . So its better to fit it out directly then instead if ranting every time like Kim Jung Un(o ly that Fat Kim at least attacks S.Korea directly at times) ,that way we can all settle this thing once and for all. Simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

EgyptianAmerican said:


> The reason why Egypt joined in the Yemen war is because Houthis are ARMED REBELS, they want to scrap the current government with violence, which is terrible. If Algeria had a group of citizens that openly declared war on the government would you not want help?


You are smarter than that! The Sauds bailed Egypt from a melt down to a tune of $20B, your not going to tell me that Egypt went to battle the houthis for democratic reason, just like Egypt, KSA and all the Arab states are a shining democraties...Egypt sent her army because she has no choice but to obey the Sauds..
Funny you mentioned Algeria. During the 90's, All the Arab states were behind the terrorist, and the one they weren't behind, closed their door to Algeria and followed the Sauds rules...That is a bad example you chose..my friends..No arab muslim helped US, save the UAE that transferred some military equipment they bought for them selves from Switzerland.
All the fighting, we did it alone with help from south Africa and domestic industries.. 



> Every Muslim country that doesn't follow them? Then how come when *Egyptian courts overruled the choice to sel*l the Saudis their Islands back


These isles have been transferred to Saudi Arabia, by Sissi for the Saudi promise to build a bridge between the Saudi Territory and Sinai. Sissi did that without even consulting his people. The reaction of the Egyptian court is a smoke screen , it had no bearing on the outcome.



> Egypt didn't erupt into civil war and NATO coalition bombings?


Egyptians remember the Tahrir square use of heavy machine guns and tanks, to subdue a peaceful popular gathering to show the its disapproval of overturning a legally elected government. Egypt is already at war with ISIS that the Sauds bankroll. And there is no need for NATO to bomb Egypt, since NATO is already present and anchored in Egypt.






> Libya was bound to fall, their dictator while arguably nice and quite generous, he was going off the deep end. Iraq and Syria has nothing to do with the Saudis so I don't see how they ruined them, can we please keep this conversation from going to Conspiracy theories?


Friend, you are in dire need to broaden your reading. Kaddaffy has'nt done what they accused of...They destabilised 
Libya, because of her wealth. France is known for that, she invaded Algeria for her treasury and keeps Western African country to this day for that same goal, but in a different manner.
Syria has a lot to do with the Sauds and the GCC, all that because oil and gas line easement that was refused to them by Assad.
For Iraq they are deeply involved due to the change of the leadership that went from a Sunni government to a Shia government, that the Sauds didn't digest well.



> Also I'm not a Saudi false flagger, if you call every north african person who doesn't hate Saudis a false flagger, no wonder *your notorious*.


My notoriety comes from my writing that Saudi PDF's and others don't particularly like. I have always been truthful, straight to points., I am not An arab hater or a racist like I am so often tagged. But I am not a Saudi lover( understand we are talking government not people) or any other Arab state leader , including the sitting biped that we have as president.


> I recently visited Egypt to visit relatives and every person I asked wether they be my relative or just a family friend they didn't hate Saudi Arabia in fact the majority of average people I asked were* impressed by the Saudis* and how much they have progressed.
> How is that? They came to Egypt and consider everyone who is not a Saud a wretch of the earth. And where ever they go moral filth follows them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab league is essential to building a better middle east.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab league is essential as tits in a wild boar. Tell one thing that Arab has done that positively benefited her members..
Click to expand...


----------



## Ceylal

mike2000 is back said:


> No country in the middle East and Muslim world can beat/defeat Israel militarily. Israel is far ahead of them in almost every field. This is a fact, not a discussion. The only country I can think of who will give Israel a run for its money is Turkey.


In truth, she won't be able to handle Turkey, because of its proximity.





> You as an Algerian,why are you ranting against Israel so much like the mullahs?lol


I am not ranting against Israel, I have just answered some hypothetical questions. I don't make think up...Israel and Algeria have a different political position in regard to Palestine and Palestinians. Algeria's has never weavered, and Israel's to. Are they enemies? I don't think so, they antagonise each other, but that where it stops.


> I don't think Algeria ever had any conflict of interests with Israel. so I fail to understand your* hatred*. Lol


Here we go again? aren't we allowed to discuss Israel without getting tagged as a hater or racist or anti semite? I don't hate Israel, the best friend I have in the US are jews..But I don't take kindly what they doing to the Palestinian, that is immoral and history won't be kind to her, since they themselves suffered undeniable suffering during the great war, yet they forgot all that and are doing the samething to others.


> If Algeria was so against Israel, why *don't you attack/fight them directly then*?


I don't why your so ennerved about a subject that was first hypothetical, second how it does affect you..If you have something to contribute, please be my guest.




> *Ranting* and *rhetoric* never achieved anything(as I said before to the Iranians) . So its better to fit it out directly then instead if ranting every time like Kim Jung Un(o ly that Fat Kim at least attacks S.Korea directly at times) ,that way we can all settle this thing once and for all. Simple.


Have you heard lately your politicians? You talk about Iran and North Korea, both countries have achieved some goals that unattainable if they were docile. Their ranting and rethoric payed off , since they were able to keep their respective unity intact and their country unmolested.


----------



## mike2000 is back

Ceylal said:


> In truth, she won't be able to handle Turkey, because of its proximity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not ranting against Israel, I have just answered some hypothetical questions. I don't make think up...Israel and Algeria have a different political position in regard to Palestine and Palestinians. Algeria's has never weavered, and Israel's to. Are they enemies? I don't think so, they antagonise each other, but that where it stops.
> 
> Here we go again? aren't we allowed to discuss Israel without getting tagged as a hater or racist or anti semite? I don't hate Israel, the best friend I have in the US are jews..But I don't take kindly what they doing to the Palestinian, that is immoral and history won't be kind to her, since they themselves suffered undeniable suffering during the great war, yet they forgot all that and are doing the samething to others.
> 
> I don't why your so ennerved about a subject that was first hypothetical, second how it does affect you..If you have something to contribute, please be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard lately your politicians? You talk about Iran and North Korea, both countries have achieved some goals that unattainable if they were docile. Their ranting and rethoric payed off , since they were able to keep their respective unity intact and their country unmolested.



Lool what have they achieved with their ranting and propaganda/rhetoric??
N.Korea is an impoverished third world country that the whole world and even the Chinese have given up on while their southern counterpart is one of the wealthiest and most advanced country in the world. Have you ever seen a N.Korean abroad and how the are even regarded compared to S.Korea (whose Citizens are highly regarded/respected around the globe).

Iran has suffered under sanctions which they could have avoided exactly because of their constant empty rant/rhetorics, so much so that most of its youth who should have been the future of the country are fleeing/immigrating to the west (under the guise of refugees/persecution) due to economic hardships and authoritarianism.
For a country their size they should be at least among the G20 like Turkey(who has almost 3 times Iran's economy, despite having no natural resources and similar population) yet they have one of the lowest nominal GDP and GDP per capital in the middle East. Actually Nigeria has a far bigger GDP/economy than Iran.  So I fail to see what their constant empty rants has achieved. They would still have maintained their unity like they have for over a century irregardless of the mullahs ranting or not. So I fail to see your point.

If anything both countries should be among the largest economic power and wealthiest country in the world. Especially Iran giving it's huge population/landmass and vast natural resources.


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Ceylal said:


> You are smarter than that! The Sauds bailed Egypt from a melt down to a tune of $20B, your not going to tell me that Egypt went to battle the houthis for democratic reason, just like Egypt, KSA and all the Arab states are a shining democraties...Egypt sent her army because she has no choice but to obey the Sauds..
> Funny you mentioned Algeria. During the 90's, All the Arab states were behind the terrorist, and the one they weren't behind, closed their door to Algeria and followed the Sauds rules...That is a bad example you chose..my friends..No arab muslim helped US, save the UAE that transferred some military equipment they bought for them selves from Switzerland.
> All the fighting, we did it alone with help from south Africa and domestic industries..




Egypt has to obey the Saudis? Since when? Houthi rebels are trying to overthrow the current government of Yemen, This is why Egypt has gotten involved, Egypt is not the lap dog of Saudi Arabia. 

Good for you,glad to know your country survived terrorism and continues too. But the Current Yemen government requires that help, Yemen is simply not as advanced or as rich as Algeria.



Ceylal said:


> These isles have been transferred to Saudi Arabia, by Sissi for the Saudi promise to build a bridge between the Saudi Territory and Sinai. Sissi did that without even consulting his people. The reaction of the Egyptian court is a smoke screen , it had no bearing on the outcome.




The Egyptian people like the Idea of a bridge between Saudi Arabia and Egypt and since when does the Egyptian people need to be consulted for every single project? There was no popular vote for the building of the 2nd Suez Canal. The Egyptian courts have a lot of power, to wipe them away would be a very dumb thing to do. 



Ceylal said:


> Friend, you are in dire need to broaden your reading. Kaddaffy has'nt done what they accused of...They destabilised
> Libya, because of her wealth. France is known for that, she invaded Algeria for her treasury and keeps Western African country to this day for that same goal, but in a different manner.
> Syria has a lot to do with the Sauds and the GCC, all that because oil and gas line easement that was refused to them by Assad.
> For Iraq they are deeply involved due to the change of the leadership that went from a Sunni government to a Shia government, that the Sauds didn't digest well.




Gaddafi while did a great many things like support black-rights and civil movements and end apartheid in South Africa but he did do a great many bad things, Like fund radical groups and terrorists that still kill people to this day, I do not care about NATO propaganda. 


ISIS is not bankrolled by Saudi Arabia considering they attacked Saudi Arabia many times including the borders of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Syrian rebels are bankrolled by America because they want to spread "democracy"



Ceylal said:


> My notoriety comes from my writing that Saudi PDF's and others don't particularly like. I have always been truthful, straight to points., I am not An arab hater or a racist like I am so often tagged. But I am not a Saudi lover( understand we are talking government not people) or any other Arab state leader , including the sitting biped that we have as president.




I don't like the Saudi Government either but I'm willing to acknowledge the rights and goods it does just like Gaddafi. The Saudi government has done a LOT for it's fellow muslim countries without them Egypt would literally be torn apart from economic ruin and lack of political stability this is a truth. The Saudi government while having it's faults with Yemen and over ambitious princes who step wayyyyyy out of line, is actually pretty good government but I would honestly prefer if they actually showed some progress of being Tech,Scientifically,and Militarily independent.


Saudis I'm pretty sure don't hate everyone who isn't Saudi guessing by the Saudi members they actually seem quite nice and intelligent. 


Also the Arab league has done great things

for example

"
April 23, 2006 - Arab League Spokesman Hisham Yusif announces that the organization has promised to transfer $50 million to the Hamas-governed Palestinian Authority. This is in reaction the United States and European Union cutting off direct funding to the Hamas-led government that assumed power March 30."


It just takes time to truly see the real changes the Arab league has brought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saynow

topic is all about changing history and how you look at it 
but lets look now to what happening 
we are winning we got our terroritory 
and they suported by us and nato and so much money 
but we are winning

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

Amun said:


> Here it is
> View attachment 314767


BTW, the CIA says these are EGYPTIAN soldiers, not Israelis!


----------



## The SC

Ceylal said:


> You are smarter than that! The Sauds bailed Egypt from a melt down to a tune of $20B, your not going to tell me that Egypt went to battle the houthis for democratic reason, just like Egypt, KSA and all the Arab states are a shining democraties...Egypt sent her army because she has no choice but to obey the Sauds..
> .


You forgot one important point, that the US wanted a way out of the Middle East and that created a void clearly filled by the GCC and Egypt, Sudan..,etc in Yemen, The Russians and the Iranians in Syria, and the Iranians again in Iraq.. So this is much bigger than what is believed and propagated by the ignorant media..
By the way the 20 billion$ loan or investment in Egypt was more for stimulating the Egyptian economy than bailing it out, it was also in KSA interest to do so..


----------



## Amun

Solomon2 said:


> BTW, the CIA says these are EGYPTIAN soldiers, not Israelis!


That's a nice one man


----------



## The SC

The title of the thread is totally false: the thing is, the Arabs have lost some battles, but they never lost a war.. besides that, since 1948 they were always fighting world powers ganging up on them and disguised as Usrael..
The only real war was the Ramadan war in 1973 Where they fought the US openly through its proxy Usrael and they won big time.. They have trapped the Bulge of the Usraeli Army on the West side of Sinai, and ultimately they got back the Sinai peninsula, while on the Syrian front, a political decision had the Syrian armed divisions to stop its advance, because in reality they were about 20 km from the bridges that separated Usrael from the Golan heights and they controlled the heights, but a wide guess is that they wanted to give Usrael a lesson in warfare and that what has happened, they were told to get back around 40 or more km and they let the IDF advance where they had a fight for their lives..



P.S: I am not here to argue with anyone on these matters, I have stated enough facts in this thread, that are mostly open knowledge for the ones who seek the truth genuinely..


----------



## fatman17

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??



Fat Generals.


----------



## Solomon2

Amun said:


> That's a nice one man


You can laugh but as an American I'm upset. At the very least I'd expect the CIA to have the wit to read the insignia on the uniforms but _noooo....._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ceylal

The SC said:


> You forgot one important point, that the US wanted a way out of the Middle East and that created a void clearly filled by the GCC and Egypt, Sudan..,etc in Yemen, The Russians and the Iranians in Syria, and the Iranians again in Iraq.. So this is much bigger than what is believed and propagated by the ignorant media..
> By the way the 20 billion$ loan or investment in Egypt was more for stimulating the Egyptian economy than bailing it out, it was also in KSA interest to do so..


First of all, the US will never a strategic area as the middle east. For you to say that they wanted the void created by their exit to be filled by Egypt, KSA, Sudan its an oxymoron. Egypt and KSA both need the US for their internal stability and security and Sudan is living on Saudi stipend.
The $20B Saudi is a bailout anyway you dice it..Without them Egypt would have sinked in a civil war. For the Saud nothing is free, they just bought themselves a country with its army.


----------



## The SC

Ceylal said:


> First of all, the US will never a strategic area as the middle east. For you to say that they wanted the void created by their exit to be filled by Egypt, KSA, Sudan its an oxymoron. Egypt and KSA both need the US for their internal stability and security and Sudan is living on Saudi stipend.
> The $20B Saudi is a bailout anyway you dice it..Without them Egypt would have sinked in a civil war. For the Saud nothing is free, they just bought themselves a country with its army.


You can just refer to the latest Egyptian stance on Syria, that alone voids your claims of a bailout.. 
The US handed Yemen to SA and its Arab coalition, and its presence in Syria is at its minimum, add to this the coming of Trump and you might get a clearer picture instead of writing from your wishful thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ceylal

The SC said:


> You can just refer to the latest Egyptian stance on Syria


First of all, Egyptians are not in Syria, they have never been sighted in Syria and the Egyptian government denied sending troops or its desire to be involved in Syria, citing her non intervention in Arab states internal affair



The SC said:


> The US handed Yemen to SA and its Arab coalition


The US didn't hand Yemen to the GCC and its Arab coalition, they were more likely drawn into the war to protect its arms industry and their weaponry from being denatured by the Sauds and their suites of incapable Sunnis armies..



The SC said:


> the coming of Trump and you might get a clearer picture instead of writing from your wishful thinking.


Trumps will follow the same stance and the same politics than his predecessors. The little difference is he is going to join the Russians and the Syrians and fight ISIS like it was intended and make the Sauds and the GCC as well as Europe to pay to play. Under his presidency, the US will no longueur shoulder the high price of keeping the peace. Everything else you said, shows that you need to brush up in world politics and specially that of the middle east.


----------



## Muhammed45

Because Arabs were not united and some of them had accepted loss in coordination with UK's monarchy including Jordan and KSA. These countries stabbed Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in the back. In fact Saudis helped greater Israel.
Saudi kingdom has a long history of betrayal and stabbing Muslim countries. Attacking Sunnis and ShiAs of Yemen, helping Israel to massacre Palestinians and Lebanese people are the witness of their betrayal.
It's unfair if i don't say that our witless king of Pahlavi morons and traitors helped Israel. Thank God we kicked that stooge of UK's monarchy out of our country. It's almost 40 years we are waiting on the rise of our Arabic Muslim brothers.


----------



## The SC

Ceylal said:


> First of all, Egyptians are not in Syria, they have never been sighted in Syria and the Egyptian government denied sending troops or its desire to be involved in Syria, citing her non intervention in Arab states internal affair
> 
> 
> The US didn't hand Yemen to the GCC and its Arab coalition, they were more likely drawn into the war to protect its arms industry and their weaponry from being denatured by the Sauds and their suites of incapable Sunnis armies..
> 
> 
> Trumps will follow the same stance and the same politics than his predecessors. The little difference is he is going to join the Russians and the Syrians and fight ISIS like it was intended and make the Sauds and the GCC as well as Europe to pay to play. Under his presidency, the US will no longueur shoulder the high price of keeping the peace. Everything else you said, shows that you need to brush up in world politics and specially that of the middle east.


Your last sentence applies more to you than to anyone else.. I was talking about the Egyptian stance at the UN where they have supported both the French and the Russian proposals.. and you answer with the Egyptian military presence in Syria that is nil and was denied many times by Egypt officials all over the place.. the guess is that you get bits of information from here and there and miss the real picture ..like the one who wants to hit a tree and misses the whole forest..

Your second point is as false as your whole post; the US was fighting in Yemen years before the Saudi intervention.and as for now they have no presence in there..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

Why Arabs lost all wars to lsrael, only one reason - fat generals -.


----------



## Timur

fatman17 said:


> Why Arabs lost all wars to lsrael, only one reason - fat generals -.




because of their nationalism.. they went to war with nationalism and the thought of being superior because of that..


----------



## Hell NO

Arabs never had the upper hand in any conflict with Israel. Israel always had a numerical or/and technological superiority and full support from western countries in every single conflict.


----------



## SALMAN F

Tge only arabs are in the Arabian peninsula its wrong to call it an arab israeli conflict rather than Palestinian israel conflict along with Syria Jordan and Egypt all of them ara not arabs but Arabized countries


----------



## BHarwana

Because arabs buy weapons and they don't develop them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

Dictatorship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

Timur said:


> because of their nationalism.. they went to war with nationalism and the thought of being superior because of that..


Bcuz of their foolish belief that their overwhelming numbers will defeat israels small army but it was the zionist nationalism that defeated the fat Arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bdslph

we are still in to this hahaahaha we all know why arabs countries lost
they was not well trained no clear cut plan ill equip bad weapons etc...
dictatorship was also some reasons

yes israhel did well and they won but now they occupy a lot of land illegally because of this 
and they will more and no arab nation has the guts balls to fight again until now and they will not win still


----------



## Timur

fatman17 said:


> Bcuz of their foolish belief that their overwhelming numbers will defeat israels small army but it was the zionist nationalism that defeated the fat Arabs.



not fat national superior thought... I know you wanna disgrace them but allah disgraced and belittled those who searched for other izzah than islam..


----------



## fatman17

Timur said:


> not fat national superior thought... I know you wanna disgrace them but allah disgraced and belittled those who searched for other izzah than islam..


Has nothing to do with religion please

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

*1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all*


They Said about the War


*Introduction*

The October 1973 War, a radical turning-point in the course of Arab-Israeli conflict, has evoked interest by

military leaders, strategists, research and study centers and media around the world. This is due to the fact that

this war had had far-reaching repercussions and impact on the Middle East region, not only on the military and

strategic level but also on the overall political and economic life of the world as a whole. Statements by

contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and

objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major

strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of

a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October

1973 War.


*Israeli Testimonies*

*Reporting Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister during October War*:

The Egyptians crossed the canal and hit hard our forces in Sinai. The Syrians pushed deep into the Golan Heights. We

incurred grave losses on both fronts. The agonizing question at that time was should we or should we not inform the

nation of the truth about the bad situation?!.
In writing on the Yom Kippur War (October war) - not as a military report- but as a close-by disaster or a horrible

nightmare that I myself have suffered from and will continue to haunt me throughout my life.

*Reporting Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister during October War:*

The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians. The halo of supremacy and the political and military

premise that Israel is stronger than the Arabs; that they would be defeated should they dare to start war did not

hold true. It was theory that it would take them the whole night to erect bridges, which we could prevent, using our

armored vehicles. But it turned out that it was not easy to prevent them. Our exercise to send tanks to the battle

front was very costly. We have never expected that.
(Press Conference, October 9, 1973)

The October War was an earthquake that hit Israel. What happened in this war has removed dust off our eyes,

revealing to us what we could not see before. All this led to a change in the mentality of Israeli leaders.
(Statements by Dayan, December 1973)

*Reporting Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister during October War:*

Many changes have taken place since October 6,1973. We should, therefore, not overestimate Israel military

supremacy. On the contrary, there is now an overwhelming sense in Israel of the need to review national rhetoric. We

have to keep away from hyperboles and be more realistic. (November 1973)

*Reporting Aharon Yarev, Former Director of Israeli Intelligence:*

Undoubtedly, the Arabs came out of the war victorious, while we, in terms of image and feeling, came out torn out

and weak. When asked if he won the war, Sadat replied, "Look at what is going on in Israel after the war and you

will know the answer to this question".
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem,September 16, 1974)

*Reporting Haim Hertzog, Former Head of the State of Israel:*

The October war ended up in a major shock to all Israelis. Moshe Dayan is no longer the same man before. Since then

he has been bent on himself. He has always had the conviction that he would not and could not afford to attack. Even

amidst Egyptian infiltration, Dayan did not admit his miscalculations.
He turned into a sort of a Hamlet, torn out by suspicion, reluctance, and inability to take decision or impose his

will. That was the beginning of fall for labour governments which has ruled Israel for 25 years until then.

Similarly the war has caused conceptual changes in the mentality of Israeli leadership, who started looking for a

new approach and a realistic policy of dealing with the problem through political solutions.
(From the Memoirs of Haim Hertzog)

Before October 6, we used to talk too much, this was one of our problems. While the Egyptians learned how to fight,

we learned how to talk. They were patient and their statements were more realistic than ours. They were telling and

announcing facts so fully that the external world seemed to trust their statements.
(Comments by Hertzog, November 1973)

*Reporting Nahom Goldman , Former Head of Jewish Agency:*

One of the most significant results of October 1973 War was that it put an end to the myth of an invincible Israel

and its progressive supremacy over the Arabs.This also cost Israel a high price; about $ 5 billion. It caused a

radical change to the economic position of the Jewish Agency, which dropped from a state of boom experienced a year

earlier (albeit not firmly grounded as it seemed) to an extremely deep, and ever more intensive and serious crisis.

The most serious result was that which affected the psychological side.
Gone was the Israelis' confidence in their sustained supremacy. Their internal morale was tremendously weakened,

which is the most serious thing that can face a nation, particularly Israel. This weakness was embodied into two

contradictory forms, which led to an extremely serious polarization of Israel. On the one hand, there were some

people who began to question the future of Israel. On the other, increasing fanaticism and hard-line trends were

visible, leading to what was called "Massada Complex".
The citadel, where the Jews took refuge during the Jewish rebellion movement against the Roman Empire, but never

surrendered and all died).
Reporting "Whereto Israel"

*Reporting Israeli General Ishio Javitch:
*
If we assess achievements against targets, we will find out that the Arabs' victory was more decisive. I should

admit that the Arabs have achieved a very large part of their objectives. They proved capable of surmounting the

fear barrier; got into war and fought efficiently. They also proved capable of forcing their way into the Suez Canal

barrier. For Israel, the war ultimately ended without being able to break up Arab armies. We scored no victories. We

could not back the Egyptian nor the Syrian army. Nor could we succeed in restoring the deterrent power to the

Israeli army. To our great sorrow, they snatched the canal out of our grips with the force of arms.
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16, 1974)

*Reporting Amnon Kapelock, Israeli Military Commentator:*

The English proverb says, "The higher the rise the more severe is the fall". On October 6, Israel fell off the top

of the tower of peace and tranquility it had built up for itself.

The shock was as strong and impressive as prior illusions. It seemed as though the Israelis had waked up from a

lengthy, sweet dream to see a long lists of self-evident truth, and indisputable principles, illusions and facts

they had believed in for several years, shaken and sometimes shattered down by a new, unexpected fact,

ununderstandable to most Israelis.

From the perspective of a plain Israeli, the October War can have more than one name such as; war of recovery from a hangover , collapse of legends , end of illusions , a death of sacred heifers .

Following prior wars, prestigious military parades were often conducted in the Independence Day, where the public

viewed war booty captured from the enemy. On the contrary, this time a large exhibition was made in Cairo, two

months after the war, where the public viewed tanks, guns, military vehicles and many Israeli weapons captured from the enemy during the war.

On prior occasions, soldiers returned home in a flurry of happiness and pride. However, this time, returning

soldiers were gripped with sadness and consternation. Many had to frequent the psychiatric section of the Army's

Medical Department, for treatment from "combat shock".

"Israel: End of a Myth"

*Reporting Zaev Schev, Israeli Military Commentator:*

This is the first war for the Israeli army, where many soldiers suffering combat shock and needing psychiatric

treatment were treated. Some of them forgot their own names and had to refer to hospitals.

Israel was stunned by the Arabs' success in waging a surprise war on Yum Kippur and scoring military successes. 

This war has proved that Israel has to reassess the Arab warrior. This time, Israel has paid a very high price.

The October War has shaken Israel from top to bottom. Instead of overconfidence, suspicions emerged and questions surfaced to the top; should we live for ever on our own devastation? Could we possible stand any other wars?! 
"The October Earthquake: Yum Kippur War"

*Reporting Israeli Professor Shimon Shamir:*

I can list for the Arabs five important achievements:

First: They managed to affect a change in the US political strategy that was unfavour to Israel.

Second: They succeeded in making the military option happen, thus imposing such efforts on Israel that overburdened its resources and economy.

Third: They managed to achieve a high level of Arab cooperation in both the military and economic fields,

particularly as they restored to the oil weapon in October.

Fourth: Egypt could regain the power of free manoeuvring among major powers, which it lost ten years ago.

Fifth: The Arabs could change their own image; freeing themselves from the 1967 shock, and becoming more capable of hard work.
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16,1974)

*Reporting Yussi Belin, Member of the Knesset and Labour Party Leader:*

The tension that prevailed in the Labor Party in 1973 had crippled the Party, making it unable to take a decision to

enter into peace negotiations with the Arabs. This led to the failure of Junnar Jaring's mission of mediation

between Egypt and Israel. The result was the outbreak of the Yum Kippur War (October) the end of tenure by the Lbour Party and consequently a Right-Left equivalence of power, which has until now characterized Israel's political

system. Unless an independent leader will have emerged in Israel up to May 4, 1999 ( the date set for declaring a

Palestinian State), it would be difficult to prevent the coming disaster from taking place ( following the October

1973 and Intifada 1987 disasters).


*Testimonies by International Experts*

*Reporting American military historian Trevor Dubuoy, Chairman, Hero Foundation for Scientific Assessment of Historical Battles:*

As a result of honorable fighting waged by both Egyptian and Syrian armies, the Arabs restored their own pride and

self-confidence, which led to the reinforcement of Arab influence on the international arena in general.

Strategically and politically speaking, there is no doubt that Egypt has won the war.

With the professional planning and performance whereby the crossing process was accomplished, no other army in the world could have done better. This precise work on the part of the general staff, particularly the element of

surprise already achieved, resulted in remarkable success in crossing the Suez Canal on a wide front.

The Israel Intelligence categorically failed, as military intelligence activity concentrated on antagonist

capabilities, being out of reckoning. Miscalculation of Arab capabilities gave rise to misconceptions of Arab

intentions.

On the other hand, greater credit should be given to Arab security and confidentiality, whereby facts were

adequately screened to re-affirm prior Israeli misconceptions.

While the Egyptians waged maritime war essentially through a strategic approach, the Israeli waged it through a

tactical one. The Egyptian had imposed a successful siege on shipping traffic to Ilat sea-port by closing down Bab

al-Mandab Strait. Their Mediterranean siege seemed to prevent neutral and Israeli ships from approaching the Israeli

coast. On the southern front, Israeli attempts to destroy Egyptian air bases in the Nile Delta categorically failed

thanks to the effective Egyptian air defense.

The Israeli also decided to attempt seizure of the city of Suez. Although their tanks infiltrated into the heart of

the city, yet resistance was so severe that they had pull back after being inflicted with heavy losses.

(International Symposium on October War, Cairo, October 27-31, 1975)

*Reporting British military historian Edger O'Balance:*

For Israel, the October War has caused an "all-out" change in strategy. It was forcefully ejected from an offensive

to a defensive position. Since its inception, Israel has adopted an offensive military position. The Israeli general

staff have never cared to contemplate a defensive position.
The Israeli soldier has realized that defense is now vital for his own survival. Conventional defense, which Israel

had, for long before the war, vaingloriously looked upon, became acceptable as a military necessity for the

protection of Israeli borders.

After the marvelous military operations achieved by the old Islamic conquests and the Crusades, the prestige of the

Arab soldier has continually diminished in western eyes, due to varying reasons beyond his control. In this context,

Israel has intensified its publicity, until it was surprised in the October 1973 War with Arab soldiers shattering

their fetters, defeating Israelis, capturing hundreds of them, downing hundreds of their craft, destroying hundreds

of their tanks. In a nutshell, Arab soldiers shattered the myth of invincible Israeli supremacy. What holds true for

the Arabs in Napoleon's saying, "The ratio of marble to military equipment is three to one"
(Ibid)

*Reporting General Varar Huckly, Combat Development Director, British Army:*

The lessons learned from October War relate to personnel and their capabilities more than the machinery they

operate. The impressive achievement made by the Egyptians is the genius and skills of leaders and officers who were trained and waged such an offensive that came as a total surprise to the other party, albeit effected within its

sight. As a complement, the soldiers demonstrated such high morale and audacity that would have been, in the past, impossible.
(Ibid)

*Reporting French General Albert Merglain:*

All military experts and political officials were confident that Arabs would never succeed in taking the Israeli

army by surprise. Contrary to what happened in October War, justifying evidence were many and varied. First, there

was extreme confidence in Israeli intelligence services, which were said to be some of the best in the world,

particularly as it was known to all that the American special agencies were closely related to them.

US reconnaissance planes and satellites could shoot all the depth of Arab rear area. Such favourable conditions for

monitoring antagonist fronts combined could hardly exist. Therefore, the element of surprise was excluded,

particularly, as the man-made barrier of the Suez Canal protects the Israeli front line and allows easy and

effective resistance. The Arab surprise came at 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973. Contrary to negative assertions by all

politicians, military experts, pressmen and specialists everywhere, the unexpected took place.
(Ibid)

*Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux:*

Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on

October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from 

Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has 

turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies.
Painful Days in Israel


*Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*

The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in

imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements

making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of

equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a

loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior

Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this

time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured

their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started

exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later

accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive

military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the

Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis

saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
The Gun and Olive Branch

*World Media and Press Reports*

As the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, cutting through the Bar lev-line, the October war changed the course of history both for Egypt and the entire Middle East.
(Daily Telegraph October 7, 1973)

The image of the Arab fighter in the aftermath of 1967 War as presented by world press was totally negative, giving
the impression that a successful military confrontation on the part of the Arab fighter was impossible due to
Israel's military strength.
Accordingly, one can understand the extent of change occurring after the Arab fighter has proved his presence and
capabilities and how the world press has conveyed such change to world public opinion.
(The Times, October 7, 1973)

The Egyptians and Syrians are demonstrating high efficiency, organization and courage. The Arabs have scored a
psychological victory that will have its psychological impact. The retention by the Egyptian of the east bank of the
canal is a tremendous, unprecedented victory, whereby Israeli illusions that the Arabs were unfit for war have been
shattered.
( Washington Post, October 10, 1973 )

Last week was one of chastisement and torture for Israel. Obviously, Arab armies are fighting with strength, courage and determination.
The Israelis were grouped with sadness and depression as they found out that the war cost them heavily and that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, as they had been told, unable to fight.
(Financial Times, October 11, 1973)

Obviously, the Arabs are fighting with unparalleled valour. Definitely, their fierce fighting had a considerable
role in their victories. At the same time, the Israelis were generally afflicted by a feeling of depression upon
their agonizing discovery -which cost them a lot- that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, in reality, helpless
soldiers. There were indications that the Israelis were retreating all through in front of the progressing Egyptian
and Syrian faces.
( The Times, October 11, 1973)

It was quite clear that the Israelis had lost initiative in this war. This was admitted by their leaders, including
General Shlomo Jonin, commander of southern front in Sinai, who said, "this is the most difficult war fought by
Israel since its inception in 1948"
(Sun, October 12, 1973)

The secure borders theory adopted for expansionist purposes by Israel since its inception up till now has been
totally shattered. Israel military mentality must change in the light of October War. This time a psychological myth
has been shattered. Israel should, from now on, give up the notion that its security can be realized by merely
occupying land.
( Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1973)

This war has eliminated the feeling of humiliation for the Arab and injured Israel's pride
(Daily Mail, October 12, 1973)

The Egyptian and Syrian troops caught the Israeli leadership stark naked. It was only after three days that the
Israeli leadership could mobilize adequate reserve troop to address the situation. The Israeli public opinion was
sleeping on the conviction that its intelligence services were the most efficient, its army the strongest. Now the
public opinion in Israel wants to know what happened and why. The question circulated by everybody in Tel-Aviv now is why the Israeli leadership had not been aware before hand of Egypt and Syria's plans?
(United Press Agency correspondent from Tel-Aviv, October 12, 1973)

The October War has shattered the security borders theory as understood by Tel-Aviv rulers. The war has proved that Israel's security cannot be guaranteed by tanks and missiles but rather by a peaceful, equitable settlement agreed by the Arab states.
(L'Humanite, October 17, 1973)

The Arabs are waging an equitable struggle. The Arabs are fighting in defense of their rights. If one fights in
defense of his land against an aggressor, he is waging a war of liberation. But to fight in order to continue to
occupy others' land is blatant aggression.
(Zeitung of German Democratic Republic, October 19, 1973)

Egypt has caught up with and even outstripped Israel in the field of missiles and electronics.
(The Observer, October 20, 1973)

The Israelis have faced a foe that was far ahead of it in everything, prepared for an extended war of attrition.
Israel has at the same time faced a foe with better training and more skilled leadership.
(Associated Press, October 20, 1973)

Today, a feeling of sadness and depression prevails in Israel. The number of prisoners of war returning from Egypt
was more than expected. This means that many lost their lives.
(Jewish Chronicle, Britain, November 23, 1973)

Israeli soldiers fled breathless from the Bar-lev line, with soiled bodies and pale faces. Flocks of them fled the
hell opened against them by the sweeping Egyptian onslaught.
(Anna Bella (Italy) October 30,1973 )

Before the October War, the country was pervaded by wrong feelings; the feeling of our hawks of overwhelming
military supremacy. Such conviction has led them into a military reassurance purporting that: "We'll cut them into
pieces, should they dare to snap a finger at us.
(Al Hamishmar, Israeli Newspaper, October 29, 1973)

Al Ferdan east of the Suez Canal was the first site captured by the Egyptian troops. Then, the Egyptian scored their
greatest victories, restoring their land since the first day. Their faces showed signs of pride and victory along
the Bar-Lev line, which fell apart in front of them. Thus irreversibly gone was the Israeli Bar-Lev line.
(The Times, October 31, 1973)

The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who
suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of
ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation
during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out.
(Haarts, November 2, 1973)

General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the
occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it.
(Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973)

Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even
failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during
our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing.
(Haarts, November 18, 1973)

The Egyptian navy during the October War outstripped the Israeli navy, particularly in the field of missiles.
(Defense Nationale (French Magazine), November 8, 1973)

The negligence committed in the Yum Kippur War led to the rise of a protest movement led by an Ishiknazi citizen,
calling for investigating causes of the defeat of Israeli army in the war. These investigations led to the fall of
officials responsible for such negligence. Following the assassination of former premier Yshaac Rabin, a new
movement called Peace Generation emerged. This new movement led by Tal Zilberstein calls for the continuation of the peace process with Palestinians.
Both movements are in agreement on the prediction that a revolution, which will erupt from the heart of Israel
street, is in the way.
(Maaref, Israeli Newspaper, September 20, 1998)

The alarm risen sounded at 1.50 p.m. October 6, 1973, in its own connotation, was more than a mere alarm cautioning Israeli citizens to come down to underground shelters. It was rather the outcry reiterated upon burial of the dead. At that time the deceased was the first Israeli republic. When the war was over, the count was restarted and a new history began. After a quarter century from the rise of the State of Israel the pillars and underpinnings of old Israel were turned into a wreckage stranded on road side.

http://www.sis.gov.eg/newvr/october/english/4.htm



*The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:*

1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers,

and it was blocked with the start of the war.

2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all

around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting

soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going

to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter

attack.

3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez

canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their

supply lines were stretched for a long distance.

4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air

Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too

embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in

the sources.

5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.

6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an american plane spotted

it.

7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main forces

were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also

running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!


Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf

Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/

Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm

*After what is clearly stated in these testimonies from both Usraelis and non Usraelis, only the blind or analphabets will still believe that Arabs lose wars, as the riddled with malice title of this thread implies.. Actually the 1973 war has changed the world. one likes it or not *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

The SC said:


> *1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all*
> 
> 
> They Said about the War
> 
> 
> *Introduction*
> 
> The October 1973 War, a radical turning-point in the course of Arab-Israeli conflict, has evoked interest by
> 
> military leaders, strategists, research and study centers and media around the world. This is due to the fact that
> 
> this war had had far-reaching repercussions and impact on the Middle East region, not only on the military and
> 
> strategic level but also on the overall political and economic life of the world as a whole. Statements by
> 
> contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and
> 
> objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major
> 
> strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of
> 
> a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October
> 
> 1973 War.
> 
> 
> *Israeli Testimonies*
> 
> *Reporting Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister during October War*:
> 
> The Egyptians crossed the canal and hit hard our forces in Sinai. The Syrians pushed deep into the Golan Heights. We
> 
> incurred grave losses on both fronts. The agonizing question at that time was should we or should we not inform the
> 
> nation of the truth about the bad situation?!.
> In writing on the Yom Kippur War (October war) - not as a military report- but as a close-by disaster or a horrible
> 
> nightmare that I myself have suffered from and will continue to haunt me throughout my life.
> 
> *Reporting Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister during October War:*
> 
> The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians. The halo of supremacy and the political and military
> 
> premise that Israel is stronger than the Arabs; that they would be defeated should they dare to start war did not
> 
> hold true. It was theory that it would take them the whole night to erect bridges, which we could prevent, using our
> 
> armored vehicles. But it turned out that it was not easy to prevent them. Our exercise to send tanks to the battle
> 
> front was very costly. We have never expected that.
> (Press Conference, October 9, 1973)
> 
> The October War was an earthquake that hit Israel. What happened in this war has removed dust off our eyes,
> 
> revealing to us what we could not see before. All this led to a change in the mentality of Israeli leaders.
> (Statements by Dayan, December 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister during October War:*
> 
> Many changes have taken place since October 6,1973. We should, therefore, not overestimate Israel military
> 
> supremacy. On the contrary, there is now an overwhelming sense in Israel of the need to review national rhetoric. We
> 
> have to keep away from hyperboles and be more realistic. (November 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Aharon Yarev, Former Director of Israeli Intelligence:*
> 
> Undoubtedly, the Arabs came out of the war victorious, while we, in terms of image and feeling, came out torn out
> 
> and weak. When asked if he won the war, Sadat replied, "Look at what is going on in Israel after the war and you
> 
> will know the answer to this question".
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem,September 16, 1974)
> 
> *Reporting Haim Hertzog, Former Head of the State of Israel:*
> 
> The October war ended up in a major shock to all Israelis. Moshe Dayan is no longer the same man before. Since then
> 
> he has been bent on himself. He has always had the conviction that he would not and could not afford to attack. Even
> 
> amidst Egyptian infiltration, Dayan did not admit his miscalculations.
> He turned into a sort of a Hamlet, torn out by suspicion, reluctance, and inability to take decision or impose his
> 
> will. That was the beginning of fall for labour governments which has ruled Israel for 25 years until then.
> 
> Similarly the war has caused conceptual changes in the mentality of Israeli leadership, who started looking for a
> 
> new approach and a realistic policy of dealing with the problem through political solutions.
> (From the Memoirs of Haim Hertzog)
> 
> Before October 6, we used to talk too much, this was one of our problems. While the Egyptians learned how to fight,
> 
> we learned how to talk. They were patient and their statements were more realistic than ours. They were telling and
> 
> announcing facts so fully that the external world seemed to trust their statements.
> (Comments by Hertzog, November 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Nahom Goldman , Former Head of Jewish Agency:*
> 
> One of the most significant results of October 1973 War was that it put an end to the myth of an invincible Israel
> 
> and its progressive supremacy over the Arabs.This also cost Israel a high price; about $ 5 billion. It caused a
> 
> radical change to the economic position of the Jewish Agency, which dropped from a state of boom experienced a year
> 
> earlier (albeit not firmly grounded as it seemed) to an extremely deep, and ever more intensive and serious crisis.
> 
> The most serious result was that which affected the psychological side.
> Gone was the Israelis' confidence in their sustained supremacy. Their internal morale was tremendously weakened,
> 
> which is the most serious thing that can face a nation, particularly Israel. This weakness was embodied into two
> 
> contradictory forms, which led to an extremely serious polarization of Israel. On the one hand, there were some
> 
> people who began to question the future of Israel. On the other, increasing fanaticism and hard-line trends were
> 
> visible, leading to what was called "Massada Complex".
> The citadel, where the Jews took refuge during the Jewish rebellion movement against the Roman Empire, but never
> 
> surrendered and all died).
> Reporting "Whereto Israel"
> 
> *Reporting Israeli General Ishio Javitch:
> *
> If we assess achievements against targets, we will find out that the Arabs' victory was more decisive. I should
> 
> admit that the Arabs have achieved a very large part of their objectives. They proved capable of surmounting the
> 
> fear barrier; got into war and fought efficiently. They also proved capable of forcing their way into the Suez Canal
> 
> barrier. For Israel, the war ultimately ended without being able to break up Arab armies. We scored no victories. We
> 
> could not back the Egyptian nor the Syrian army. Nor could we succeed in restoring the deterrent power to the
> 
> Israeli army. To our great sorrow, they snatched the canal out of our grips with the force of arms.
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16, 1974)
> 
> *Reporting Amnon Kapelock, Israeli Military Commentator:*
> 
> The English proverb says, "The higher the rise the more severe is the fall". On October 6, Israel fell off the top
> 
> of the tower of peace and tranquility it had built up for itself.
> 
> The shock was as strong and impressive as prior illusions. It seemed as though the Israelis had waked up from a
> 
> lengthy, sweet dream to see a long lists of self-evident truth, and indisputable principles, illusions and facts
> 
> they had believed in for several years, shaken and sometimes shattered down by a new, unexpected fact,
> 
> ununderstandable to most Israelis.
> 
> From the perspective of a plain Israeli, the October War can have more than one name such as; war of recovery from a hangover , collapse of legends , end of illusions , a death of sacred heifers .
> 
> Following prior wars, prestigious military parades were often conducted in the Independence Day, where the public
> 
> viewed war booty captured from the enemy. On the contrary, this time a large exhibition was made in Cairo, two
> 
> months after the war, where the public viewed tanks, guns, military vehicles and many Israeli weapons captured from the enemy during the war.
> 
> On prior occasions, soldiers returned home in a flurry of happiness and pride. However, this time, returning
> 
> soldiers were gripped with sadness and consternation. Many had to frequent the psychiatric section of the Army's
> 
> Medical Department, for treatment from "combat shock".
> 
> "Israel: End of a Myth"
> 
> *Reporting Zaev Schev, Israeli Military Commentator:*
> 
> This is the first war for the Israeli army, where many soldiers suffering combat shock and needing psychiatric
> 
> treatment were treated. Some of them forgot their own names and had to refer to hospitals.
> 
> Israel was stunned by the Arabs' success in waging a surprise war on Yum Kippur and scoring military successes.
> 
> This war has proved that Israel has to reassess the Arab warrior. This time, Israel has paid a very high price.
> 
> The October War has shaken Israel from top to bottom. Instead of overconfidence, suspicions emerged and questions surfaced to the top; should we live for ever on our own devastation? Could we possible stand any other wars?!
> "The October Earthquake: Yum Kippur War"
> 
> *Reporting Israeli Professor Shimon Shamir:*
> 
> I can list for the Arabs five important achievements:
> 
> First: They managed to affect a change in the US political strategy that was unfavour to Israel.
> 
> Second: They succeeded in making the military option happen, thus imposing such efforts on Israel that overburdened its resources and economy.
> 
> Third: They managed to achieve a high level of Arab cooperation in both the military and economic fields,
> 
> particularly as they restored to the oil weapon in October.
> 
> Fourth: Egypt could regain the power of free manoeuvring among major powers, which it lost ten years ago.
> 
> Fifth: The Arabs could change their own image; freeing themselves from the 1967 shock, and becoming more capable of hard work.
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16,1974)
> 
> *Reporting Yussi Belin, Member of the Knesset and Labour Party Leader:*
> 
> The tension that prevailed in the Labor Party in 1973 had crippled the Party, making it unable to take a decision to
> 
> enter into peace negotiations with the Arabs. This led to the failure of Junnar Jaring's mission of mediation
> 
> between Egypt and Israel. The result was the outbreak of the Yum Kippur War (October) the end of tenure by the Lbour Party and consequently a Right-Left equivalence of power, which has until now characterized Israel's political
> 
> system. Unless an independent leader will have emerged in Israel up to May 4, 1999 ( the date set for declaring a
> 
> Palestinian State), it would be difficult to prevent the coming disaster from taking place ( following the October
> 
> 1973 and Intifada 1987 disasters).
> 
> 
> *Testimonies by International Experts*
> 
> *Reporting American military historian Trevor Dubuoy, Chairman, Hero Foundation for Scientific Assessment of Historical Battles:*
> 
> As a result of honorable fighting waged by both Egyptian and Syrian armies, the Arabs restored their own pride and
> 
> self-confidence, which led to the reinforcement of Arab influence on the international arena in general.
> 
> Strategically and politically speaking, there is no doubt that Egypt has won the war.
> 
> With the professional planning and performance whereby the crossing process was accomplished, no other army in the world could have done better. This precise work on the part of the general staff, particularly the element of
> 
> surprise already achieved, resulted in remarkable success in crossing the Suez Canal on a wide front.
> 
> The Israel Intelligence categorically failed, as military intelligence activity concentrated on antagonist
> 
> capabilities, being out of reckoning. Miscalculation of Arab capabilities gave rise to misconceptions of Arab
> 
> intentions.
> 
> On the other hand, greater credit should be given to Arab security and confidentiality, whereby facts were
> 
> adequately screened to re-affirm prior Israeli misconceptions.
> 
> While the Egyptians waged maritime war essentially through a strategic approach, the Israeli waged it through a
> 
> tactical one. The Egyptian had imposed a successful siege on shipping traffic to Ilat sea-port by closing down Bab
> 
> al-Mandab Strait. Their Mediterranean siege seemed to prevent neutral and Israeli ships from approaching the Israeli
> 
> coast. On the southern front, Israeli attempts to destroy Egyptian air bases in the Nile Delta categorically failed
> 
> thanks to the effective Egyptian air defense.
> 
> The Israeli also decided to attempt seizure of the city of Suez. Although their tanks infiltrated into the heart of
> 
> the city, yet resistance was so severe that they had pull back after being inflicted with heavy losses.
> 
> (International Symposium on October War, Cairo, October 27-31, 1975)
> 
> *Reporting British military historian Edger O'Balance:*
> 
> For Israel, the October War has caused an "all-out" change in strategy. It was forcefully ejected from an offensive
> 
> to a defensive position. Since its inception, Israel has adopted an offensive military position. The Israeli general
> 
> staff have never cared to contemplate a defensive position.
> The Israeli soldier has realized that defense is now vital for his own survival. Conventional defense, which Israel
> 
> had, for long before the war, vaingloriously looked upon, became acceptable as a military necessity for the
> 
> protection of Israeli borders.
> 
> After the marvelous military operations achieved by the old Islamic conquests and the Crusades, the prestige of the
> 
> Arab soldier has continually diminished in western eyes, due to varying reasons beyond his control. In this context,
> 
> Israel has intensified its publicity, until it was surprised in the October 1973 War with Arab soldiers shattering
> 
> their fetters, defeating Israelis, capturing hundreds of them, downing hundreds of their craft, destroying hundreds
> 
> of their tanks. In a nutshell, Arab soldiers shattered the myth of invincible Israeli supremacy. What holds true for
> 
> the Arabs in Napoleon's saying, "The ratio of marble to military equipment is three to one"
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting General Varar Huckly, Combat Development Director, British Army:*
> 
> The lessons learned from October War relate to personnel and their capabilities more than the machinery they
> 
> operate. The impressive achievement made by the Egyptians is the genius and skills of leaders and officers who were trained and waged such an offensive that came as a total surprise to the other party, albeit effected within its
> 
> sight. As a complement, the soldiers demonstrated such high morale and audacity that would have been, in the past, impossible.
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting French General Albert Merglain:*
> 
> All military experts and political officials were confident that Arabs would never succeed in taking the Israeli
> 
> army by surprise. Contrary to what happened in October War, justifying evidence were many and varied. First, there
> 
> was extreme confidence in Israeli intelligence services, which were said to be some of the best in the world,
> 
> particularly as it was known to all that the American special agencies were closely related to them.
> 
> US reconnaissance planes and satellites could shoot all the depth of Arab rear area. Such favourable conditions for
> 
> monitoring antagonist fronts combined could hardly exist. Therefore, the element of surprise was excluded,
> 
> particularly, as the man-made barrier of the Suez Canal protects the Israeli front line and allows easy and
> 
> effective resistance. The Arab surprise came at 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973. Contrary to negative assertions by all
> 
> politicians, military experts, pressmen and specialists everywhere, the unexpected took place.
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux:*
> 
> Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on
> 
> October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from
> 
> Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has
> 
> turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies.
> Painful Days in Israel
> 
> 
> *Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*
> 
> The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in
> 
> imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
> The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements
> 
> making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of
> 
> equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a
> 
> loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior
> 
> Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this
> 
> time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured
> 
> their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started
> 
> exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later
> 
> accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive
> 
> military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the
> 
> Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis
> 
> saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
> The Gun and Olive Branch
> 
> *World Media and Press Reports*
> 
> As the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, cutting through the Bar lev-line, the October war changed the course of history both for Egypt and the entire Middle East.
> (Daily Telegraph October 7, 1973)
> 
> The image of the Arab fighter in the aftermath of 1967 War as presented by world press was totally negative, giving
> the impression that a successful military confrontation on the part of the Arab fighter was impossible due to
> Israel's military strength.
> Accordingly, one can understand the extent of change occurring after the Arab fighter has proved his presence and
> capabilities and how the world press has conveyed such change to world public opinion.
> (The Times, October 7, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptians and Syrians are demonstrating high efficiency, organization and courage. The Arabs have scored a
> psychological victory that will have its psychological impact. The retention by the Egyptian of the east bank of the
> canal is a tremendous, unprecedented victory, whereby Israeli illusions that the Arabs were unfit for war have been
> shattered.
> ( Washington Post, October 10, 1973 )
> 
> Last week was one of chastisement and torture for Israel. Obviously, Arab armies are fighting with strength, courage and determination.
> The Israelis were grouped with sadness and depression as they found out that the war cost them heavily and that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, as they had been told, unable to fight.
> (Financial Times, October 11, 1973)
> 
> Obviously, the Arabs are fighting with unparalleled valour. Definitely, their fierce fighting had a considerable
> role in their victories. At the same time, the Israelis were generally afflicted by a feeling of depression upon
> their agonizing discovery -which cost them a lot- that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, in reality, helpless
> soldiers. There were indications that the Israelis were retreating all through in front of the progressing Egyptian
> and Syrian faces.
> ( The Times, October 11, 1973)
> 
> It was quite clear that the Israelis had lost initiative in this war. This was admitted by their leaders, including
> General Shlomo Jonin, commander of southern front in Sinai, who said, "this is the most difficult war fought by
> Israel since its inception in 1948"
> (Sun, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The secure borders theory adopted for expansionist purposes by Israel since its inception up till now has been
> totally shattered. Israel military mentality must change in the light of October War. This time a psychological myth
> has been shattered. Israel should, from now on, give up the notion that its security can be realized by merely
> occupying land.
> ( Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1973)
> 
> This war has eliminated the feeling of humiliation for the Arab and injured Israel's pride
> (Daily Mail, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptian and Syrian troops caught the Israeli leadership stark naked. It was only after three days that the
> Israeli leadership could mobilize adequate reserve troop to address the situation. The Israeli public opinion was
> sleeping on the conviction that its intelligence services were the most efficient, its army the strongest. Now the
> public opinion in Israel wants to know what happened and why. The question circulated by everybody in Tel-Aviv now is why the Israeli leadership had not been aware before hand of Egypt and Syria's plans?
> (United Press Agency correspondent from Tel-Aviv, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The October War has shattered the security borders theory as understood by Tel-Aviv rulers. The war has proved that Israel's security cannot be guaranteed by tanks and missiles but rather by a peaceful, equitable settlement agreed by the Arab states.
> (L'Humanite, October 17, 1973)
> 
> The Arabs are waging an equitable struggle. The Arabs are fighting in defense of their rights. If one fights in
> defense of his land against an aggressor, he is waging a war of liberation. But to fight in order to continue to
> occupy others' land is blatant aggression.
> (Zeitung of German Democratic Republic, October 19, 1973)
> 
> Egypt has caught up with and even outstripped Israel in the field of missiles and electronics.
> (The Observer, October 20, 1973)
> 
> The Israelis have faced a foe that was far ahead of it in everything, prepared for an extended war of attrition.
> Israel has at the same time faced a foe with better training and more skilled leadership.
> (Associated Press, October 20, 1973)
> 
> Today, a feeling of sadness and depression prevails in Israel. The number of prisoners of war returning from Egypt
> was more than expected. This means that many lost their lives.
> (Jewish Chronicle, Britain, November 23, 1973)
> 
> Israeli soldiers fled breathless from the Bar-lev line, with soiled bodies and pale faces. Flocks of them fled the
> hell opened against them by the sweeping Egyptian onslaught.
> (Anna Bella (Italy) October 30,1973 )
> 
> Before the October War, the country was pervaded by wrong feelings; the feeling of our hawks of overwhelming
> military supremacy. Such conviction has led them into a military reassurance purporting that: "We'll cut them into
> pieces, should they dare to snap a finger at us.
> (Al Hamishmar, Israeli Newspaper, October 29, 1973)
> 
> Al Ferdan east of the Suez Canal was the first site captured by the Egyptian troops. Then, the Egyptian scored their
> greatest victories, restoring their land since the first day. Their faces showed signs of pride and victory along
> the Bar-Lev line, which fell apart in front of them. Thus irreversibly gone was the Israeli Bar-Lev line.
> (The Times, October 31, 1973)
> 
> The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who
> suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of
> ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation
> during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out.
> (Haarts, November 2, 1973)
> 
> General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the
> occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it.
> (Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973)
> 
> Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even
> failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during
> our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing.
> (Haarts, November 18, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptian navy during the October War outstripped the Israeli navy, particularly in the field of missiles.
> (Defense Nationale (French Magazine), November 8, 1973)
> 
> The negligence committed in the Yum Kippur War led to the rise of a protest movement led by an Ishiknazi citizen,
> calling for investigating causes of the defeat of Israeli army in the war. These investigations led to the fall of
> officials responsible for such negligence. Following the assassination of former premier Yshaac Rabin, a new
> movement called Peace Generation emerged. This new movement led by Tal Zilberstein calls for the continuation of the peace process with Palestinians.
> Both movements are in agreement on the prediction that a revolution, which will erupt from the heart of Israel
> street, is in the way.
> (Maaref, Israeli Newspaper, September 20, 1998)
> 
> The alarm risen sounded at 1.50 p.m. October 6, 1973, in its own connotation, was more than a mere alarm cautioning Israeli citizens to come down to underground shelters. It was rather the outcry reiterated upon burial of the dead. At that time the deceased was the first Israeli republic. When the war was over, the count was restarted and a new history began. After a quarter century from the rise of the State of Israel the pillars and underpinnings of old Israel were turned into a wreckage stranded on road side.
> 
> http://www.sis.gov.eg/newvr/october/english/4.htm
> 
> 
> 
> *The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:*
> 
> 1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers,
> 
> and it was blocked with the start of the war.
> 
> 2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all
> 
> around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting
> 
> soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going
> 
> to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter
> 
> attack.
> 
> 3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez
> 
> canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their
> 
> supply lines were stretched for a long distance.
> 
> 4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air
> 
> Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too
> 
> embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in
> 
> the sources.
> 
> 5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.
> 
> 6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an american plane spotted
> 
> it.
> 
> 7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main forces
> 
> were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also
> 
> running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!
> 
> 
> Source(s):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
> Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf
> 
> Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/
> 
> Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm
> 
> *After what is clearly stated in these testimonies from both Usraelis and non Usraelis, only the blind or analphabets will still believe that Arabs lose wars, as the riddled with malice title of this thread implies.. Actually the 1973 war has changed the world. one likes it or not *


That's why lsrael still controls most Arab lands it captured in 67. They gave back sinai after peace deal between Egypt and lsrael. They gave back the areas to Jordan which were militarily not defendable after Jordan signed peace deal with lsrael Syria and Lebanon lands still in the hands of lsrael. We all know what's happening with Palestine lands.


----------



## The SC

fatman17 said:


> That's why lsrael still controls most Arab lands it captured in 67. They gave back sinai after peace deal between Egypt and lsrael. They gave back the areas to Jordan which were militarily not defendable after Jordan signed peace deal with lsrael Syria and Lebanon lands still in the hands of lsrael. We all know what's happening with Palestine lands.


well, all this thanks to the US unconditional support, nothing else.. the 1973 war was also limited in scope just to get Sinai and the Golan height because of this unconditional support of the US.. Sadat said in his memoirs about this war:" "Israel I can fight, but not the US".. this might give you an idea of the context and answers to your questions..


----------



## fatman17

The SC said:


> well, all this thanks to the US unconditional support, nothing else.. the 1973 war was also limited in scope just to get Sinai and the Golan height because of this unconditional support of the US.. Sagat said in his memoirs about this war:" "Israel I can fight, but not the US"..this might give you an idea of the context and answers to your questions..


In geo politics everyone has their supporters. Why do you think Arabs performed slightly better in 73, massive military support by the soviets especially SAMs which took a huge toll initially of the IAF, but the israelis recovered and turned the tables on the Arabs esp Egypt. facts don't lie. The only thing l agree with is that the lsraeli aura of invincibility created in 67 was shattered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stuttgart001

The SC said:


> *After what is clearly stated in these testimonies from both Usraelis and non Usraelis, only the blind or analphabets will still believe that Arabs lose wars, as the riddled with malice title of this thread implies.. Actually the 1973 war has changed the world. one likes it or not *


I am very interested in ME war. In the thread, I have gotten a lot of information which never heard before.
I have two questions making me confused:

First, as you said on the above post, Egypt army was forced to move out of the SM coverage and got bombed by Isreali AF heavily.
I wonder why was Egypt army so depend on SAM coverage rather than Air force? Where was Egypt Air Force ?
Was it too weak to protect Egypt ground force ?

Secondly
Israel obviously didn't lose Yom 73 war, given the exchange ratio of casualty and the land she controlled when the cease-fire came up.
If Egypt won the war, who was/were the loser/losers of the war ? Were these other Arabian countries the losers of 73 war?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Stuttgart001 said:


> I am very interested in ME war. In the thread, I have gotten a lot of information which never heard before.
> I have two questions making me confused:
> 
> First, as you said on the above post, Egypt army was forced to move out of the SM coverage and got bombed by Isreali AF heavily.
> I wonder why was Egypt army so depend on SAM coverage rather than Air force? Where was Egypt Air Force ?
> Was it too weak to protect Egypt ground force ?
> 
> Secondly
> Israel obviously didn't lose Yom 73 war, given the exchange ratio of casualty and the land she controlled when the cease-fire came up.
> If Egypt won the war, who was/were the loser/losers of the war ? Were these other Arabian countries the losers of 73 war?


There was a brigade ordered to go out of the air defense missile cover, not the Egyptian army!!!
Egypt had only mig-21 to fight with, it is an interceptor used for air defence of the land..

For the rest you should read again post # 477.. If you do not believe all these people there is nothing I can do for you, If you are not convinced and still think that Usrael won the Ramadan war after reading the first hand testimonies, i can't help you in your quest..


----------



## HannibalBarca

The answer is simple... very simple. It's not bc the other side was more advance or got better tech...

The answer is that Israel/Jew wanted to win... the other did not.
You may say " WHat BS is that??" Well I let you rethink/reread Iraq/Afghan and so on... and you will see if you are willing to die for something then even with only AKs and Blood, you'll get your win...

Arabs lost they war bc they didn't fought for " a rightful cause" that they were willing to sacrifice themselfs.. every side wanted to be part of smthing, whatever it's power/land/money etc... their cause were meaningless and arrogant... the Jews on the other side... fought to "Live"... and they won.

Best regards.


----------



## Hossiiee

My grandfather told me that the Moroccan forces who joined in the 6 days war were fighting at the frontline.. They had driven the Israelis back at the Golan Heights.. Just to find out they got suddenly surrounded by the Israelis. The Moroccan forces who fought bravely at the front of the battle were sold out to the Jews (Israelis). I still wonder why and how that happened and why the Arabs would sell their brothers out to the Jews...
Also, I think this kind of actions, which happened throughout the past, made the Muslim unity fall apart.. It really is a pity, I would love to see a united muslim ummah with all muslim countries developing relationships based upon mutual trust so that they can cooperate and collaborate. It really is the division between muslims which makes Israel look like they are strong.. But in reality they are nothing.


----------



## The SC

Hossiiee said:


> My grandfather told me that the Moroccan forces who joined in the 6 days war were fighting at the frontline.. They had driven the Israelis back at the Golan Heights.. Just to find out they got suddenly surrounded by the Israelis. The Moroccan forces who fought bravely at the front of the battle were sold out to the Jews (Israelis). I still wonder why and how that happened and why the Arabs would sell their brothers out to the Jews...
> Also, I think this kind of actions, which happened throughout the past, made the Muslim unity fall apart.. It really is a pity, I would love to see a united muslim ummah with all muslim countries developing relationships based upon mutual trust so that they can cooperate and collaborate. It really is the division between muslims which makes Israel look like they are strong.. But in reality they are nothing.


Your grandfather was right about that, but the Moroccan forces after a valiant fight, found themselves without air cover and were bombarded by the Usraelis.. I won't tell what they did to the Usraelis they have encountered in he Golan heights.. there were just too many horrible stories.. So, in brief there are no Arabs to blame in this instance, they were all bombarded by the New planes and even American pilots in them!!!


----------



## Stuttgart001

The SC said:


> There was a brigade ordered to go out of the air defense missile cover, not the Egyptian army!!!
> Egypt had only mig-21 to fight with, it is an interceptor used for air defence of the land..
> 
> For the rest you should read again post # 477.. If you do not believe all these people there is nothing I can do for you, If you are not convinced and still think that Usrael won the Ramadan war after reading the first hand testimonies, i can't help you in your quest..


Mig-21 is a frontline light fighter jet, mig-25 is the interceptor.
But anyway, it does matter what Egypt used the Mig-21 for.
Let's suppose all you said is real that EAF could not provide protection for the ground force and Egypt ground force couldn't go deep because its SAM is unmobilized and only covered limited area.

According to your description and statement, the plan of Egypt army was supposed to be:

*First*, cross the suez canal and break though the Ber liv line surprisedly

*Second*, hold on the position under the coverage of SAM and wait for the result of battles between Isreal and Egypt's allies.During the waiting time, Egyptian would consolidate the defense line.

*Third*, if the allies won the battle, Egypt would march forward and rushed into holy land. That is my guess, cause it didn't happen.

If the Isreali won, Egypt would hold the consolidated defense line and cause the Isreali' enough casualty and show her the strength of Egypt.

*Fourth*, if there was a stalemate between Egypt and Isreal, Egypt could use it as a leverage to ask for a negotiation with Isreal and get back sinai on the table.

Is this the plan of Egypt army?

If it is, I wonder whether the allies of Egypt was informed the plan.
There go two possibility.

No 1. The allies knew the plan at first. I would say Sadat was so good at diplomacy that could persuade the allies to accept such a unfavorable plan for them and Egypt did win the war by outstanding diplomacy.

No 2, if the other Arab states did not know Egyptian plan, I have no doubt that Egypt won the war by deceiving her allies.

Given that Egypt was forced to send a brigade under the pressure of allies, I prefer that Egypt did not tell her allies.

If my guess is right, there is no doubt that Egypt and Isreal won the 73 war , whilst other Arabian states lost.

That could perfectly explain why in PDF only Egyptian not other Arabian see their states as the winner of 73 war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Hossiiee said:


> My grandfather told me that the Moroccan forces who joined in the 6 days war were fighting at the frontline.. They had driven the Israelis back at the Golan Heights.. Just to find out they got suddenly surrounded by the Israelis. The Moroccan forces who fought bravely at the front of the battle were sold out to the Jews (Israelis). I still wonder why and how that happened and why the Arabs would sell their brothers out to the Jews...
> Also, I think this kind of actions, which happened throughout the past, made the Muslim unity fall apart.. It really is a pity, I would love to see a united muslim ummah with all muslim countries developing relationships based upon mutual trust so that they can cooperate and collaborate. It really is the division between muslims which makes Israel look like they are strong.. But in reality they are nothing.


The Golan Heights were never penetrated, hell, when the Syrians pushed against less than 17 Israeli tanks (Later 80 more joined in, this was a surprise attack afterall) the forces that attacked the Golan suffered losses of over 500 vehicles, while the Israelis only lost 60-80.
By the way, if we are "Nothing", how come even when you were united against us, we still won against you?


----------



## HeinzG

Stuttgart001 said:


> Mig-21 is a frontline light fighter jet, mig-25 is the interceptor.
> But anyway, it does matter what Egypt used the Mig-21 for.
> Let's suppose all you said is real that EAF could not provide project for the ground force and Egypt ground force couldn't go deep because the SAM is unmobilized and only covered limited area.
> 
> According to your description and statement, the plan of Egypt was supposed to be:
> 
> First, cross the suez canal and break though the Ber liv line surprisedly
> 
> Second, hold on the position under the coverage of SAM and wait for the result of battles between Isreal and Egypt's allies.During the waiting time, Egyptian would consolidate the defense line.
> 
> Third, if the allies won the battle, Egypt would march forward and rushed into holy land. That is my guess, cause it didn't happen.
> If the Isreali won, Egypt would hold the consolidated defense line and cause the Isreali' enough casualty and show her the strength of Egypt.
> 
> Fourth, if there was a stalemate between Egypt and Isreal, Egypt could use it as a leverage to ask for a negotiation with Isreal and get back sinai on the table.
> 
> Is this the plan of Egypt ?
> If it is, I wonder whether the allies of Egypt was informed the plan.There goes two possibility.
> 
> No1. The allies knew the plan at first. I would say Sadat was so good at diplomacy that could persuade the allies to accept such a unfavorable plan for them and Egypt did win the war by outstanding diplomacy.
> 
> No 2, if the other Arab states did not Egyptian plan, I have no doubt that Egypt won the war by deceiving her allies.
> 
> Given that Egypt was forced to send a brigade under the pressure of allies, I prefer Egypt did not tell her allies.
> 
> If my guess is right, there is no doubt that Egypt and Isreal won the 73 war , whilst other Abran states lost.
> 
> That could explain why in PDF only Egyptian not other Arabian see their states as the winner of 73 war.



Egypt actually lost the war, if we take into account they wanted to destroy Israel. Unless, if Egyptians only wanted Sinai; then it was a partial victory. 

In my opinion in '73 Israel has won the war though paying heavy cost to her reputation.



Hell NO said:


> Arabs never had the upper hand in any conflict with Israel. Israel always had a numerical or/and technological superiority and full support from western countries in every single conflict.



What a load of BS. Both the numerical and technological superiority was with the Arab States. Soviet Union supplied them with the latest of weapons only Israelis dreamt about.


----------



## Stuttgart001

HeinzG said:


> Egypt actually lost the war, if we take into account they wanted to destroy Israel. Unless, if Egyptians only wanted Sinai; then it was a partial victory.


I do not want to argue with Egyptian about the aim of the war. It's totally subjective.
Only Sadat knew exactly what he wanted.
It is highly possible that he just wanted to get sinai back in his heart and cheated to his allies that the Egypt would never stop fighting until Isreal was demolished.

Cheating and betrayal always happen in international politics. 

Roosevlet was cheated and deceived by Churchill many times during WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Stuttgart001 said:


> Mig-21 is a frontline light fighter jet, mig-25 is the interceptor.
> But anyway, it does matter what Egypt used the Mig-21 for.
> Let's suppose all you said is real that EAF could not provide project for the ground force and Egypt ground force couldn't go deep because the SAM is unmobilized and only covered limited area.
> 
> According to your description and statement, the plan of Egypt was supposed to be:
> 
> First, cross the suez canal and break though the Ber liv line surprisedly
> 
> Second, hold on the position under the coverage of SAM and wait for the result of battles between Isreal and Egypt's allies.During the waiting time, Egyptian would consolidate the defense line.
> 
> Third, if the allies won the battle, Egypt would march forward and rushed into holy land. That is my guess, cause it didn't happen.
> If the Isreali won, Egypt would hold the consolidated defense line and cause the Isreali' enough casualty and show her the strength of Egypt.
> 
> Fourth, if there was a stalemate between Egypt and Isreal, Egypt could use it as a leverage to ask for a negotiation with Isreal and get back sinai on the table.
> 
> Is this the plan of Egypt ?
> If it is, I wonder whether the allies of Egypt was informed the plan.There goes two possibility.
> 
> No1. The allies knew the plan at first. I would say Sadat was so good at diplomacy that could persuade the allies to accept such a unfavorable plan for them and Egypt did win the war by outstanding diplomacy.
> 
> No 2, if the other Arab states did not Egyptian plan, I have no doubt that Egypt won the war by deceiving her allies.
> 
> Given that Egypt was forced to send a brigade under the pressure of allies, I prefer Egypt did not tell her allies.
> 
> If my guess is right, there is no doubt that Egypt and Isreal won the 73 war , whilst other Abran states lost.
> 
> That could explain why in PDF only Egyptian not other Arabian see their states as the winner of 73 war.


Well, you got it on most parts, the fact is that the war was conceived to be limited and hence the aim was to force Usrael to negotiate giving back the Sinai and the Golan heights in Syria.. So they were only two Arab states at war with Usrael; Egypt and Syria, while some Arab states sent contingents, some battalions and very few brigades,, that was mostly symbolic of the Arab's solidarity.. by the way the Arab name for the whole operation was called "Spark"..which means already that it was very far from fire or total war..The Egyptians and the Syrians had to use their Mig-21s mostly for air-defence and interceptions, yet as a frontline fighters they were used successfully in some battles, like the Mansora air battle where the Usraelis lost 17 Mirage and F-4s in one day..The Mig-25 was a high altitude reconnaissance and interceptor against Bombers not fighter planes..
The reality of the war was known to most Arab Nations, that Egypt and Syria were going to wage war against an implanted state imposed by Western powers and supported unconditionally by them, So, from the beginning they knew they were going to take on the US's proxy Usrael (that is why I've coined this name, because it is the truth, without the US Usreal is nil in middle East), hence the US weapons from A to Z and the US heavy diplomacy..
Sadat did send all the Russians that were in Egypt back home, because the Arabs, did not want any Russian involvement, and they were fighting for their dignity and land.. but when the US started sending every military gear to Usrael brand new from its own inventory and from the inventory in Europe, along with fighter pilots!!! The Russians decided, on a voluntary base to send some supplies to Egypt and Syria, most of it was paid for by Arabs, like Algeria..A total of $2 billion worth of supply, While Usrael got more than $50 billion worth of American supplies for free, plus mercenaries from all over the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, from the US, Europe, Australia and others..
Sadat knew somehow that this will happen, So after the first very successful week of the war, he, Kissinger and the Russian foreign affairs minister were already open for a ceasefire.. because the main objective of the war was to force Usrael to negotiate, which it has refused many time before the war.. Now Nixon who was not known to like the Jews that much, has turned 180 degrees and ordered the air and sea bridges of supplies to Usrael..even kissinger who was Jewish himself has refused to send supplies because that would just prolong what was already achieved by the Arabs and sealed..But Nixon went ahead for more bloodshed, actually a whole lot of it and with no results for the Usraelis who had to accept the ceasefire after violating 2 a few days before, where they have tried to Encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army, composed of 20 000 man, very well armed and with lines to the Second Army that Sharon and the two other Usraeli generals tries to encircle first, without success, then they have tried to take 2 small cities, Suez and Ismaelia where they have encountered not only the military but also civilians took arms and defeated the Usraelis, after all these failure the Usraeli best Brigades and Units turned South to try to Encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.. as one can say the Usraeli plans were hectic and desperate to score some victory..it was obvious that they were trapped on the west side of Sinai after the much talked about "gap" that some "Genie" came to tell them about all of a sudden.. Egypt had 80 000 troops in total at war on the East side of the canal, while the Egyptian army had 400 000 professional soldiers and a total of 800 000 armed forces plus reservists.. Usrael had around 50 000 of its best forces, if not the best, all trapped and fighting on the west side of the canal in Sinai, while both the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian armies were holding their own both on the East side of the canal and in some western part of it.. This is the context of the 1973 war in brief till the end, where nothing had changed since the first few days of the war, only more bloodshed for no results for Usrael..the faith of getting back Sinai to Egypt was sealed, and a sacrifice of one brigade to help ease the pressure on the Syrians, or was it the sacrifice to create the trap where 3 Usraeli Armies or brigades (as they call them) composed of 50 000 of their best men were encircled on the Western side of the canal.. Sadat had shown Henry Kissinger two plans to finish them off, or reason them to go back to Usrael alive by accepting a ceasefire...They have accepted and left the Sinai..on Egyptian terms of the ceasefire..


----------



## Stuttgart001

The SC said:


> ...the faith of getting back Sinai to Egypt was *sealed*,


So it is real Sadat did not tell his allies his real aim.


> and a sacrifice of one brigade to help ease the pressure on the Syrians, or was it the sacrifice to create the trap where 3 Usraeli Armies or brigades (as they call them)
> composed of 80 000 of their best men were encircled on the Western side of the canal..


It is hard to believe that lots of millitias and disorganized army could stop full-supplied and well-armed and organized army supported by suppressing air superiority in a conventional war ,given to the ratio （2：50）of material and armament mutually.


> Sadat had shown Henry Kissinger two plans to finish them off, or reason them to go back to Usrael alive by accepting a ceasefire...


If what you said is real, Israel troops were trapped and encircled and all Sadat wanted was sinai.
Why didn't Sadat take the advantage and annihilate the trapped Isreali troops or make them disorganized so that Egypt would be a better position on the table.

I could not understand.
What you said is too unlogical and incomprehensible.
It seems like a decoration which's used by people to describe something embarrassing.


----------



## HeinzG

Stuttgart001 said:


> I do not want to argue with Egyptian about the aim of the war. It's totally subjective.
> Only Sadat knew exactly what he wanted.
> It is highly possible that he just wanted to get sinai back in his heart and cheated to his allies that the Egypt would never stop fighting until Isreal was demolished.
> 
> Cheating and betrayal always happen in international politics.
> 
> Roosevlet was cheated and deceived by Churchill many times during WWII.



Yeah possibly. Even Sadat wouldn't have thought that his army could fight the Israelis in the open dessert without SAM cover. Or perhaps he was betting on Syrian breakthrough in the Golan and possible capitulation of Israel war machine. 

I didn't quiet get what you meant by Roosevelt cheating Churchill?



The SC said:


> Well, you got it on most parts, the fact is that the war was conceived to be limited and hence the aim was to force Usrael to negotiate giving back the Sinai and the Golan heights in Syria.. So they were only two Arab states at war with Usrael; Egypt and Syria, while some Arab states sent contingents, some battalions and very few brigades,, that was mostly symbolic of the Arab's solidarity.. by the way the Arab name for the whole operation was called "Spark"..which means already that it was very far from fire or total war..The Egyptians and the Syrians had to use their Mig-21s mostly for air-defence and interceptions, yet as a frontline fighters they used successfully in some battles, like the Mansora air battle where the Usraelis lost 17 Mirage and F-4s in one day..
> The reality of the war was known to most Arab Nations, that Egypt an Syria were going to wage war against an implanted state imposed by Western powers and supported unconditionally by them, So, from the beginning they knew they were going to take on the US's proxy Usrael (that is why I've coined this name, because it is the truth, without the US Usreal is nil in middle East), hence the US weapons from A to Z and the US heavy diplomacy..
> Sadat did send all the Russian that were in Egypt back home, because the Arabs, did not want any Russian involvement, and they were fighting for their dignity and land.. but when the US started sending every military gear to Usrael brand new from its own inventory and from the inventory in Europe, along with fighter pilots!!! The Russians decided, on a voluntary base to send some supplies to Egypt and Syria, most of it was paid for by Arabs, like Algeria..A total of $2 billion worth of supply, While Usrael got more than $50 billion worth of American supplies for free, plus mercenaries from all over the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, from the US, Europe, Australia and others..
> Sadat knew somehow that this will happen, So after the first very successful week of the war, he, Kissinger and the Russian foreign affairs minister were already open for a ceasefire.. because the main objective of the war was to force Usrael to negotiate, which it has refused many time before the war.. Now Nixon who was not known to like the Jews that much, has turned 180 degrees and ordered the air and sea bridges of supplies to Usrael..even kissinger who was Jewish himself has refused to send supplies because that would just prolong what was already achieved by the Arabs and sealed..But Nixon went ahead for more bloodshed, actually a whole lot of it and with no results for the Usraelis who had to accept the ceasefire after violating 2 a few days before, where they have tried to Encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army, composed of 20 000 man, very well armed and with lines to the Second Army that Sharon and the two other Usraeli generals tries to encircle first, without success, then they have tried to take 2 small cities, Suez and Ismaelia where they have encountered not only the military but also civilians took arms and defeated the Usraelis, after all these failure the Usraeli best Brigades and Units turned South to try to Encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.. as one can say the Usraeli plans were hectic and desperate to score some victory..it was obvious that they were trapped on the west side of Sinai after the much talked about "gap" that some "Genie" came to tell them about all of a sudden.. Egypt had 80 000 troops in total at war on the East side of the canal, while the Egyptian army had 400 000 professional soldiers and a total of 800 000 armed forces plus reservists.. Usrael had around 50 000 of its best forces, if not the best, all trapped and fighting on the west side of the canal in Sinai, while both the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian armies were holding their own both on the East side of the canal and in some western part of it.. This is the context of the 1973 war in brief till the end, where nothing had changed since the first few days of the war, only more bloodshed for no results for Usrael..the faith of getting back Sinai to Egypt was sealed, and a sacrifice of one brigade to help ease the pressure on the Syrians, or was it the sacrifice to create the trap where 3 Usraeli Armies or brigades (as they call them) composed of 50 000 of their best men were encircled on the Western side of the canal.. Sadat had shown Henry Kissinger two plans to finish them off, or reason them to go back to Usrael alive by accepting a ceasefire...They have accepted and left the Sinai..on Egyptian terms of the ceasefire..



Well Israel fought without US in 1948 and 1956. Both times they were abled to defeat the Arab states.


----------



## The SC

Stuttgart001 said:


> So it is real Sadat did tell his allies his real aim.
> 
> It is hard to believe that lots of millitias and disorganized army could stop full-supplied and well-armed and organized army supported by suppressing air superiority in a conventional war ,given to the ratio （2：50）of material and armament mutually.
> 
> If what you said is real, Israel troops were trapped and encircled and all Sadat wanted was sinai.
> Why didn't Sadat take the advantage and annihilate the trapped Isreali troops or make them disorganized so that Egypt would be a better position on the table.
> 
> I could not understand.
> What you said is too unlogical and incomprehensible.
> It seems like a decoration which's used by people to describe something embarrassing.



Maybe this is beyond your understanding.. or because you are blinded by your own bias against the Arabs, it already shown when after reading all those Usraeli and worldwide testimonies in post# 477 as I have referenced you to before.. And you are still asking unintelligent questions.. RIP for your logic and comprehension!

I think you are confused about the 1973 war and what was going on in Iraq and Syria lately.. this war had two regular armies facing each other, no militias..So you are just bringing your unthoughtful opinion , with no facts, and you did the same with your second remark.. because of your ignorance of Islam that has principles that govern war..Muslims do not kill or massacre their enemies if there is a ceasefire, meaning peace.. If the Usraelis would have continued then that is another matter which was planned for and kissinger was shown 2 different plans for annihilating them..

For any further inquiries, just go back to post # 477 and learn it by heart.. and keep your baseless remarks for yourself, because you will get embarrassed again..



HeinzG said:


> Well Israel fought without US in 1948 and 1956. Both times they were abled to defeat the Arab states.


They had Britain in 1948 (even the declaration of Balfour was made there by the Jewish prime minister of England Disraeli in the 19th century and it was about the creation of Israel), while in 1956 they had Britain and France with them, go read history, and when you get the facts right come back to debate..


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> Maybe this is beyond your understanding.. or because you are blinded by your own bias against the Arabs, it already shown when after reading all those Usraeli and worldwide testimonies in post# 477 as I have referenced you to before.. And you are still asking unintelligent questions.. RIP for your logic and comprehension!
> 
> I think you are confused about the 1973 war and what was going on in Iraq and Syria lately.. this war had two regular armies facing each other, no militias..So you are just bringing your unthoughtful opinion , with no facts, and you did the same with your second remark.. because of your ignorance of Islam that has principles that govern war..Muslims do not kill or massacre their enemies if there is a ceasefire, meaning peace.. If the Usraelis would have continued then that is another matter which was planned for and kissinger was shown 2 different plans for annihilating them..
> 
> For any further inquiries, just go back to post # 477 and learn it by heart.. and keep your baseless remarks for yourself, because you will get embarrassed again..
> 
> 
> They had Britain in 1948 (even the declaration of Balfour was made there by the Jewish prime minister of England Disraeli in the 19th century and it was about the creation of Israel), while in 1956 they had Britain and France with them, go read history, and when you get the facts right come back to debate..


Mate, we won, the fact that we exist means we won let alone the number of casualties in our side and the number of casualties in the Arab side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stuttgart001

The SC said:


> Maybe this is beyond your understanding.. or because you are blinded by your own bias against the Arabs, it already shown when after reading all those Usraeli and worldwide testimonies in post# 477 as I have referenced you to before.. And you are still asking unintelligent questions.. RIP for your logic and comprehension!





> I think you are confused about the 1973 war and what was going on in Iraq and Syria lately.. this war had two regular armies facing each other, no militias..So you are just bringing your unthoughtful opinion , with no facts, and you did the same with your second remark.. because of your ignorance of Islam that has principles that govern war..Muslims do not kill or massacre their enemies if there is a ceasefire, meaning peace..



Cease-fire does matter. But Egyptian army could annihilate them before the ceasefire. Or Egypt could not agree on a ceasefire until the trapped Isreali troops were smashed. 
I think it is not a violation to a Islam. 
Cease-fire would only be available under the situation that both sides agree.
Why Sadat gave up the advantage on the battlefield as you said and wanted a ceasefire which was not implemented strictly by Isreal ?



> If the Usraelis would have continued then that is another matter which was planned for and kissinger was shown 2 different plans for annihilating them..
> 
> For any further inquiries, just go back to post # 477 and learn it by heart.. and keep your baseless remarks for yourself, because you will get embarrassed again..


I have no bias to Arabs. I am just confused why only Egyptian see them as the winner and other Arabian do think so.
It is a little arrogant to think Egyptian could represent all Arabian.

And I do not deny that Egypt is the winner , but Arabian obviously is not.


----------



## The SC

The fact that you had to give up Sinai means that you have lost the war and Egypt won it,, this not debatable.. only if you want talk just for talk which no one here is interested here.. you can not get any facts to refute post #477.. so spare us talk fo nothing an quote me when you have facts not opinion..


----------



## DavidSling

The SC said:


> The fact that you had to give up Sinai means that you have lost the war and Egypt won it,, this not debatable.. only if you want talk just for talk which no one here is interested here.. you can not get any facts to refute post #477.. so spare us talk fo nothing an quote me when you have facts not opinion..


The fact that we give up sinai is a sign of our effort of peace, has little to do with war results.


----------



## patman

inferior equipment and training, Israel gets everything state of the art


----------



## Stuttgart001

The statement of SC do give some other reasons.
A person who lacks the courage to face his failure could not learn and grow up. So do a state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Stuttgart001 said:


> Cease-fire does matter. But Egyptian army could annihilate them before the ceasefire. Or Egypt could not agree on a ceasefire until the trapped Isreali troops were smashed.
> I think it is not a violation to a Islam.
> Cease-fire would only be available under the situation that both sides agree.
> Why Sadat gave up the advantage on the battlefield as you said and wanted a ceasefire which was not implemented strictly by Isreal ?
> 
> 
> I have no bias to Arabs. I am just confused why only Egyptian see them as the winner and other Arabian do think so.
> It is a little arrogant to think Egyptian could represent all Arabian.
> 
> And I do not deny that Egypt is the winner , but Arabian obviously is not.


The fact is that before smashing them, you ask them if they want peace in a form of a ceasefire, do you understand that? War is a continuation of diplomacy, and if objectives and peace are achieved, then it is a return to diplomacy..

In war to reach a ceasefire one side is most of the time forced to accept it by international diplomacy when the other side has already agreed to it.. Usraelis attempted twice (with the complicity of the US who turned a blind eye on the front for 24 hours after the 1st ceasefire was announced) to violate ceasefires to get an upper hand somewhere somewhat, but they have failed and had to accept the final ceasefire.. So even an ultimate deception didn't work for them.. And yes Islam forbids further bloodshed if the enemy surrenders, asks for peace or agrees to peace..

Syria didn't lose either, they came to a still-mate, Syria got the Golan height for a few days and lost it back.. but nothing could the Usraeli achieve other than retaking the Golan height with a huge bloodshed..
Other Arabs were there in very small numbers as support.. Do not forget that most Usraeli citizens get mobilized in war, they can field a million man easily, but thye do not have the dept nor the economy to sustain a prolonged war.. thus without the unconditional support by the West, they are very vulnerable..


----------



## Hell NO

HeinzG said:


> Egypt actually lost the war, if we take into account they wanted to destroy Israel. Unless, if Egyptians only wanted Sinai; then it was a partial victory.
> 
> In my opinion in '73 Israel has won the war though paying heavy cost to her reputation.
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of BS. Both the numerical and technological superiority was with the Arab States. Soviet Union supplied them with the latest of weapons only Israelis dreamt about.


You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.


----------



## The SC

Hell NO said:


> You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
> Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.


We shouldn't feed these trolls, just refer them to post # 477, if they still argue after that.. you can be sure of their trolling..They are hurting from the facts, we shouldn't hurt them more..



fatman17 said:


> In geo politics everyone has their supporters. Why do you think Arabs performed slightly better in 73, massive military support by the soviets especially SAMs which took a huge toll initially of the IAF, but the israelis recovered and turned the tables on the Arabs esp Egypt. facts don't lie. The only thing l agree with is that the lsraeli aura of invincibility created in 67 was shattered.


Did you read post # 477 bro?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stuttgart001

The SC said:


> In war to reach a ceasefire one side is most of the time forced to accept it by international diplomacy when the other side has already agreed to it..


OK. I can see it is that Sadat was played by Isreali who use a ceasefire to take a break.


> Usraelis attempted twice (with the complicity of the US who turned a blind eye on the front for 24 hours after the 1st ceasefire was announced) to violate ceasefires to get an upper hand somewhere somewhat, but they have failed and had to accept the final ceasefire..


You said the Isreali troops were trapped and encircled and Egyptian force had an advantage over them.
On such a condition, Isreal violated the ceasefire and attack Egyptian army initiatively.
Then even if the Isreali violated the ceasefire, Sadat did not want counter back and just hold positions. 
What a saint!

Dude, do you really believe what you said? 



> So even an ultimate deception didn't work for them.. And yes Islam forbids further bloodshed if the enemy surrenders, asks for peace or agrees to peace..


I am afraid a ceasefire is far away from surrender.



> Syria didn't lose either, they came to a still-mate, Syria got the Golan height for a few days and lost it back.. but nothing could the Usraeli achieve other than retaking the Golan height with a huge bloodshed..


Egypt got sinai back 6 years later and you claimed that proved you won.
Syrian territory didn't lose just because they step on their territory temporarily.

I accept your definition of the word "win".
I am curious how you define the word "lose". 



> Other Arabs were there in very small numbers as support..


Other Arabian states provided manpower and cash and armament no matter more or less .I think they wouldn't give a penny if they would have known what's Sadat's plan as you claimed.



> Do not forget that most Usraeli citizens get mobilized in war,


Israel does have a high efficient national defense mobilization system.


> they can field a million man easily, but thye do not have the dept nor the economy to sustain a prolonged war.. thus without the unconditional support by the West, they are very vulnerable..


But they can always get the support because of their outstanding diplomacy .
Even other nations gave their support.
Israel should hold on until the support was transported and distributed to their Soliders.
If not, all the support would belong to Egypt and Syria.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ryuzaki

Israeli jews have very high fertility rate,their population has quadrupled in last 50 years,soon their population will be equivalent to Iraq or Syria


----------



## Beny Karachun

Hell NO said:


> You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
> Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.


You forgot something, the number of each weapon.
Most of the Israeli aircraft were Mirages, we barely had any TOWs and they only entered in the end of the war, 75 Hawk missiles were fired and they only shot down 12-24 Arab aircraft, they were very ineffective, and most of our tanks were the Centurions rather than M-60s (By the way, none of them had night vision sights, but the T-62s did, a huge advantage for the Arabs)
On the other hand, the USSR sold the Arabs hundreds of MiG 21s, the Sagars actually were used in the war, unlike the TOW missiles, the SA-2 accounted more aircraft kills than the actual Egyptian airforce, the USSR sold Syria and Egypt THOUSANDS of T-62s.



Ryuzaki said:


> Israeli jews have very high fertility rate,their population has quadrupled in last 50 years,soon their population will be equivalent to Iraq or Syria


We have the highest population growth in the west and higher than many Eastern nations


----------



## Gomig-21

DavidSling said:


> The fact that we give up sinai is a sign of our effort of peace, has little to do with war results.



It had everything to do with the war results, that being that Israel was forced to make peace with Egypt because of this war. That's quite obvious. Would Israel have accepted any peace initiative without a war that destroyed the Bar-Lev line, caused considerable Israeli casualties and POW's and a war that by the end of hostilities showed the battleground gains unchanged for the Egyptian army while Israel was forced to withdraw almost to the passes to make room for a UN buffer zone? 











Does that look like the result of Egypt losing the war? And before anyone claims this was a "gift" from the Israelis due to US pressure to gain Egyptian favor...please. That's an insult to any sane person's intelligence. Had Israel held any viable military advantage, it would've insisted that Egyptian troops retreat back across the canal and the buffer zone be implemented on the western edge of the canal, at the least. Granted the amount of territory Egypt gained was not huge, compared to the entire Sinai, but it had to deal with a very difficult, logistical operation in the crossing of the canal. This was something the Israelis didn't need to deal with when they invaded the Sinai in 1967. Much easier to run across a landscape without a body of water in between that acts as a cut-off line, one of several reason for a limited objective. The difference in SAM ranges and the quality between both air forces were certainly the other major factors to limit the scope of the war, however, the fact that Egypt was able to hold its gained territories is emblematic of the result of this war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DavidSling

Gomig-21 said:


> It had everything to do with the war results, that being that Israel was forced to make peace with Egypt because of this war. That's quite obvious. Would Israel have accepted any peace initiative without a war that destroyed the Bar-Lev line, caused considerable Israeli casualties and POW's and a war that by the end of hostilities showed the battleground gains unchanged for the Egyptian army while Israel was forced to withdraw almost to the passes to make room for a UN buffer zone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that look like the result of Egypt losing the war? And before anyone claims this was a "gift" from the Israelis due to US pressure to gain Egyptian favor...please. That's an insult to any sane person's intelligence. Had Israel held any viable military advantage, it would've insisted that Egyptian troops retreat back across the canal and the buffer zone be implemented on the western edge of the canal, at the least. Granted the amount of territory Egypt gained was not huge, compared to the entire Sinai, but it had to deal with a very difficult, logistical operation in the crossing of the canal. This was something the Israelis didn't need to deal with when they invaded the Sinai in 1967. Much easier to run across a landscape without a body of water in between that acts as a cut-off line, one of several reason for a limited objective. The difference in SAM ranges and the quality between both air forces were certainly the other major factors to limit the scope of the war, however, the fact that Egypt was able to hold its gained territories is emblematic of the result of this war.


Israel wanted peace even before 48 wars, 67 wars, has little to do with the war.
it's the egyptians pride who needed some repair


----------



## Hossiiee

The SC said:


> Your grandfather was right about that, but the Moroccan forces after a valiant fight, found themselves without air cover and were bombarded by the Usraelis.. I won't tell what they did to the Usraelis they have encountered in he Golan heights.. there were just too many horrible stories.. So, in brief there are no Arabs to blame in this instance, they were all bombarded by the New planes and even American pilots in them!!!



Do u have this from a source ? If u have I would like to read it.


----------



## Gomig-21

DavidSling said:


> Israel wanted peace even before 48 wars, 67 wars, has little to do with the war.
> it's the egyptians pride who needed some repair



Talking about this war, right? Once Sadat became president in 1970, a year later he offered a peace proposal to the UN to submit to Israel which wanted nothing to do with it. Then came this war, then Sadat offered peace again and now Israel accepts. Coincidence?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hossiiee

Beny Karachun said:


> The Golan Heights were never penetrated, hell, when the Syrians pushed against less than 17 Israeli tanks (Later 80 more joined in, this was a surprise attack afterall) the forces that attacked the Golan suffered losses of over 500 vehicles, while the Israelis only lost 60-80.
> By the way, if we are "Nothing", how come even when you were united against us, we still won against you?



We only lost, because the muslim nations have always been divided.. No matter how advanced ur military technology or how big ur military is you are still nothing.. Just as an example from history, the roman and persian empire sustained crushing defeats when muslims were fully united.. And they were considered super powers at the time unlike you.
Also, it says more than enough that Israel and the CIA have thrown Syria in the war crisis it is in right now. If Israel was so 'strong' as u claim they are they would have crushed any threats surrounding them, but u lack the courage to do it. On the contrary:
1) You only bomb the gaza every couple of years not being able to stop the threat from a small group of freedom fighters (Al Qassam brigades)
2) Attack unarmed civilians who are throwing stones with heavon weaponry like tanks at Al Quds
3) Tried to attack Hezbollah in 2006 not able to stop the threat from Hezbollah, on the contrary you were losing big time and decided to bomb civilians and infrastructure.. Resulting in Hezbollah becoming stronger nowadays than it ever was.
4) Threatened to attack Iran for more than 10 years, not having the courage to do so.
5) As u were scared to take the risk of fighting the syrian regime head on, your secret forces have thrown Syria into chaos by planning and scheming..
6) Jews always have planned and schemed to divide the muslim unity from within, knowing they cant take muslim unity head on.

Btw.. Keep dreaming about ur 'multiplying'.. You have a long way to go


----------



## Beny Karachun

Hossiiee said:


> We only lost, because the muslim nations have always been divided.. No matter how advanced ur military technology or how big ur military is you are still nothing.. Just as an example from history, the roman and persian empire sustained crushing defeats when muslims were fully united.. And they were considered super powers at the time unlike you.
> Also, it says more than enough that Israel and the CIA have thrown Syria in the war crisis it is in right now. If Israel was so 'strong' as u claim they are they would have crushed any threats surrounding them, but u lack the courage to do it. On the contrary:
> 1) You only bomb the gaza every couple of years not being able to stop the threat from a small group of freedom fighters (Al Qassam brigades)
> 2) Attack unarmed civilians who are throwing stones with heavon weaponry like tanks at Al Quds
> 3) Tried to attack Hezbollah in 2006 not able to stop the threat from Hezbollah, on the contrary you were losing big time and decided to bomb civilians and infrastructure.. Resulting in Hezbollah becoming stronger nowadays than it ever was.
> 4) Threatened to attack Iran for more than 10 years, not having the courage to do so.
> 5) As u were scared to take the risk of fighting the syrian regime head on, your secret forces have thrown Syria into chaos by planning and scheming..
> 6) Jews always have planned and schemed to divide the muslim unity from within, knowing they cant take muslim unity head on.
> 
> Btw.. Keep dreaming about ur 'multiplying'.. You have a long way to go


Excuses, as if we are fully united, we have a lot of traitors in our country called "the left". If we are nothing, what are you? You were united against us, Sometimes as far as the entire Arab league against us, supplied by Russia
The Roman Empire didn't even exist when Islam first was invented.

Yes, maybe Israel and the CIA have thrown Syria into the state it is in now, that would mean how strong we actually are, we turned Syria into hell without firing a bullet

1. Mainly because you are crying "Foul" and the international community is against us (But the political right is rising and Trump is now blocking all UN resolutions against us)
2. I see nothing wrong with it, although according to our stupid laws this is illegal to shoot those terrorists that throw rocks and molotovs
3. We didn't attack Hezbollah, Hezbollah attacked us, and guess what? 6 Hezbollah terrorists died for every Israeli soldier, Nasrallah didn't see daylight for over 10 years now, Lebanon was in ruins, how do you call is success?
By the way, Hezbollah is loosing in Syria, it suffered a lot of casualties too.
4. Obama was the president that time, he threatened us, and told us not to bomb you, I wont be surprised if Israel would do a joint attack with the US and possibly other Arab countries against Iran right now.
5. We are afraid of fighting the Syrian regime? Are you kidding me? We bombed them like 11 times this year alone
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSKBN14W35J
6. That's what makes us smarter and stronger than you 



Gomig-21 said:


> Talking about this war, right? Once Sadat became president in 1970, a year later he offered a peace proposal to the UN to submit to Israel which wanted nothing to do with it. Then came this war, then Sadat offered peace again and now Israel accepts. Coincidence?


Dude, you do know that it was the USSR and the US that pushed us to accept the peace agreement, let alone the ceasefire, right? Without this ceasefire your whole third army would have been defeated and your airforce was practically destroyed at that time, and we were about to push into Cairo, and you had nothing but reserve forces with old tanks to try to stop us


----------



## HannibalBarca

Beny Karachun said:


> Excuses, as if we are fully united, we have a lot of traitors in our country called "the left". If we are nothing, what are you? You were united against us, Sometimes as far as the entire Arab league against us, supplied by Russia
> The Roman Empire didn't even exist when Islam first was invented.
> 
> Yes, maybe Israel and the CIA have thrown Syria into the state it is in now, that would mean how strong we actually are, we turned Syria into hell without firing a bullet
> 
> 1. Mainly because you are crying "Foul" and the international community is against us (But the political right is rising and Trump is now blocking all UN resolutions against us)
> 2. I see nothing wrong with it, although according to our stupid laws this is illegal to shoot those terrorists that throw rocks and molotovs
> 3. We didn't attack Hezbollah, Hezbollah attacked us, and guess what? 6 Hezbollah terrorists died for every Israeli soldier, Nasrallah didn't see daylight for over 10 years now, Lebanon was in ruins, how do you call is success?
> By the way, Hezbollah is loosing in Syria, it suffered a lot of casualties too.
> 4. Obama was the president that time, he threatened us, and told us not to bomb you, I wont be surprised if Israel would do a joint attack with the US and possibly other Arab countries against Iran right now.
> 5. We are afraid of fighting the Syrian regime? Are you kidding me? We bombed them like 11 times this year alone
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSKBN14W35J
> 6. That's what makes us smarter and stronger than you



Well it will come a time, you will need to choose btw Giving Palestinians a statehood or invade all of it and make it yours...

But by doing the seond choice... you will face few things.
1- Your country will not be a JEWISH state anymore... since the majority of the pop will be Muslims/Arabs
2- You will hold no full power, therefore Civil war or conflict may arise after the annexetion...
3- Israel will be only a Muslim country with a minority jewish community 
4- At that moment, if everything is accepted, you will be Integrated and recognized by everyone around the area...

Conclusion: Pushing for 2 state is a way for you to stay as you are and still be a Jewish state, but your current Gov are not in that ideology... Therefore you may think they are your beloved figures who want only what is good for jews, but they are the Judahs of your kind...

In the ENd you will only give Palestinians/arabs a fully advanced country served on a golden plate 

Have Fun and Enjoy

Ps: you can also use your Daddy Hitler system... you know what I mean... but At that moment be assured... Well... that ISIS was the most beautiful angel on earth...


----------



## Beny Karachun

HannibalBarca said:


> Well it will come a time, you will need to choose btw Giving Palestinians a statehood or invade all of it and make it yours...
> 
> But by doing the seond choice... you will face few things.
> 1- Your country will not be a JEWISH state anymore... since the majority of the pop will be Muslims/Arabs
> 2- You will hold no full power, therefore Civil war or conflict may arise after the annexetion...
> 3- Israel will be only a Muslim country with a minority jewish community
> 4- At that moment, if everything is accepted, you will be Integrated and recognized by everyone around the area...
> 
> Conclusion: Pushing for 2 state is a way for you to stay as you are and still be a Jewish state, but your current Gov are not in that ideology... Therefore you may think they are your beloved figures who want only what is good for jews, but they are the Judahs of your kind...
> 
> In the ENd you will only give Palestinians/arabs a fully advanced country served on a golden plate
> 
> Have Fun and Enjoy
> 
> Ps: you can also use your Daddy Hitler system... you know what I mean... but At that moment be assured... Well... that ISIS was the most beautiful angel on earth...


What on earth makes you think we will let the Muslims be a majority in our country?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> What on earth makes you think we will let the Muslims be a majority in our country?


You won't be able to stop it unless you opt for a two state solution, even then it will only be a matter of time before you are driven into the sea.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Beny Karachun said:


> What on earth makes you think we will let the Muslims be a majority in our country?





dsr478 said:


> You won't be able to stop it unless you opt for a two state solution, even then it will only be a matter of time before you are driven into the sea.



Seems he was living under a rock...

Here a Hit mister rocky man.

Syria... EU... 2Millions... Border... Refugees...

Enjoy little boy...

As I said you can also exterminate them like Daddy Hitler 

FYI: Palestinians 6Mil...
Muslims in Israel: 2Mils..
Jews 6 Mils...

Anjoy the MAth


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> You won't be able to stop it unless you opt for a two state solution, even then it will only be a matter of time before you are driven into the sea.


We just might learn some things from you on how to stop minority population growth 



HannibalBarca said:


> Seems he was living under a rock...
> 
> Here a Hit mister rocky man.
> 
> Syria... EU... 2Millions... Border... Refugees...
> 
> Enjoy little boy...
> 
> As I said you can also exterminate them like Daddy Hitler


We didn't and we wont accept a single refugee, Europe will wake up and probably will learn from the past, but this time it will be united against the real enemy


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> We just might learn some things from you on how to stop minority population growth


And we might just learn some things from Hitler and co at Auchwitz.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Beny Karachun said:


> We just might learn some things from you on how to stop minority population growth
> 
> 
> We didn't and we wont accept a single refugee, Europe will wake up and probably will learn from the past, but this time it will be united against the real enemy



Yeah let's see a country liek Israel smaller than an apple can do against a 6Mils refugees... WHen 20% of his OWN pop is also Muslims/arabs... 
TBH no need for the other parts of palestinians.. go read Pew research , by the ENd of the century... Muslims will be a majority in ISrael  Have FUn hahahahaha

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stuttgart001

HeinzG said:


> I didn't quiet get what you meant by Roosevelt cheating Churchill?


I just take an example .
You know in WWII , Churchill did eventing he could including deceiving and begging and threating to lighter the load on British Army and let his allies do more and sacrifice more.


----------



## Mo12

Ultimately because Israelis are much smarter than the Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> Ultimately because Israelis are much smarter than the Muslims.



Lol Hitler said the same for his Aryan race... I will let you search about his conclusion... Well you already know


----------



## Mo12

HannibalBarca said:


> Lol Hitler said the same for his Aryan race... I will let you search about his conclusion... Well you already know



Hitler tried to bite more than he can chew sadly.

Defending your nation against 6 aggressors is totally different to how Hitler fought his wars


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mo12 said:


> Ultimately because Israelis are much smarter than the Muslims.



Ultimately they will end up dead or paying Jizya.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> Hitler tried to bite more than he can chew sadly.
> 
> Defending your nation against 6 aggressors is totally different to how Hitler fought his wars



Well zionism=nazism...

Zionism, put JEW as the only Race/Religion available for a Israeli state...
Nazism, same but with ARyans...

Both survive and fight for a similar ideology... Race and Expension...
Both use a minority for all their problems.. jews for one and the other muslims etc...

Well if you knew little of History... you will know who founded the modern Zionism mouvement and you will be suprised


----------



## Mo12

HannibalBarca said:


> Well zionism=nazism...
> 
> Zionism, put JEW as the only Race/Religion available for a Israeli state...
> Nazism, same but with ARyans...
> 
> Both survive and fight for a similar ideology... Race and Expension...
> Both use a minority for all their problems.. jews for one and the other muslims etc...
> 
> Well if you knew little of History... you will know who founded the modern Zionism mouvement and you will be suprised


You are reading to much into it, lets remember all the benefits Israelis have done for the human race in terms of solving water problems etc

Also dont know about History but when I go holidaying in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, all the Israeli girls are hot and love to party!


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HannibalBarca said:


> As I said you can also exterminate them like Daddy Hitler
> 
> FYI: Palestinians 6Mil...
> Muslims in Israel: 2Mils..
> Jews 6 Mils...
> 
> Anjoy the MAth



1.7 billion Muslims across the world. Only 6 million Jews in Israel. Do the maths, even 1% of Muslims will outnumber them almost 3:1.



Mo12 said:


> You are reading to much into it, lets remember all the benefits Israelis have done for the human race in terms of solving water problems etc
> 
> Also dont know about History but when I go holidaying in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, all the Israeli girls are hot and love to party!



I think we would live perfectly fine without their scientific achievements.

Shame those girls probably want to get as far away from you as possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> You are reading to much into it, lets remember all the benefits Israelis have done for the human race in terms of solving water problems etc
> 
> Also dont know about History but when I go holidaying in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, all the Israeli girls are hot and love to party!



Well since you put Israelis as your masters... let me tell you something... you ANCESTORS gave to this world THOUSANDS time more than any Israelis around the world since the BEginning of Humanity... But since you Slave Mind gave you this opportunity to praise and pray for your ISRAELI master, I'm not suprised that your country is still lacking behind.



dsr478 said:


> 1.7 billion Muslims across the world. Only 6 million Jews in Israel. Do the maths, even 1% of Muslims will outnumber them almost 3:1.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we would live perfectly fine without their scientific achievements.
> 
> Shame those girls probably want to get as far away from you as possible.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HannibalBarca said:


> Well since you put Israelis as your masters... let me tell you something... you ANCESTORS gave to this world THOUSANDS time more than any Israelis around the world since the BEginning of Humanity... But since you Slave Mind gave you this opportunity to praise and pray for your ISRAELI master, I'm not suprised that your country is still lacking behind.



Keep laughing, it's only a matter of time.


----------



## HannibalBarca

dsr478 said:


> Keep laughing, it's only a matter of time.


I was lol about the 2 parts...


----------



## Mo12

dsr478 said:


> I think we would live perfectly fine without their scientific achievements.
> 
> Shame those girls probably want to get as far away from you as possible.



Haha you wish... went skiing with them all on a trip.

Funnily they all asked me if what is my background, think they felt more comfortable when I said I was Indian.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> When did I say this?
> 
> Israelis have contributed more to humanity than all the muslims world in the last 20 years.



Your logic is stupid... then Muslims have contributed more to humanity since 1400 years... or are you against that truth too? want me to repost all savant and all???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mo12 said:


> Haha you wish... went skiing with them all on a trip.
> 
> Funnily they all asked me if what is my background, think they felt more comfortable when I said I was Indian.


Wow you went skiing. Such an achievement.

I think you thought wrong.


----------



## Mo12

HannibalBarca said:


> Your logic is stupid... then Muslims have contributed more to humanity since 1400 years... or are you against that truth too? want me to repost all savant and all???



ITs funny how you have to talk about 1400 years etc, when 1 tiny Israeli nation have given more to humanity than 20 muslims nations together in the last 20 years lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HannibalBarca said:


> I was lol about the 2 parts...


Oh. Thanks then!


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> And we might just learn some things from Hitler and co at Auchwitz.


Too bad you wont be able to do anything with your research


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> ITs funny how you have to talk about 1400 years etc, when 1 tiny Israeli nation have given more to humanity than 20 muslims nations together in the last 20 years lol



And what did they gave to us Humanity...that wasn't invented yet in those last 20 years???


----------



## Beny Karachun

HannibalBarca said:


> Yeah let's see a country liek Israel smaller than an apple can do against a 6Mils refugees... WHen 20% of his OWN pop is also Muslims/arabs...
> TBH no need for the other parts of palestinians.. go read Pew research , by the ENd of the century... Muslims will be a majority in ISrael  Have FUn hahahahaha


We already beat up countries with over 200 million citizens total, you think 6 million unarmed refugees will do anything against us? This will be a slaughter


----------



## Beny Karachun

HannibalBarca said:


> And what did they gave to us Humanity...that wasn't invented yet in those last 20 years???


The USB, the first mini processor, many genetically engineered plants, countless of new firms and companies, way more than you ever did



dsr478 said:


> Cows have contributed more to humanity than Indians have in the past 20 years. At least they can provide milk, cheese, butter and meat. Can an Indian do that? Nope.
> 
> Cows are more useful than Indians. Case closed.


Yet the Indians contributed more than you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Too bad you wont be able to do anything with your research


Be patient, these things take time.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> 1.7 billion Muslims across the world. Only 6 million Jews in Israel. Do the maths, even 1% of Muslims will outnumber them almost 3:1.


Out of them 40% are illiterate and over 90% live in poverty, and you cannot even arm 1% of them because your economical and industrial situation is REALLY bad


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> We already beat up countries with over 200 million citizens total, you think 6 million unarmed refugees will do anything against us? This will be a slaughter


Yeah but those countries had abysmal militaries.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> Yeah but those countries had abysmal militaries.


No military of yours poses even the slightest threat against Israel


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mo12 said:


> Wow already resorting to abuse already.
> 
> Seems like you are growing frustrated so quickly already.



your logic on Israleis/muslims wasn't that good either...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Out of them 40% are illiterate and over 90% live in poverty, and you cannot even arm 1% of them because your economical and industrial situation is REALLY bad


90% in poverty? Pretty sure that's complete crap.

Don't worry, as I said before, be patient. Your time will come.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Beny Karachun said:


> No military of yours poses even the slightest threat against Israel


lol... What about Egypt? TUrkey? even the low tech Iran/Hezbollah is used has the swear enemy of Israel ahhahaha WHat a country , who spend billions on Def to protect herself agaisnt a militia group and a far away country under sanctions ahahah

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mo12

HannibalBarca said:


> your logic on Israleis/muslims wasn't that good either...



Says the person who wanted to compare Muslims development of the last 1400 years vs Israel, when Israel wasnt even established until 1948


----------



## HannibalBarca

dsr478 said:


> 90% in poverty? Pretty sure that's complete crap.
> 
> Don't worry, as I said before, be patient. Your time will come.


lol give him the 2050 GDP list of countries and ask him to spot the Muslims countries and ask him to TRY to even spot israel...



Mo12 said:


> Says the person who wanted to compare Muslims development of the last 1400 years vs Israel, when Israel wasnt even established until 1948


lol... hahahahahahaha
ASk an israeli in this forum... even the most stupid one aorund here.. will tell you that israel existed 2000 years ago hahahaha

Stop digging to deep... it's hurting you...


----------



## Beny Karachun

HannibalBarca said:


> lol... What about Egypt? TUrkey? even the low tech Iran/Hezbollah is used has the swear enemy of Israel ahhahaha WHat a country , who spend billions on Def to protect herself agaisnt a militia group and a far away country under sanctions ahahah





Hossiiee said:


> We only lost, because the muslim nations have always been divided


Even he admitted defeat, but he tried to cover it up with excuses.
What makes you think the result of another war with Egypt would be any different than the previous results?
We don't even need to use unconventional weapons, a single missile to the Aswan dam and half of Egypt is covered with water, along with Alexandria and Cairo
Turkey? with all due respect we are stronger than anyone in this region and we proved it many times
Iran will have radioactive sand flying everywhere if you know what I mean.
Hezbollah just showed how strong we are when we had much worse equipment, 6:1 kill ratio

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mo12

dsr478 said:


> Nope, I'm just applying your logic.
> 
> I think all Indians should be kept in Delhi and cows should be placed everywhere else.
> 
> In fact, we should surround Delhi with a wall just to keep you guys from savagely attacking the innocent cows.
> 
> Those cows are more useful after all, and according to your logic that should dictate who gets rights and who doesn't.


Reported. Dont troll


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> No military of yours poses even the slightest threat against Israel


Hahaha, what a joke. Do you know what 140 nuclear warheads can do to such a tiny piece of land? We can make Israel uninhabitable for hundreds of years.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> 90% in poverty? Pretty sure that's complete crap.
> 
> Don't worry, as I said before, be patient. Your time will come.


Funny how you agree about the illiteracy but not the poverty
Yeah I exaggerated a bit, but I wasn't totally wrong:
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...on-muslims-out-of-1-4-billion-are-illiterate/


----------



## Mo12

Beny Karachun said:


> Even he admitted defeat, but he tried to cover it up with excuses.
> What makes you think the result of another war with Egypt would be any different than the previous results?
> We don't even need to use unconventional weapons, a single missile to the Aswan dam and half of Egypt is covered with water, along with Alexandria and Cairo
> Turkey? with all due respect we are stronger than anyone in this region and we proved it many times
> Iran will have radioactive sand flying everywhere if you know what I mean.
> Hezbollah just showed how strong we are when we had much worse equipment, 6:1 kill ratio



Have to admit that is one of the most impressive Wars in history, which Isreal had no right to win.



dsr478 said:


> Hahaha, what a joke. Do you know what 140 nuclear warheads can do to such a tiny piece of land? We can make Israel uninhabitable for hundreds of years.


You are talking like only Pakistan have nuclear bombs now lol


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mo12 said:


> Reported. Dont troll


I'm not trolling, I'm being 100% serious. Cows are more useful than Indians, therefore according to you they have more rights.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Funny how you agree about the illiteracy but not the poverty
> Yeah I exaggerated a bit, but I wasn't totally wrong:
> https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...on-muslims-out-of-1-4-billion-are-illiterate/


Don't need literacy to fire a gun or detonate a bomb.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mo12 said:


> Have to admit that is one of the most impressive Wars in history, which Isreal had no right to win.
> 
> 
> You are talking like only Pakistan have nuclear bombs now lol



We can take a few nukes, Israel can't.


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> Hahaha, what a joke. Do you know what 140 nuclear warheads can do to such a tiny piece of land? We can make Israel uninhabitable for hundreds of years.


Not even to mention that most of your nuclear warheads are based on the Nasr short range missile, that barely has a yield of a few kilotons, try us out:






















On the other hand, our Jericho 3 missiles are way deadlier, with MIRV capability and the range of 11,500 kilometers.
By the way, isn't this land holy to you? Lets say a nuclear missile does land in Israel, and destroys everything (Never going to happen thanks to our defense systems) wouldn't it kill the "Palestinians" too? destroy Al Aqsa? kill other Arab people in the region?
By the way, our Arrow 3 has the same range as your best ballistic missile.



dsr478 said:


> Don't need literacy to fire a gun or detonate a bomb.


You will be surprised

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Frogman

Beny Karachun said:


> Dude, you do know that it was the USSR and the US that pushed us to accept the peace agreement, let alone the ceasefire, right?



This is not a separate part of the conflict or war. It is an intrinsic part of it and a favourable effect for Egypt. There was also a military incentive for Israel to accept but I'll get to that later.



Beny Karachun said:


> Without this ceasefire your whole third army would have been defeated and your airforce was practically destroyed at that time, and we were about to push into Cairo, and you had nothing but reserve forces with old tanks to try to stop us



Complete and utter bollocks. Firstly, the ceasefire was not the end state of this war and is never the end state of any war. It is an opportunity to resupply and reform units in anticipation for further conflict.

As to the Israeli military situation on the West side of the Canal: 

- They had failed to take Ismalia and Suez. They had lost momentum and were fixed.
- Their supply line (as in they only had one) was a vulnerable 10km stretch by the Deresiviour 
- They could not move towards Cairo because in between them and that was the 4th Armoured Division 
- Their extended supply lines (East of the Canal) were vulnerable and could be cut by the 16th Mechanised Division 

The Egyptian situation from the 14th of October to the 25th: 

- The 21st Mechanised Division were pulled to the West for rearming and resupply in Abu Sultan
- The reformation of the 23rd and 6th Mechanised Divisions by way of Soviet resupply
- Attaching the 4th Armoured Division to the 3rd Army
- The creation of a new Mechanised Division using the Arab Reserve and attaching it to the 3rd Army 
- Position the Algerian Armoured Division on the Suez road towards Cairo

So could the Israelis conceivably take Cairo? No. Forces several times their size were in the way. They were already stretched within the area they occupied and their supply lines were under threat from the East side of the canal and on the West Side by SF.

The Egyptian Plan Shamel 2: 

- Destroy Israeli Forces on West Bank.
- Close the 30km gap between 2nd and 3rd Army
- Reopen supply lines to 3rd Army

The plan: 

1 - 16th Mechanised Division supported by the 22nd Armoured Brigade pushes southward cutting the Israeli entry point and fixing them on the Western Bank. Even if this push was not successful it would still disrupt Israeli forces and cut supply lines to the Western Bank. 

2 - The 23rd Armoured Division would attempt to take the area occupied by Sharon's forces which had control over the passing into the West side and was the center of operations for the Israelis. The Division itself was 250 tanks strong and thus similar in size to Sharon's but it was to be supported by the 18th and 116th Mechanised Brigades and the 182nd Paratrooper Brigade. Special Forces would also pressure Sharon's forces from the direction of Ismallia.

3 - The 3rd Mechanised Division would advance to cut off Magen's and Sharon's forces. Megan's forces were overstretched occupying an area far too large for them. Egyptian forces would move to take the area between Genef and the Smaller Bitter Lake.

Thus cutting them off would be somewhat easy as Egyptian forces could move unopposed in areas. In case of counter attacks from the North or South the 3rd was also tasked with creating defensive lines. 

4 - The main effort. Destroying Israeli forces from Alshalofa to Suez by the 4th Armoured and 6th Mechanised Divisions. The attack on Adan's forces would be an attempt to remove the encirclement of the 3rd Egyptian Army. The 4th and 6th would be supported by the newly formed Arab Division if need be. This would have been the toughest fight of the lot given the strength and experience of Adan's forces but it was doable. Their complete destruction was not required however.

5 - Attack by the Moroccan Brigade on the Israelis on the South/Gulf of Suez opening a supply line to the City and fixing any Israeli forces in case they seek to support the Adan's forces.

Without going into minutia this is what awaited the Israelis had the ceasefire collapsed. This is why it held up, not some meek reasoning (wanting peace or whatever). If Israel was convinced it could destroy Egypt's 3rd Army and push Egyptian forces back to the East or even take Cairo (!) they would have. 

The End state of this war is in 1979 with the Peace agreements and the return of the Sinai through war and by force. We achieved our strategic aims. Israel did not. You want to think you won fine. We have what we want and you have your peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Not even to mention that most of your nuclear warheads are based on the Nasr short range missile, that barely has a yield of a few kilotons, try us out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, our Jericho 3 missiles are way deadlier, with MIRV capability and the range of 11,500 kilometers.
> By the way, isn't this land holy to you? Lets say a nuclear missile does land in Israel, and destroys everything (Never going to happen thanks to our defense systems) wouldn't it kill the "Palestinians" too? destroy Al Aqsa? kill other Arab people in the region?
> By the way, our Arrow 3 has the same range as your best ballistic missile.
> 
> 
> You will be surprised


Your defence systems won't save you. If they could, you would let Iran get nukes.

LOL most of our nukes are not NASR, very few of them actually are.

We can use those few tactical nukes to cause chaos in Israel whilst avoiding harm to the Palestinians and the holy sites.


----------



## Hossiiee

@Beny Karachun

You are not seeing the big picture.. Israel was only facing threats from Al Qassam brigades, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. This means that the muslim countries generally are divided and only very few muslims are indeed helping their Palestinian brothers. If Israel had to face muslim unity they would not only be dealing with the axis resistance, but also with: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbeidjan, Bahrein, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Qatar, SA, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Oman, Pakistan, UAE, Yemen, Indonesia, Lebanon, and many more. 
You sounded like you are happy with ur 'multiplying'.. But as I told you, you have a long way to go. In the end there will be muslim unity again and when this happens you can have advanced technology and big military as much as you want, but it wont do any good. When truth comes, falsehood will perish: For falsehood is by its nature bound to perish. The zionist regime is based upon falsehood and will perish.. it is just a matter of time.. the time when muslims will finally wake up and stand up for their brothers in Palestine. I have nothing against Jews, Jews are living peacefully in Morocco for example.. But we will never allow the zionist regime, who is indiscriminately occupying our Palestinian brothers, to last forever.. The zionist regime is bound to perish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Frogman said:


> This is not a separate part of the conflict or war. It is an intrinsic part of it and a favourable effect for Egypt. There was also a military incentive for Israel to accept but I'll get to that later.
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter bollocks. Firstly, the ceasefire was not the end state of this war and is never the end state of any war. It is an opportunity to resupply and reform units in anticipation for further conflict.
> 
> As to the Israeli military situation on the West side of the Canal:
> 
> - They had failed to take Ismalia and Suez. They had lost momentum and were fixed.
> - Their supply line (as in they only had one) was a vulnerable 10km stretch by the Deresiviour
> - They could not move towards Cairo because in between them and that was the 4th Armoured Division
> - Their extended supply lines (East of the Canal) were vulnerable and could be cut by the 16th Mechanised Division
> 
> The Egyptian situation from the 14th of October to the 25th:
> 
> - The 21st Mechanised Division were pulled to the West for rearming and resupply in Abu Sultan
> - The reformation of the 23rd and 6th Mechanised Divisions by way of Soviet resupply
> - Attaching the 4th Armoured Division to the 3rd Army
> - The creation of a new Mechanised Division using the Arab Reserve and attaching it to the 3rd Army
> - Position the Algerian Armoured Division on the Suez road towards Cairo
> 
> So could the Israelis conceivably take Cairo? No. Forces several times their size were in the way. They were already stretched within the area they occupied and their supply lines were under threat from the East side of the canal and on the West Side by SF.
> 
> The Egyptian Plan Shamel 2:
> 
> - Destroy Israeli Forces on West Bank.
> - Close the 30km gap between 2nd and 3rd Army
> - Reopen supply lines to 3rd Army
> 
> The plan:
> 
> 1 - 16th Mechanised Division supported by the 22nd Armoured Brigade pushes southward cutting the Israeli entry point and fixing them on the Western Bank. Even if this push was not successful it would still disrupt Israeli forces and cut supply lines to the Western Bank.
> 
> 2 - The 23rd Armoured Division would attempt to take the area occupied by Sharon's forces which had control over the passing into the West side and was the center of operations for the Israelis. The Division itself was 250 tanks strong and thus similar in size to Sharon's but it was to be supported by the 18th and 116th Mechanised Brigades and the 182nd Paratrooper Brigade. Special Forces would also pressure Sharon's forces from the direction of Ismallia.
> 
> 3 - The 3rd Mechanised Division would advance to cut off Magen's and Sharon's forces. Megan's forces were overstretched occupying an area far too large for them. Egyptian forces would move to take the area between Genef and the Smaller Bitter Lake.
> 
> Thus cutting them off would be somewhat easy as Egyptian forces could move unopposed in areas. In case of counter attacks from the North or South the 3rd was also tasked with creating defensive lines.
> 
> 4 - The main effort. Destroying Israeli forces from Alshalofa to Suez by the 4th Armoured and 6th Mechanised Divisions. The attack on Adan's forces would be an attempt to remove the encirclement of the 3rd Egyptian Army. The 4th and 6th would be supported by the newly formed Arab Division if need be. This would have been the toughest fight of the lot given the strength and experience of Adan's forces but it was doable. Their complete destruction was not required however.
> 
> 5 - Attack by the Moroccan Brigade on the Israelis on the South/Gulf of Suez opening a supply line to the City and fixing any Israeli forces in case they seek to support the Adan's forces.
> 
> Without going into minutia this is what awaited the Israelis had the ceasefire collapsed. This is why it held up, not some meek reasoning (wanting peace or whatever). If Israel was convinced it could destroy Egypt's 3rd Army and push Egyptian forces back to the East or even take Cairo (!) they would have.
> 
> The End state of this war is in 1979 with the Peace agreements and the return of the Sinai through war and by force. We achieved our strategic aims. Israel did not. You want to think you won fine. We have what we want and you have your peace.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 390128


Your plan wasn't fulfilled you know, making plans is very different that completing them
This Israeli plan in the end of the war succeeded but unfortunately was interrupted by the US and USSR




*Israeli breakthrough – Crossing the canal*
After the Egyptian failed attack of October 14, the Israelis immediately followed with a multidivisional counterattack through the gap between the Egyptian 2nd and 3rd Armies. Ariel Sharon's 143rd Division, now reinforced with the 247th paratroopers reserve Brigade commanded by Colonel Danny Matt, was tasked with establishing bridgeheads on the east and west banks of the canal. The 162nd and 252nd Armored Divisions, commanded by Generals Avraham Adan and Kalman Magen respectively, would then cross through the breach to the west bank of the canal and swing southward, encircling the 3rd Army. The offensive was code-named Operation Stouthearted Men or alternatively, Operation Valiant. On the night of October 15, 750 of Colonel Matt's paratroopers crossed the canal in rubber dinghies. They were soon joined by tanks ferried on motorized rafts and additional infantry. The force encountered no resistance initially and fanned out in raiding parties, attacking supply convoys, SAM sites, logistic centers and anything of military value, with priority given to the SAMs. Attacks on SAM sites punched a hole in the Egyptian anti-aircraft screen and enabled the Israeli Air Force to strike Egyptian ground targets more aggressively.

On the night of October 15, 20 Israeli tanks and 7 APCs under the command of Colonel Haim Erez crossed the canal and penetrated 12 kilometres into mainland Egypt, taking the Egyptians by surprise. For the first 24 hours, Erez's force attacked SAM sites and military columns with impunity. On the morning of October 17, it was attacked by the 23rd Egyptian Armored Brigade, but managed to repulse the attack. By this time, the Syrians no longer posed a credible threat and the Israelis were able to shift their air power to the south in support of the offensive. The combination of a weakened Egyptian SAM umbrella and a greater concentration of Israeli fighter-bombers meant that the IAF was capable of greatly increasing sorties against Egyptian military targets, including convoys, armor and airfields. The Egyptian bridges across the canal were damaged in Israeli air and artillery attacks.

Israeli jets began attacking Egyptian SAM sites and radars, prompting General Ismail to withdraw much of the Egyptians' air defense equipment. This in turn gave the IAF still greater freedom to operate in Egyptian airspace. Israeli jets also attacked and destroyed underground communication cables at Banha in the Nile Delta, forcing the Egyptians to transmit selective messages by radio, which could be intercepted. Aside from the cables at Banha, Israel refrained from attacking economic and strategic infrastructure following an Egyptian threat to retaliate against Israeli cities with Scud missiles. Israeli aircraft bombed Egyptian Scud batteries at Port Said several times. The Egyptian Air Force attempted to interdict IAF sorties and attack Israeli ground forces, but suffered heavy losses in dogfights and from Israeli air defenses, while inflicting light aircraft losses on the Israelis. The heaviest air battles took place over the northern Nile Delta, where the Israelis repeatedly attempted to destroy Egyptian airbases.

*Securing the bridgehead*
Despite the success the Israelis were having on the west bank, Generals Bar-Lev and Elazar ordered Sharon to concentrate on securing the bridgehead on the east bank. He was ordered to clear the roads leading to the canal as well as a position known as the Chinese Farm, just north of Deversoir, the Israeli crossing point. Sharon objected and requested permission to expand and breakout of the bridgehead on the west bank, arguing that such a maneuver would cause the collapse of Egyptian forces on the east bank. But the Israeli high command was insistent, believing that until the east bank was secure, forces on the west bank could be cut off. Sharon was overruled by his superiors and relented. On October 16, he dispatched Amnon Reshef's Brigade to attack the Chinese Farm. Other IDF forces attacked entrenched Egyptian forces overlooking the roads to the canal. After three days of bitter and close-quarters fighting, the Israelis succeeded in dislodging the numerically superior Egyptian forces. The Israelis lost about 300 dead, 1,000 wounded, and 56 tanks. The Egyptians suffered heavier casualties, including 118 tanks destroyed and 15 captured.

*Egyptian response to the Israeli crossing*
The Egyptians meanwhile failed to grasp the extent and magnitude of the Israeli crossing, nor did they appreciate its intent and purpose. This was partly due to attempts by Egyptian field commanders to obfuscate reports concerning the Israeli crossing and partly due to a false assumption that the canal crossing was merely a diversion for a major IDF offensive targeting the right flank of the Second Army. Consequently, on October 16, General Shazly ordered the 21st Armored Division to attack southward and the T-62-equipped 25th Independent Armored Brigade to attack northward in a pincer action to eliminate the perceived threat to the Second Army.

The Egyptians failed to scout the area and were unaware that by now, Adan's 162nd Armored Division was in the vicinity. Moreover, the 21st and 25th failed to coordinate their attacks, allowing General Adan's Division to meet each force individually. Adan first concentrated his attack on the 21st Armored Division, destroying 50–60 Egyptian tanks and forcing the remainder to retreat. He then turned southward and ambushed the 25th Independent Armored Brigade, destroying 86 of its 96 tanks and all of its APCs while losing three tanks.

Egyptian artillery shelled the Israeli bridge over the canal on the morning of October 17, scoring several hits. The Egyptian Air Force launched repeated raids, some with up to twenty aircraft, to take out the bridge and rafts, damaging the bridge. The Egyptians had to shut down their SAM sites during these raids, allowing Israeli fighters to intercept the Egyptians. The Egyptians lost 16 planes and 7 helicopters, while the Israelis lost 6 planes. The bridge was damaged, and the Israeli Paratroop Headquarters, which was near the bridge, was also hit, wounding the commander and his deputy. During the night, the bridge was repaired, but only a trickle of Israeli forces crossed. According to Chaim Herzog, the Egyptians continued attacking the bridgehead until the cease-fire, using artillery and mortars to fire tens of thousands of shells into the area of the crossing. Egyptian aircraft attempted to bomb the bridge every day, and helicopters launched suicide missions, making attempts to drop barrels of napalm on the bridge and bridgehead. The bridges were damaged multiple times, and had to be repaired at night. The attacks caused heavy casualties, and many tanks were sunk when their rafts were hit. Egyptian commandos and frogmen with armored support launched a ground attack against the bridgehead, which was repulsed with the loss of 10 tanks. Two subsequent Egyptian counterattacks were also beaten back.

After the failure of the October 17 counterattacks, the Egyptian General Staff slowly began to realize the magnitude of the Israeli offensive. Early on October 18, the Soviets showed Sadat satellite imagery of Israeli forces operating on the west bank. Alarmed, Sadat dispatched Shazly to the front to assess the situation first hand. He no longer trusted his field commanders to provide accurate reports. Shazly confirmed that the Israelis had at least one division on the west bank and were widening their bridgehead. He advocated withdrawing most of Egypt's armor from the east bank to confront the growing Israeli threat on the west bank. Sadat rejected this recommendation outright and even threatened Shazly with a court martial. Ahmad Ismail Ali recommended that Sadat push for a cease-fire so as to prevent the Israelis from exploiting their successes.



dsr478 said:


> Your defence systems won't save you. If they could, you would let Iran get nukes.
> 
> LOL most of our nukes are not NASR, very few of them actually are.
> 
> We can use those few tactical nukes to cause chaos in Israel whilst avoiding harm to the Palestinians and the holy sites.


We have no intention of using them, you're talking as if you would welcome people trying to stab you, you will survive but each time someone tries to stab you, you will loose 1000$, you will spend this money but you will try to stop the stabber.

Again, your tactical nukes cannot even go NEAR Israel, hell, our Arrow 3 would probably intercept it above Iran, or even Pakistan itself!
And you don't understand that once you will launch a single missile at us, we will launch ours!
Ours are way more devastating and you have absolutely no way to intercept them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi @Beny Karachun

Muslims are not a very intelligent nation.

Not all wars are won thru death and destruction---.

At this time and also in the past---the only way Israel can be neutralized is thru peace---and total peace---.

And Israel will never allow peace to happen---it knows that peace would destroy it---it thrives on war and will stay in the phase of war.

The Christians have really fckd you guys up real bad---. They really have taken the revenge for the supposed sins---.

They could have given you land in germany to form a nation---and you would have lived peacefully and happy---but no---.

What really surprised me was how the clever old yid fell for the take.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

MastanKhan said:


> Hi @Beny Karachun
> 
> Muslims are not a very intelligent nation.
> 
> Not all wars are won thru death and destruction---.
> 
> At this time and also in the past---the only way Israel can be neutralized is thru peace---and total peace---.
> 
> And Israel will never allow peace to happen---it knows that peace would destroy it---it thrives on war and will stay in the phase of war.
> 
> The Christians have really fckd you guys up real bad---. They really have taken the revenge for the death of Christ---.
> 
> They could have given you land in germany to form a nation---and you would have lived peacefully and happy---but no---.
> 
> What really surprised me was how the clever old yid fell for the take.


Really? the Israelis were the first to propose peace, we didn't launch the first war, you did

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Beny Karachun said:


> Really? the Israelis were the first to propose peace, we didn't launch the first war, you did



Hi,

I understand that---. But still peace would have been better---because you would never had gotten the support of the americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Frogman

Beny Karachun said:


> Your plan wasn't fulfilled you know, making plans is very different that completing them
> This Israeli plan in the end of the war succeeded but unfortunately was interrupted by the US and USSR



The plan would have happened had the ceasefire not been in place or had it collapsed. Political conflict is war and this one did not end until 1979.

As for your plan, the Israeli breakthrough had again lost momentum and been fixed into position. They could not advance in any direction given the strength of Egyptian Forces there. They had become vulnerable to Egyptian counter attack and being cut off from supply. Which would lead to them being completely encircled and eventually destroyed had there not been a ceasefire. 

The cease fire was successful due to US and USSR pressure, the Saudi oil embargo, and the prospect of Israeli forces being encircled on the Egyptian east bank. Again, war is political conflict and whether or not you want to admit it the effects on the battlefield are only a part of it if you can't fulfill your strategic aims through that alone and I'm yet to see a war won there and there alone. We have what we wanted, our main strategic goal. You have your peace. So please leave this fanboy nonsense about taking Cairo and whatever at the wayside.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Frogman said:


> The plan would have happened had the ceasefire not been in place or had it collapsed. Political conflict is war and this one did not end until 1979.
> 
> As for your plan, the Israeli breakthrough had again lost momentum and been fixed into position. They could not advance in any direction given the strength of Egyptian Forces there. They had become vulnerable to Egyptian counter attack and being cut off from supply. Which would lead to them being completely encircled and eventually destroyed had there not been a ceasefire.
> 
> The cease fire was successful due to US and USSR pressure, the Saudi oil embargo, and the prospect of Israeli forces being encircled on the Egyptian east bank. Again, war is political conflict and whether or not you want to admit it the effects on the battlefield are only a part of it if you can't fulfill your strategic aims through that alone and I'm yet to see a war won there and there alone. We have what we wanted, our main strategic goal. You have your peace. So please leave this fanboy nonsense about taking Cairo and whatever at the wayside.


How do you know? you think everything goes according to the plan in war?
We were in a superior position against your reserve army with older equipment, small amounts of aircraft, basically no air defense and no secret underground communication system, you had to transmit everything through the radio and we intercepted all of your plans. We didn't loose our momentum, we just gained it, we did advance, especially when we had the full support of our aircraft.

Do you know what "encircled" is? how is this encircled?




You didn't achieve anything in that war except penetrating a 250-men defensive line with a 90,000 men strong army, which was then encircled with its supply lines cut, two more days and everyone there would die of dehydration.


----------



## Frogman

Beny Karachun said:


> How do you know?



Because I know what I'm talking about and have actual experience.



Beny Karachun said:


> you think everything goes according to the plan in war?



No. It goes according to the logistical capability you have and the manpower at your disposal at any given time. 

Like how you could not conduct major military operations towards Cairo with a single 10km supply line and overstretched forces in between Ismalllia and Suez alone. Ismalia and Suez being two cities you could not take which were being defended by light infantry and SF in addition to popular resistance. A far less daunting task than Cairo.

While in between you and Cairo there's the 4th Armoured Division and Republican Guard Brigades. Not even going to count on the Arab reserves.

Look it's pretty clear you're a fanboy. So I'm just going to leave it here, the 14th to the 18th of October are not the end state of the war 1979 is. If you can't accept my points I'm OK with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Your plan wasn't fulfilled you know, making plans is very different that completing them
> This Israeli plan in the end of the war succeeded but unfortunately was interrupted by the US and USSR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli breakthrough – Crossing the canal*
> After the Egyptian failed attack of October 14, the Israelis immediately followed with a multidivisional counterattack through the gap between the Egyptian 2nd and 3rd Armies. Ariel Sharon's 143rd Division, now reinforced with the 247th paratroopers reserve Brigade commanded by Colonel Danny Matt, was tasked with establishing bridgeheads on the east and west banks of the canal. The 162nd and 252nd Armored Divisions, commanded by Generals Avraham Adan and Kalman Magen respectively, would then cross through the breach to the west bank of the canal and swing southward, encircling the 3rd Army. The offensive was code-named Operation Stouthearted Men or alternatively, Operation Valiant. On the night of October 15, 750 of Colonel Matt's paratroopers crossed the canal in rubber dinghies. They were soon joined by tanks ferried on motorized rafts and additional infantry. The force encountered no resistance initially and fanned out in raiding parties, attacking supply convoys, SAM sites, logistic centers and anything of military value, with priority given to the SAMs. Attacks on SAM sites punched a hole in the Egyptian anti-aircraft screen and enabled the Israeli Air Force to strike Egyptian ground targets more aggressively.
> 
> On the night of October 15, 20 Israeli tanks and 7 APCs under the command of Colonel Haim Erez crossed the canal and penetrated 12 kilometres into mainland Egypt, taking the Egyptians by surprise. For the first 24 hours, Erez's force attacked SAM sites and military columns with impunity. On the morning of October 17, it was attacked by the 23rd Egyptian Armored Brigade, but managed to repulse the attack. By this time, the Syrians no longer posed a credible threat and the Israelis were able to shift their air power to the south in support of the offensive. The combination of a weakened Egyptian SAM umbrella and a greater concentration of Israeli fighter-bombers meant that the IAF was capable of greatly increasing sorties against Egyptian military targets, including convoys, armor and airfields. The Egyptian bridges across the canal were damaged in Israeli air and artillery attacks.
> 
> Israeli jets began attacking Egyptian SAM sites and radars, prompting General Ismail to withdraw much of the Egyptians' air defense equipment. This in turn gave the IAF still greater freedom to operate in Egyptian airspace. Israeli jets also attacked and destroyed underground communication cables at Banha in the Nile Delta, forcing the Egyptians to transmit selective messages by radio, which could be intercepted. Aside from the cables at Banha, Israel refrained from attacking economic and strategic infrastructure following an Egyptian threat to retaliate against Israeli cities with Scud missiles. Israeli aircraft bombed Egyptian Scud batteries at Port Said several times. The Egyptian Air Force attempted to interdict IAF sorties and attack Israeli ground forces, but suffered heavy losses in dogfights and from Israeli air defenses, while inflicting light aircraft losses on the Israelis. The heaviest air battles took place over the northern Nile Delta, where the Israelis repeatedly attempted to destroy Egyptian airbases.
> 
> *Securing the bridgehead*
> Despite the success the Israelis were having on the west bank, Generals Bar-Lev and Elazar ordered Sharon to concentrate on securing the bridgehead on the east bank. He was ordered to clear the roads leading to the canal as well as a position known as the Chinese Farm, just north of Deversoir, the Israeli crossing point. Sharon objected and requested permission to expand and breakout of the bridgehead on the west bank, arguing that such a maneuver would cause the collapse of Egyptian forces on the east bank. But the Israeli high command was insistent, believing that until the east bank was secure, forces on the west bank could be cut off. Sharon was overruled by his superiors and relented. On October 16, he dispatched Amnon Reshef's Brigade to attack the Chinese Farm. Other IDF forces attacked entrenched Egyptian forces overlooking the roads to the canal. After three days of bitter and close-quarters fighting, the Israelis succeeded in dislodging the numerically superior Egyptian forces. The Israelis lost about 300 dead, 1,000 wounded, and 56 tanks. The Egyptians suffered heavier casualties, including 118 tanks destroyed and 15 captured.
> 
> *Egyptian response to the Israeli crossing*
> The Egyptians meanwhile failed to grasp the extent and magnitude of the Israeli crossing, nor did they appreciate its intent and purpose. This was partly due to attempts by Egyptian field commanders to obfuscate reports concerning the Israeli crossing and partly due to a false assumption that the canal crossing was merely a diversion for a major IDF offensive targeting the right flank of the Second Army. Consequently, on October 16, General Shazly ordered the 21st Armored Division to attack southward and the T-62-equipped 25th Independent Armored Brigade to attack northward in a pincer action to eliminate the perceived threat to the Second Army.
> 
> The Egyptians failed to scout the area and were unaware that by now, Adan's 162nd Armored Division was in the vicinity. Moreover, the 21st and 25th failed to coordinate their attacks, allowing General Adan's Division to meet each force individually. Adan first concentrated his attack on the 21st Armored Division, destroying 50–60 Egyptian tanks and forcing the remainder to retreat. He then turned southward and ambushed the 25th Independent Armored Brigade, destroying 86 of its 96 tanks and all of its APCs while losing three tanks.
> 
> Egyptian artillery shelled the Israeli bridge over the canal on the morning of October 17, scoring several hits. The Egyptian Air Force launched repeated raids, some with up to twenty aircraft, to take out the bridge and rafts, damaging the bridge. The Egyptians had to shut down their SAM sites during these raids, allowing Israeli fighters to intercept the Egyptians. The Egyptians lost 16 planes and 7 helicopters, while the Israelis lost 6 planes. The bridge was damaged, and the Israeli Paratroop Headquarters, which was near the bridge, was also hit, wounding the commander and his deputy. During the night, the bridge was repaired, but only a trickle of Israeli forces crossed. According to Chaim Herzog, the Egyptians continued attacking the bridgehead until the cease-fire, using artillery and mortars to fire tens of thousands of shells into the area of the crossing. Egyptian aircraft attempted to bomb the bridge every day, and helicopters launched suicide missions, making attempts to drop barrels of napalm on the bridge and bridgehead. The bridges were damaged multiple times, and had to be repaired at night. The attacks caused heavy casualties, and many tanks were sunk when their rafts were hit. Egyptian commandos and frogmen with armored support launched a ground attack against the bridgehead, which was repulsed with the loss of 10 tanks. Two subsequent Egyptian counterattacks were also beaten back.
> 
> After the failure of the October 17 counterattacks, the Egyptian General Staff slowly began to realize the magnitude of the Israeli offensive. Early on October 18, the Soviets showed Sadat satellite imagery of Israeli forces operating on the west bank. Alarmed, Sadat dispatched Shazly to the front to assess the situation first hand. He no longer trusted his field commanders to provide accurate reports. Shazly confirmed that the Israelis had at least one division on the west bank and were widening their bridgehead. He advocated withdrawing most of Egypt's armor from the east bank to confront the growing Israeli threat on the west bank. Sadat rejected this recommendation outright and even threatened Shazly with a court martial. Ahmad Ismail Ali recommended that Sadat push for a cease-fire so as to prevent the Israelis from exploiting their successes.
> 
> 
> We have no intention of using them, you're talking as if you would welcome people trying to stab you, you will survive but each time someone tries to stab you, you will loose 1000$, you will spend this money but you will try to stop the stabber.
> 
> Again, your tactical nukes cannot even go NEAR Israel, hell, our Arrow 3 would probably intercept it above Iran, or even Pakistan itself!
> And you don't understand that once you will launch a single missile at us, we will launch ours!
> Ours are way more devastating and you have absolutely no way to intercept them.


We are bigger and have more nukes. Your entire arsenal won't be enough to take us out, where as we only need to get in a few nukes to wipe you out. It's not that difficult, it's just costly.

But soon it won't be.


----------



## Mo12

dsr478 said:


> We are bigger and have more nukes. Your entire arsenal won't be enough to take us out, where as we only need to get in a few nukes to wipe you out. It's not that difficult, it's just costly.
> 
> But soon it won't be.


F-16 and your JF-17 jets wont even be able to reach Israel as you have no mid-air refuelling capabilities and your missiles wont reach them as well with 100% accuracy at least anyway


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mo12 said:


> F-16 and your JF-17 jets wont even be able to reach Israel as you have no mid-air refuelling capabilities and your missiles wont reach them as well with 100% accuracy at least anyway


LOL what a joke.

Don't say anything if what you have to say is nonsense. 

Our nukes can reach Israel, Google it.


----------



## HeinzG

HannibalBarca said:


> Lol Hitler said the same for his Aryan race... I will let you search about his conclusion... Well you already know



It took 3 Massive armies to put an end to the Aryan race. At least respect the their fighting ability.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HeinzG said:


> It took 3 Massive armies to put an end to the Aryan race. At least respect the their fighting ability.


Their only weakness was their idiotic leader Hitler.


----------



## 19887

dsr478 said:


> LOL what a joke.
> 
> Don't say anything if what you have to say is nonsense.
> 
> Our nukes can reach Israel, Google it.


Israel will intercept them long before they reach Israel
And then shoot at you a good quantity of Jericho missiles, and no more Pakistan
Having nuclear weapons does not make you a hero

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

Frogman said:


> Because I know what I'm talking about and have actual experience.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It goes according to the logistical capability you have and the manpower at your disposal at any given time.
> 
> Like how you could not conduct major military operations towards Cairo with a single 10km supply line and overstretched forces in between Ismalllia and Suez alone. Ismalia and Suez being two cities you could not take which were being defended by light infantry and SF in addition to popular resistance. A far less daunting task than Cairo.
> 
> While in between you and Cairo there's the 4th Armoured Division and Republican Guard Brigades. Not even going to count on the Arab reserves.
> 
> Look it's pretty clear you're a fanboy. So I'm just going to leave it here, the 14th to the 18th of October are not the end state of the war 1979 is. If you can't accept my points I'm OK with that.


You having experience doesn't mean you would have won a war that was interrupted if it was not interrupted.

There was way more than one supply line but their lengths were indeed 10km, if you didn't know, the shorter range the supply line is the better. We thought Suez was poorly defended, so we sent two small armored and infantry brigades, we were wrong, our forces were ambushed, but that didn't change anything, the city was completely sealed and no food or water came in or out. Two more days and everyone there would die of dehydration, let alone that the city was encircled by many Israeli forces. 
For Ismailia we had two forces, Sharon's brigade and Sasson's brigade, we sent small scout forces from Sharon's brigade, they have managed to kill 50 Egyptian soldiers but 18 of theirs were killed and were forced to retreat, you thought it was some kind of a major battle with hundreds of tanks, but in reality it wasn't bigger than a border skirmish. If the ceasefire didn't exist Sharon and Sasson would have crushed your city from the south and from the east.

Your fourth armored division was made of T-34-85 that were dug in the ground, it performed poorly after the Israelis crossed the Canal following the Battle of the Chinese Farm and the ensuing encirclement of the Third Field Army.
Your Republican Guard was barely 20,000 men strong, it was nothing, all we had to do is get 100 tanks against them and they would be annihilated. Your reserves were untrained with really old equipment with no air support. 
In the war you ended up with less territory that you had, you lost more soldiers and vehicles than us, its clear to say that we won.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel will intercept them long before they reach Israel
> And then shoot at you a good quantity of Jericho missiles, and no more Pakistan
> Having nuclear weapons does not make you a hero



So as you candestroy those type of Missiles... can't you think they can too... 
One thing if you miss one.. it's over for Israel... while Pakistan can still receive few on her land and still survive... Israel is equal to a very small region of Pakistan...
Have Fun, playing this game...

Pakistan is btw 11-15x bigger than Israel...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel will intercept them long before they reach Israel
> And then shoot at you a good quantity of Jericho missiles, and no more Pakistan
> Having nuclear weapons does not make you a hero



Hate to burst your bubble but those systems will not intercept those nukes if they were launched. Maybe one or two if Israel is lucky, but it won't be enough. 

Pakistan is more than capable of surviving Israel 's puny 80 nuke arsenal. It would be a terrible setback, but we'd pull through.

Israel on the other hand wouldn't be able to take more than a couple of nukes. We can quite literally delete Israel from existence.

But hopefully we can get rid of you without nukes, wouldn't want to risk making the holy lands uninhabitable.


----------



## HAIDER

M.SAAD said:


> Why do you think Arab armies despite being united for once, couldn't defeat a tiny country like Israel? Despite arab armies being heavily backed by USSR in Yom Kippur war, couldn't dent Israel??
> 
> 
> Arabs had infact superior artillery and equipment, and larger no. of tanks and man power. Still Israel humiliated them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the biggest reason for their defeats in all the wars (Yom Kippur, 6Day war etc.) ?? And even if u say that US backed Israel it gets countered as USSR heavily backed Arabs and provided them with SAM batteries but they still couldn't do sh*t and Arab plans were target practice for the Israeli Mirages.
> 
> 
> So, thoughts?? Have the Arabs lost the art of War and became too soft or horrible tactics or what??


Simply jews fought well with better strategy. Major reason they were already battled hardened due to 2nd world war. They fought on all frontiers. Arabs were not capable enough to deal there strategic moves on the ground.
Hitler atrocities was major driving force of determination .


----------



## Beny Karachun

HannibalBarca said:


> So as you candestroy those type of Missiles... can't you think they can too...
> One thing if you miss one.. it's over for Israel... while Pakistan can still receive few on her land and still survive... Israel is equal to a very small region of Pakistan...
> Have Fun, playing this game...
> 
> Pakistan is btw 11-15x bigger than Israel...


Obviously they cant, Pakistan's longest range air defense system has barely 125km range AGAINST AIRCRAFT, while it cant even shoot down ballistic missiles
While our longest range air defense system is the Arrow 3, with the range of allegedly over 2,400km and can intercept nukes outside of the atmosphere

Except that we wont miss one  We have way too many layers to let those nukes get even close to Israel, let alone hit it
One Israeli Jericho 3 with MIRV warheads is just enough


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> So as you candestroy those type of Missiles... can't you think they can too...
> One thing if you miss one.. it's over for Israel... while Pakistan can still receive few on her land and still survive... Israel is equal to a very small region of Pakistan...
> Have Fun, playing this game...
> 
> Pakistan is btw 11-15x bigger than Israel...


Why do you think that in such a theoretical case Israel would fire only a few missiles, not 100?
Even in a larger country it is enough to shoot at population centers, there is no need to kill all the people


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Why do you think that in such a theoretical case Israel would fire only a few missiles, not 100?
> Even in a larger country it is enough to shoot at population centers, there is no need to kill all the people


Because Israel doesn't have 100 nukes. It has 80.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Why do you think that in such a theoretical case Israel would fire only a few missiles, not 100?
> Even in a larger country it is enough to shoot at population centers, there is no need to kill all the people


Look you can fire 100 or 300 at the same time, so be it... same will apply to the other side... so 100 vs 100, with equal Missile def... the results is the same... if Israel MISS ONLY ONE! it's over for her... while PAKISTAN can miss few, almost a dozen and still alive... 

THe Q is not how many you will fire... it's how many you will miss... 

ANd Israel do not have Hundreds of Jericho  only few... Have FUn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

dsr478 said:


> Hate to burst your bubble but those systems will not intercept those nukes if they were launched. Maybe one or two if Israel is lucky, but it won't be enough.
> 
> Pakistan is more than capable of surviving Israel 's puny 80 nuke arsenal. It would be a terrible setback, but we'd pull through.
> 
> Israel on the other hand wouldn't be able to take more than a couple of nukes. We can quite literally delete Israel from existence.
> 
> But hopefully we can get rid of you without nukes, wouldn't want to risk making the holy lands uninhabitable.



Yeah as if you can tell how many we can intercept 
No one can accurately tell how many nukes Israel have, some say 80 nukes some say 200 some say 400, 5 are enough for Pakistan though.
You cant delete jack shit from the earth, Israel's air defense system has a bigger range than your best ballistic missile

By the way, you don't understand, when you will launch your nukes, we will launch ours, and it would be useless, most of your nukes are on short ranged ballistic missiles, a few of them are on long range ones, and even if you had 500 of them you would still have no way of destroying Israel since each and every one


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Beny Karachun said:


> Yeah as if you can tell how many we can intercept
> No one can accurately tell how many nukes Israel have, some say 80 nukes some say 200 some say 400, 5 are enough for Pakistan though.
> You cant delete jack shit from the earth, Israel's air defense system has a bigger range than your best ballistic missile
> 
> By the way, you don't understand, when you will launch your nukes, we will launch ours, and it would be useless, most of your nukes are on short ranged ballistic missiles, a few of them are on long range ones, and even if you had 500 of them you would still have no way of destroying Israel since each and every one




The amount of stupidity in this comment is insane. 

If you honestly think Israel would survive a nuclear conflict, I think you should do an IQ test.


----------



## 19887

dsr478 said:


> Hate to burst your bubble but those systems will not intercept those nukes if they were launched. Maybe one or two if Israel is lucky, but it won't be enough.
> 
> Pakistan is more than capable of surviving Israel 's puny 80 nuke arsenal. It would be a terrible setback, but we'd pull through.
> 
> Israel on the other hand wouldn't be able to take more than a couple of nukes. We can quite literally delete Israel from existence.
> 
> But hopefully we can get rid of you without nukes, wouldn't want to risk making the holy lands uninhabitable.


Why do you think your missiles will pass the Arrow 3 Arrow 2 and David Sling
If Israel is destroyed (as in the past), the Jews will return to Jerusalem and rebuild everything. If Pakistan is destroyed, no one will rebuild it.
In addition, Pakistan will not fire nuclear missiles at Jerusalem, the Jerusalem area has a million Jews, if nuclear missiles hit Israel, the "Palestinians" would die too.
*Israel has more than 80 warheads

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Why do you think your missiles will pass the Arrow 3 Arrow 2 and David Sling
> If Israel is destroyed (as in the past), the Jews will return to Jerusalem and rebuild everything. If Pakistan is destroyed, no one will rebuild it.
> In addition, Pakistan will not fire nuclear missiles at Jerusalem, the Jerusalem area has a million Jews, if nuclear missiles hit Israel, the "Palestinians" would die too.
> *Israel has more than 80 warheads



Well same apply to pakistan... if you launch nukes at pakistan..; Iran + China+ India will be mostly touched (radiation and such)... And I don't think they will be happy about it either

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Look you can fire 100 or 300 at the same time, so be it... same will apply to the other side... so 100 vs 100, with equal Missile def... the results is the same... if Israel MISS ONLY ONE! it's over for her... while PAKISTAN can miss few, almost a dozen and still alive...
> 
> THe Q is not how many you will fire... it's how many you will miss...
> 
> ANd Israel do not have Hundreds of Jericho  only few... Have FUn


As I told someone else here, Pakistan will not shoot at Jerusalem,
And Israel has hundreds of Jericho missiles


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> As I told someone else here, Pakistan will not shoot at Jerusalem,
> And Israel has hundreds of Jericho missiles



Jericho 3 can touch Pakistan..; and Israel do not have hundreds of J3 only few... in MIRV way...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Well same apply to pakistan... if you launch nukes at pakistan..; Iran + China+ India will be mostly touched (radiation and such)... And I don't think they will be happy about it either


Lol Iran and China will not do anything
India will also bomb Pakistan


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Lol Iran and China will not do anything
> India will also bomb Pakistan



China + Iran are Pakistani allies...
Pakistanis are Arab allies
Arab allies are West + some RU allies

I think you're not in the right side to play 

ps: India is becoming more and more an Arab Ally... therefore indirectly a Pakistani+Chinese ally... 

Launch a nuclear warhead into pakistan..; and you will get all the area inside Israel in less than an hour... To late to get US/UE back up...


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Jericho 3 can touch Pakistan..; and Israel do not have hundreds of J3 only few... in MIRV way...


Israel has hundreds of Jericho 2 and 3 type missiles
I know a lot more than you, I served in the Israeli army, not you



HannibalBarca said:


> China + Iran are Pakistani allies...
> Pakistanis are Arab allies
> Arab allies are West + some RU allies
> 
> I think you're not in the right side to play
> 
> ps: India is becoming more and more an Arab Ally... therefore indirectly a Pakistani+Chinese ally...
> 
> Launch a nuclear warhead into pakistan..; and you will get all the area inside Israel in less than an hour... To late to get US/UE back up...


Do you think China and Iran will intervene in a nuclear war for Pakistan?
What are they screwed up?
Brother you live in a movie



HannibalBarca said:


> Launch a nuclear warhead into pakistan..; and you will get all the area inside Israel in less than an hour... To late to get US/UE back up...


Israel will never shoot first
We are talking about a situation in which Pakistan will shoot first


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel has hundreds of Jericho 2 and 3 type missiles
> I know a lot more than you, I served in the Israeli army, not you
> 
> 
> Do you think China and Iran will intervene in a nuclear war for Pakistan?
> What are they screwed up?
> Brother you live in a movie


Jericho 1 and 2 can't touch Pakistan, they respective range is 500 and 1.5K km... 
Only Jericho 3 can.. and back in the days, few Israeli general said around a dozens of J3 were build... Nice try anyway 

Israel can't be on the offensive/attack..; that's why she doing her ANti air thing... to be strong on defence...


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Jericho 1 and 2 can't touch Pakistan, they respective range is 500 and 1.5K km...
> Only Jericho 3 can.. and back in the days, few Israeli general said around a dozens of J3 were build... Nice try anyway
> 
> Israel can't be on the offensive/attack..; that's why she doing her ANti air thing... to be strong on defence...


Israel now has close to 100 Jericho III missiles
There are f15 f16 f35
There are submarines
There are nuclear suitcases


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Israel now has close to 100 Jericho III missiles
> There are f15 f16 f35
> There are submarines
> There are nuclear suitcases



Look man... why are speaking about fighter jets... those jets even with fuel tank under wing could not get close to Pakistan range... and their missiles or whatever will be intercepted by anti-air...
As for the submarine... come on... you think you will be able to pass the suez canal/ the red sea and so on till pakistan area?
AND no ISRAEL do not have 100 of jericho 3, bc she DO NOT HAVE 100 JERICHO 3. launching sites available on her territory... Do you even know the difference btw J1/2 and the 3? I hope you do...

ANd let's say Israel do have a 100... Pakistan alone has more than 250+300 rdy to go...


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Look man... why are speaking about fighter jets... those jets even with fuel tank under wing could not get close to Pakistan range... and their missiles or whatever will be intercepted by anti-air...
> As for the submarine... come on... you think you will be able to pass the suez canal/ the red sea and so on till pakistan area?
> AND no ISRAEL do not have 100 of jericho 3, bc she DO NOT HAVE 100 JERICHO 3. launching sites available on her territory... Do you even know the difference btw J1/2 and the 3? I hope you do...
> 
> ANd let's say Israel do have a 100... Pakistan alone has more than 250+300 rdy to go...


There are refueling planes
Submarines can also sail through Africa
There is no need for hundreds of launching sites
The talk here is not about whether Israel will be destroyed or not
The talk is about whether Israel will respond to Pakistan
Will it be worthwhile for Pakistan to attack Israel?


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> There are refueling planes
> Submarines can also sail through Africa
> There is no need for hundreds of launching sites
> The talk here is not about whether Israel will be destroyed or not
> The talk is about whether Israel will respond to Pakistan
> Will it be worthwhile for Pakistan to attack Israel?



In Time of War yes.
Will Pakistan attack or respond with nuclear power, mostly not.
Can Israel respond with nuclear power, if she's in the losing side... Maybe, she has nothinf to lose, so at that moment we have to see which madman is in power...

But if Israel and Pakistan were border on border, and war start btw them, with no nuclear involved, Well pakistan will win..; even with only knifs... after all you have a 8Mil vs 200Mil pop counter balance...


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> In Time of War yes.
> Will Pakistan attack or respond with nuclear power, mostly not.
> Can Israel respond with nuclear power, if she's in the losing side... Maybe, she has nothinf to lose, so at that moment we have to see which madman is in power...
> 
> But if Israel and Pakistan were border on border, and war start btw them, with no nuclear involved, Well pakistan will win..; even with only knifs... after all you have a 8Mil vs 200Mil pop counter balance...


It didn't work for the Arabs.....


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Why do you think your missiles will pass the Arrow 3 Arrow 2 and David Sling
> If Israel is destroyed (as in the past), the Jews will return to Jerusalem and rebuild everything. If Pakistan is destroyed, no one will rebuild it.
> In addition, Pakistan will not fire nuclear missiles at Jerusalem, the Jerusalem area has a million Jews, if nuclear missiles hit Israel, the "Palestinians" would die too.
> *Israel has more than 80 warheads



Because if it was so effective, Israel wouldn't be so scared of Iran getting nukes.

No they won't because it will be a radioactive wasteland. By the time the radiation subsides, Jews will be long gone or in extremely small numbers. Your religion is dying out everywhere but Israel (since Israeli Jews have a high fertility rate), and if Israel is removed, your religion won't take long to become history.

The thing is, you can't completely destroy Pakistan. You can only damage it brutally, but our nation is too big to be wiped out by anyone other than Russia and the US, they're the only ones with enough nukes for the job. 

Do you really think that after the nukes are fired and Israel is crushed, the Palestinians are just going to let you take refuge near the holy lands? Nope. They will start holocaust 2.0 and trust me this time it will be much worse.

Oh and the holy sites will be fine since we could just use tactical nukes to avoid hitting that small region.

Israel might have slightly more than 80, but no more than 100.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> It didn't work for the Arabs.....



At that TIme... as you may see today... even UAE/QAATAR are getting to Israel advance... Not even speaking about Turkey or KSA or Egypt or whatever...

and if you jump by saying , we have F-35... first u have just one as for TOday and Turkey is getting hers too... and those plane are not war winning machine... but that you know it already


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Lol Iran and China will not do anything
> India will also bomb Pakistan


They won't have to do anything since Israel will already be finished.

India won't start a nuclear war for no reason, even if they do, we can nuke them too. There's plenty of nukes to go around, don't worry.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Will it be worthwhile for Pakistan to attack Israel?



Nope. Very few wars are actually worth the effort. I was just speaking hypothetically.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> It didn't work for the Arabs.....


Yes but our conventional force is larger and just as experienced.

The only problem is our Air Force. Even though they are very well trained and larger than Israel's, the tech gap is too big at the moment. We can't match your F-35's unless they are as shoddy as the Russians claim they are. 

Maybe when we get 5th gen planes the game will be more even.


----------



## 19887

dsr478 said:


> Because if it was so effective, Israel wouldn't be so scared of Iran getting nukes.
> 
> No they won't because it will be a radioactive wasteland. By the time the radiation subsides, Jews will be long gone or in extremely small numbers. Your religion is dying out everywhere but Israel (since Israeli Jews have a high fertility rate), and if Israel is removed, your religion won't take long to become history.
> 
> The thing is, you can't completely destroy Pakistan. You can only damage it brutally, but our nation is too big to be wiped out by anyone other than Russia and the US, they're the only ones with enough nukes for the job.
> 
> Do you really think that after the nukes are fired and Israel is crushed, the Palestinians are just going to let you take refuge near the holy lands? Nope. They will start holocaust 2.0 and trust me this time it will be much worse.
> 
> Oh and the holy sites will be fine since we could just use tactical nukes to avoid hitting that small region.
> 
> Israel might have slightly more than 80, but no more than 100.


Iran can transfer weapons to other organizations like Hezbollah
Do not worry about the Jewish people, it will survive as it has survived until now and will eventually return to the Land of Israel
We only have to destroy the political structure
The Jews can escape, and in any case there are another 7 million in the world
Israel has several hundred for sure


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> Iran can transfer weapons to other organizations like Hezbollah
> Do not worry about the Jewish people, it will survive as it has survived until now and will eventually return to the Land of Israel
> We only have to destroy the political structure
> The Jews can escape, and in any case there are another 7 million in the world
> Israel has several hundred for sure



Well a big part of those "outside" Israel are against the return of Jew in Israel...  don't forget to say it too 
ANd Jews in israel are only there by descent or name..; most of "JEWS" do not believe... so they use the "jew" word to represent them as a "race"... not a religion...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> At that TIme... as you may see today... even UAE/QAATAR are getting to Israel advance... Not even speaking about Turkey or KSA or Egypt or whatever...
> 
> and if you jump by saying , we have F-35... first u have just one as for TOday and Turkey is getting hers too... and those plane are not war winning machine... but that you know it already


First of all there are 2
Until the summer there will be 9
And this plane is for an evasive nuclear attack (that's what I meant)
You live in a movie if you think everyone will attack Israel
And in the past we were weak, today we are stronger


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> First of all there are 2
> Until the summer there will be 9
> And this plane is for an evasive nuclear attack (that's what I meant)
> You live in a movie if you think everyone will attack Israel
> And in the past we were weak, today we are stronger



No one said someone gonna attack israel... it was only on a special scenario..; :|
TBH if Israel is in any incoming conflict .. it will mostly come from the inside...  and not any outside army/force wanting to invade israel...

Try to control or destroy palestinians first and then you can say you can win against a country in a war time... Civilians with rocks it's already difficult for you... and Hezbollah/Hama is a nightmare...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Iran can transfer weapons to other organizations like Hezbollah
> Do not worry about the Jewish people, it will survive as it has survived until now and will eventually return to the Land of Israel
> We only have to destroy the political structure
> The Jews can escape, and in any case there are another 7 million in the world
> Israel has several hundred for sure



So your worry is Hezbollah getting a nuke? That doesn't change a thing, I thought your systems could handle 140 nukes at once, let alone a single nuke.

No it won't. The Jewish people are dying out everywhere other than Israel. Sucks for you but it's true. 

Maybe a few of you would escape, but not enough.

No Israel has less than 100 nukes. Google it.


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> Well a big part of those "outside" Israel are against the return of Jew in Israel...  don't forget to say it too
> ANd Jews in israel are only there by descent or name..; most of "JEWS" do not believe... so they use the "jew" word to represent them as a "race"... not a religion...


You do not understand anything
The Jews will return, after 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years, it does not matter what some of the Jews think now
The concept of Israel is not just religion or land, Israel is a people, ethnicity, language, history, tradition, culture, and kingdom



HannibalBarca said:


> No one said someone gonna attack israel... it was only on a special scenario..; :|
> TBH if Israel is in any incoming conflict .. it will mostly come from the inside...  and not any outside army/force wanting to invade israel...
> 
> Try to control or destroy palestinians first and then you can say you can win against a country in a war time... Civilians with rocks it's already difficult for you... and Hezbollah/Hama is a nightmare...


What are you a little boy?
Do you compare regular army to guerilla force?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> You do not understand anything
> The Jews will return, after 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years, it does not matter what some of the Jews think now
> The concept of Israel is not just religion or land, Israel is a people, ethnicity, language, history, tradition, culture, and kingdom



Maybe according to your Torah but according to everyone else, no it won't. 

It's unlikely humanity will even last a thousand more years. We are set to kill ourselves in the next couple hundred at best if we're realistic.


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> You do not understand anything
> The Jews will return, after 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years, it does not matter what some of the Jews think now
> The concept of Israel is not just religion or land, Israel is a people, ethnicity, language, history, tradition, culture, and kingdom
> 
> 
> What are you a little boy?
> Do you compare regular army to guerilla force?



It's been 2000 years that Israel was destroyed and forbidden to return to... so ofc at this rate everyone can return to their land...  
Then see you in few hundreds years  or thousands...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 19887

dsr478 said:


> Maybe according to your Torah but according to everyone else, no it won't.
> 
> It's unlikely humanity will even last a thousand more years. We are set to kill ourselves in the next couple hundred at best if we're realistic.


Meanwhile humanity here, we don't know what will happen in the future


----------



## HannibalBarca

Mountain Jew said:


> You do not understand anything
> The Jews will return, after 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years, it does not matter what some of the Jews think now
> The concept of Israel is not just religion or land, Israel is a people, ethnicity, language, history, tradition, culture, and kingdom
> 
> 
> What are you a little boy?
> Do you compare regular army to guerilla force?



They ar enot guerrilla since they are not inside Israel territories... and they don't attack inside Israel , only external threat with possible incursion...  try again 
it's called an armed forced... since they have GOv ties with Hamas for Gaza and Hezb for Lebanon...


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Meanwhile humanity here, we don't know what will happen in the future


But we can make pretty good predictions, such as whether or not humanity will last a thousand more years.

Spoiler alert: It probably won't.


----------



## 19887

dsr478 said:


> So your worry is Hezbollah getting a nuke? That doesn't change a thing, I thought your systems could handle 140 nukes at once, let alone a single nuke.
> 
> No it won't. The Jewish people are dying out everywhere other than Israel. Sucks for you but it's true.
> 
> Maybe a few of you would escape, but not enough.
> 
> No Israel has less than 100 nukes. Google it.


Nuclear car bomb?
In any case, there is no need to take a risk
And there is a difference between ballistic missiles from Iran and missiles fired at your border
The Jews are shrinking in the world, they will not annihilate
Google will find numbers between 0 and 700



HannibalBarca said:


> It's been 2000 years that Israel was destroyed and forbidden to return to... so ofc at this rate everyone can return to their land...
> Then see you in few hundreds years  or thousands...


Israel was destroyed but the Jews remained in the land of Israel
If in the future Israel will be destroyed again, we will also wait two thousand years to return if necessary


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> Nuclear car bomb?
> In any case, there is no need to take a risk
> And there is a difference between ballistic missiles from Iran and missiles fired at your border
> The Jews are shrinking in the world, they will not annihilate
> Google will find numbers between 0 and 700




It's funny, Israel hasn't mentioned Hezbollah when it talks about Iran and it's nukes. It only talks about Iran directly firing them so a nuke car bomb isn't Israel's concern.

Jews are shrinking everywhere but Israel. Eventually Israel will be the only country left with Jews.

I don't know what sources you're reading, but clearly they're not reputable if they suggest Israel has 700 nukes.


----------



## 19887

HannibalBarca said:


> They ar enot guerrilla since they are not inside Israel territories... and they don't attack inside Israel , only external threat with possible incursion...  try again
> it's called an armed forced... since they have GOv ties with Hamas for Gaza and Hezb for Lebanon...


It is a militia that fights using guerilla methods



dsr478 said:


> But we can make pretty good predictions, such as whether or not humanity will last a thousand more years.
> 
> Spoiler alert: It probably won't.


Personally, I hope you're right
Humans have no right to live in this universe



dsr478 said:


> It's funny, Israel hasn't mentioned Hezbollah when it talks about Iran and it's nukes. It only talks about Iran directly firing them so a nuke car bomb isn't Israel's concern.
> 
> Jews are shrinking everywhere but Israel. Eventually Israel will be the only country left with Jews.
> 
> I don't know what sources you're reading, but clearly they're not reputable if they suggest Israel has 700 nukes.


Israel tells the world about Iran, in order to persuade them to impose sanctions and pressure Iran
In Hebrew we are also talking about Hezbollah
Stop playing that little head
Jews will not disappear, what do not you understand, the numbers are falling among the secular
WikiLeaks said Israel has 200 +

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Hossiiee said:


> Do u have this from a source ? If u have I would like to read it.


Google it, about the Moroccan general who was leading the force interview..


----------



## The SC

Stuttgart001 said:


> OK. I can see it is that Sadat was played by Isreali who use a ceasefire to take a break.
> 
> You said the Isreali troops were trapped and encircled and Egyptian force had an advantage over them.
> On such a condition, Isreal violated the ceasefire and attack Egyptian army initiatively.
> Then even if the Isreali violated the ceasefire, Sadat did not want counter back and just hold positions.
> What a saint!
> 
> Dude, do you really believe what you said?
> 
> 
> I am afraid a ceasefire is far away from surrender.
> 
> 
> Egypt got sinai back 6 years later and you claimed that proved you won.
> Syrian territory didn't lose just because they step on their territory temporarily.
> 
> I accept your definition of the word "win".
> I am curious how you define the word "lose".
> 
> 
> Other Arabian states provided manpower and cash and armament no matter more or less .I think they wouldn't give a penny if they would have known what's Sadat's plan as you claimed.
> 
> 
> Israel does have a high efficient national defense mobilization system.
> 
> But they can always get the support because of their outstanding diplomacy .
> Even other nations gave their support.
> Israel should hold on until the support was transported and distributed to their Soliders.
> If not, all the support would belong to Egypt and Syria.



Your opinion and "logic" do not hold when The Usraeli highest ranking officials and think tanks from all over the world had this to say:
Everything stated in these testimonies is in accord with the Fact that Egypt won the war.. It is clearer than water, you should clear your polluted false flag mind, and do not quote me anymore, unless you want to troll and lose your time.. So print it, go face a mirror and read it with a loud voice while you are looking in the mirror at yourself..

*1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all*

They Said about the War

*Introduction*
The October 1973 War, a radical turning-point in the course of Arab-Israeli conflict, has evoked interest by
military leaders, strategists, research and study centers and media around the world. This is due to the fact that this war had had far-reaching repercussions and impact on the Middle East region, not only on the military and strategic level but also on the overall political and economic life of the world as a whole. Statements by
contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October 1973 War.


*Israeli Testimonies*

*Reporting Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister during October War*:

The Egyptians crossed the canal and hit hard our forces in Sinai. The Syrians pushed deep into the Golan Heights. We incurred grave losses on both fronts. The agonizing question at that time was should we or should we not inform the nation of the truth about the bad situation?!.
In writing on the Yom Kippur War (October war) - not as a military report- but as a close-by disaster or a horrible nightmare that I myself have suffered from and will continue to haunt me throughout my life.

*Reporting Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister during October War:*

The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians. The halo of supremacy and the political and military premise that Israel is stronger than the Arabs; that they would be defeated should they dare to start war did not hold true. It was theory that it would take them the whole night to erect bridges, which we could prevent, using our armored vehicles. But it turned out that it was not easy to prevent them. Our exercise to send tanks to the battle front was very costly. We have never expected that.
(Press Conference, October 9, 1973)

The October War was an earthquake that hit Israel. What happened in this war has removed dust off our eyes,
revealing to us what we could not see before. All this led to a change in the mentality of Israeli leaders.
(Statements by Dayan, December 1973)

*Reporting Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister during October War:*

Many changes have taken place since October 6,1973. We should, therefore, not overestimate Israel military
supremacy. On the contrary, there is now an overwhelming sense in Israel of the need to review national rhetoric. We have to keep away from hyperboles and be more realistic. (November 1973)

*Reporting Aharon Yarev, Former Director of Israeli Intelligence:*

Undoubtedly, the Arabs came out of the war victorious, while we, in terms of image and feeling, came out torn out and weak. When asked if he won the war, Sadat replied, "Look at what is going on in Israel after the war and you will know the answer to this question".
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem,September 16, 1974)

*Reporting Haim Hertzog, Former Head of the State of Israel:*

The October war ended up in a major shock to all Israelis. Moshe Dayan is no longer the same man before. Since then he has been bent on himself. He has always had the conviction that he would not and could not afford to attack. Even amidst Egyptian infiltration, Dayan did not admit his miscalculations. He turned into a sort of a Hamlet, torn out by suspicion, reluctance, and inability to take decision or impose his will. That was the beginning of fall for labour governments which has ruled Israel for 25 years until then. Similarly the war has caused conceptual changes in the mentality of Israeli leadership, who started looking for a new approach and a realistic policy of dealing with the problem through political solutions.
(From the Memoirs of Haim Hertzog)

Before October 6, we used to talk too much, this was one of our problems. While the Egyptians learned how to fight, we learned how to talk. They were patient and their statements were more realistic than ours. They were telling and announcing facts so fully that the external world seemed to trust their statements.
(Comments by Hertzog, November 1973)

*Reporting Nahom Goldman , Former Head of Jewish Agency:*

One of the most significant results of October 1973 War was that it put an end to the myth of an invincible Israel and its progressive supremacy over the Arabs.This also cost Israel a high price; about $ 5 billion. It caused a radical change to the economic position of the Jewish Agency, which dropped from a state of boom experienced a year earlier (albeit not firmly grounded as it seemed) to an extremely deep, and ever more intensive and serious crisis. The most serious result was that which affected the psychological side.
Gone was the Israelis' confidence in their sustained supremacy. Their internal morale was tremendously weakened, which is the most serious thing that can face a nation, particularly Israel. This weakness was embodied into two contradictory forms, which led to an extremely serious polarization of Israel. On the one hand, there were some people who began to question the future of Israel. On the other, increasing fanaticism and hard-line trends were visible, leading to what was called "Massada Complex".
The citadel, where the Jews took refuge during the Jewish rebellion movement against the Roman Empire, but never surrendered and all died).
Reporting "Whereto Israel"

*Reporting Israeli General Ishio Javitch:*

If we assess achievements against targets, we will find out that the Arabs' victory was more decisive. I should
admit that the Arabs have achieved a very large part of their objectives. They proved capable of surmounting the fear barrier; got into war and fought efficiently. They also proved capable of forcing their way into the Suez Canal barrier. For Israel, the war ultimately ended without being able to break up Arab armies. We scored no victories. We could not back the Egyptian nor the Syrian army. Nor could we succeed in restoring the deterrent power to the
Israeli army. To our great sorrow, they snatched the canal out of our grips with the force of arms.
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16, 1974)

*Reporting Amnon Kapelock, Israeli Military Commentator:*

The English proverb says, "The higher the rise the more severe is the fall". On October 6, Israel fell off the top
of the tower of peace and tranquility it had built up for itself.
The shock was as strong and impressive as prior illusions. It seemed as though the Israelis had waked up from a lengthy, sweet dream to see a long lists of self-evident truth, and indisputable principles, illusions and facts
they had believed in for several years, shaken and sometimes shattered down by a new, unexpected fact,
ununderstandable to most Israelis.
From the perspective of a plain Israeli, the October War can have more than one name such as; war of recovery from a hangover , collapse of legends , end of illusions , a death of sacred heifers .
Following prior wars, prestigious military parades were often conducted in the Independence Day, where the public viewed war booty captured from the enemy. On the contrary, this time a large exhibition was made in Cairo, two months after the war, where the public viewed tanks, guns, military vehicles and many Israeli weapons captured from the enemy during the war.
On prior occasions, soldiers returned home in a flurry of happiness and pride. However, this time, returning
soldiers were gripped with sadness and consternation. Many had to frequent the psychiatric section of the Army's Medical Department, for treatment from "combat shock".
"Israel: End of a Myth"

*Reporting Zaev Schev, Israeli Military Commentator:*

This is the first war for the Israeli army, where many soldiers suffering combat shock and needing psychiatric
treatment were treated. Some of them forgot their own names and had to refer to hospitals.
Israel was stunned by the Arabs' success in waging a surprise war on Yum Kippur and scoring military successes. This war has proved that Israel has to reassess the Arab warrior. This time, Israel has paid a very high price.
The October War has shaken Israel from top to bottom. Instead of overconfidence, suspicions emerged and questions surfaced to the top; should we live for ever on our own devastation? Could we possible stand any other wars?!
"The October Earthquake: Yum Kippur War"

*Reporting Israeli Professor Shimon Shamir:*

I can list for the Arabs five important achievements:

First: They managed to affect a change in the US political strategy that was unfavour to Israel.

Second: They succeeded in making the military option happen, thus imposing such efforts on Israel that overburdened its resources and economy.

Third: They managed to achieve a high level of Arab cooperation in both the military and economic fields,

particularly as they restored to the oil weapon in October.

Fourth: Egypt could regain the power of free manoeuvring among major powers, which it lost ten years ago.

Fifth: The Arabs could change their own image; freeing themselves from the 1967 shock, and becoming more capable of hard work.
(Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16,1974)

*Reporting Yussi Belin, Member of the Knesset and Labour Party Leader:*

The tension that prevailed in the Labor Party in 1973 had crippled the Party, making it unable to take a decision to enter into peace negotiations with the Arabs. This led to the failure of Junnar Jaring's mission of mediation
between Egypt and Israel. The result was the outbreak of the Yum Kippur War (October) the end of tenure by the Labour Party and consequently a Right-Left equivalence of power, which has until now characterized Israel's political system. Unless an independent leader will have emerged in Israel up to May 4, 1999 ( the date set for declaring a Palestinian State), it would be difficult to prevent the coming disaster from taking place ( following the October
1973 and Intifada 1987 disasters).


*Testimonies by International Experts*

*Reporting American military historian Trevor Dubuoy, Chairman, Hero Foundation for Scientific Assessment of Historical Battles:*

As a result of honorable fighting waged by both Egyptian and Syrian armies, the Arabs restored their own pride and self-confidence, which led to the reinforcement of Arab influence on the international arena in general.
Strategically and politically speaking, there is no doubt that Egypt has won the war.
With the professional planning and performance whereby the crossing process was accomplished, no other army in the world could have done better. This precise work on the part of the general staff, particularly the element of surprise already achieved, resulted in remarkable success in crossing the Suez Canal on a wide front.
The Israel Intelligence categorically failed, as military intelligence activity concentrated on antagonist
capabilities, being out of reckoning. Miscalculation of Arab capabilities gave rise to misconceptions of Arab
intentions.
On the other hand, greater credit should be given to Arab security and confidentiality, whereby facts were
adequately screened to re-affirm prior Israeli misconceptions.
While the Egyptians waged maritime war essentially through a strategic approach, the Israeli waged it through a tactical one. The Egyptian had imposed a successful siege on shipping traffic to Ilat sea-port by closing down Bab-al-Mandab Strait. Their Mediterranean siege seemed to prevent neutral and Israeli ships from approaching the Israeli coast. On the southern front, Israeli attempts to destroy Egyptian air bases in the Nile Delta categorically failed thanks to the effective Egyptian air defense.
The Israeli also decided to attempt seizure of the city of Suez. Although their tanks infiltrated into the heart of
the city, yet resistance was so severe that they had pull back after being inflicted with heavy losses.
(International Symposium on October War, Cairo, October 27-31, 1975)

*Reporting British military historian Edger O'Balance:*

For Israel, the October War has caused an "all-out" change in strategy. It was forcefully ejected from an offensive to a defensive position. Since its inception, Israel has adopted an offensive military position. The Israeli general staff have never cared to contemplate a defensive position.
The Israeli soldier has realized that defense is now vital for his own survival. Conventional defense, which Israel
had, for long before the war, vaingloriously looked upon, became acceptable as a military necessity for the
protection of Israeli borders.
After the marvelous military operations achieved by the old Islamic conquests and the Crusades, the prestige of the Arab soldier has continually diminished in western eyes, due to varying reasons beyond his control. In this context, Israel has intensified its publicity, until it was surprised in the October 1973 War with Arab soldiers shattering their fetters, defeating Israelis, capturing hundreds of them, downing hundreds of their craft, destroying hundreds of their tanks. In a nutshell, Arab soldiers shattered the myth of invincible Israeli supremacy. What holds true for the Arabs in Napoleon's saying, "The ratio of marble to military equipment is three to one"
(Ibid)

*Reporting General Varar Huckly, Combat Development Director, British Army:*

The lessons learned from October War relate to personnel and their capabilities more than the machinery they
operate. The impressive achievement made by the Egyptians is the genius and skills of leaders and officers who were trained and waged such an offensive that came as a total surprise to the other party, albeit effected within its sight. As a complement, the soldiers demonstrated such high morale and audacity that would have been, in the past, impossible.
(Ibid)

*Reporting French General Albert Merglain:*

All military experts and political officials were confident that Arabs would never succeed in taking the Israeli
army by surprise. Contrary to what happened in October War, justifying evidence were many and varied. First, there was extreme confidence in Israeli intelligence services, which were said to be some of the best in the world, particularly as it was known to all that the American special agencies were closely related to them.
US reconnaissance planes and satellites could shoot all the depth of Arab rear area. Such favourable conditions for monitoring antagonist fronts combined could hardly exist. Therefore, the element of surprise was excluded,
particularly, as the man-made barrier of the Suez Canal protects the Israeli front line and allows easy and
effective resistance. The Arab surprise came at 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973. Contrary to negative assertions by all politicians, military experts, pressmen and specialists everywhere, the unexpected took place.
(Ibid)

*Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux:*

Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies.
Painful Days in Israel


*Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*

The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements
making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of
equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a
loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
The Gun and Olive Branch

*World Media and Press Reports*

As the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, cutting through the Bar lev-line, the October war changed the course of history both for Egypt and the entire Middle East.
(Daily Telegraph October 7, 1973)

The image of the Arab fighter in the aftermath of 1967 War as presented by world press was totally negative, giving
the impression that a successful military confrontation on the part of the Arab fighter was impossible due to
Israel's military strength.
Accordingly, one can understand the extent of change occurring after the Arab fighter has proved his presence and capabilities and how the world press has conveyed such change to world public opinion.
(The Times, October 7, 1973)

The Egyptians and Syrians are demonstrating high efficiency, organization and courage. The Arabs have scored a psychological victory that will have its psychological impact. The retention by the Egyptian of the east bank of the canal is a tremendous, unprecedented victory, whereby Israeli illusions that the Arabs were unfit for war have been shattered.
( Washington Post, October 10, 1973 )

Last week was one of chastisement and torture for Israel. Obviously, Arab armies are fighting with strength, courage and determination.
The Israelis were grouped with sadness and depression as they found out that the war cost them heavily and that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, as they had been told, unable to fight.
(Financial Times, October 11, 1973)

Obviously, the Arabs are fighting with unparalleled valour. Definitely, their fierce fighting had a considerable
role in their victories. At the same time, the Israelis were generally afflicted by a feeling of depression upon
their agonizing discovery -which cost them a lot- that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, in reality, helpless
soldiers. There were indications that the Israelis were retreating all through in front of the progressing Egyptian
and Syrian faces.
( The Times, October 11, 1973)

It was quite clear that the Israelis had lost initiative in this war. This was admitted by their leaders, including
General Shlomo Jonin, commander of southern front in Sinai, who said, "this is the most difficult war fought by
Israel since its inception in 1948"
(Sun, October 12, 1973)

The secure borders theory adopted for expansionist purposes by Israel since its inception up till now has been
totally shattered. Israel military mentality must change in the light of October War. This time a psychological myth
has been shattered. Israel should, from now on, give up the notion that its security can be realized by merely
occupying land.
( Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1973)

This war has eliminated the feeling of humiliation for the Arab and injured Israel's pride
(Daily Mail, October 12, 1973)

The Egyptian and Syrian troops caught the Israeli leadership stark naked. It was only after three days that the
Israeli leadership could mobilize adequate reserve troop to address the situation. The Israeli public opinion was
sleeping on the conviction that its intelligence services were the most efficient, its army the strongest. Now the
public opinion in Israel wants to know what happened and why. The question circulated by everybody in Tel-Aviv now is why the Israeli leadership had not been aware before hand of Egypt and Syria's plans?
(United Press Agency correspondent from Tel-Aviv, October 12, 1973)

The October War has shattered the security borders theory as understood by Tel-Aviv rulers. The war has proved that Israel's security cannot be guaranteed by tanks and missiles but rather by a peaceful, equitable settlement agreed by the Arab states.
(L'Humanite, October 17, 1973)

The Arabs are waging an equitable struggle. The Arabs are fighting in defense of their rights. If one fights in
defense of his land against an aggressor, he is waging a war of liberation. But to fight in order to continue to
occupy others' land is blatant aggression.
(Zeitung of German Democratic Republic, October 19, 1973)

Egypt has caught up with and even outstripped Israel in the field of missiles and electronics.
(The Observer, October 20, 1973)

The Israelis have faced a foe that was far ahead of it in everything, prepared for an extended war of attrition.
Israel has at the same time faced a foe with better training and more skilled leadership.
(Associated Press, October 20, 1973)

Today, a feeling of sadness and depression prevails in Israel. The number of prisoners of war returning from Egypt was more than expected. This means that many lost their lives.
(Jewish Chronicle, Britain, November 23, 1973)

Israeli soldiers fled breathless from the Bar-lev line, with soiled bodies and pale faces. Flocks of them fled the
hell opened against them by the sweeping Egyptian onslaught.
(Anna Bella (Italy) October 30,1973 )

Before the October War, the country was pervaded by wrong feelings; the feeling of our hawks of overwhelming military supremacy. Such conviction has led them into a military reassurance purporting that: "We'll cut them into pieces, should they dare to snap a finger at us.
(Al Hamishmar, Israeli Newspaper, October 29, 1973)

Al Ferdan east of the Suez Canal was the first site captured by the Egyptian troops. Then, the Egyptian scored their greatest victories, restoring their land since the first day. Their faces showed signs of pride and victory alongnthe Bar-Lev line, which fell apart in front of them. Thus irreversibly gone was the Israeli Bar-Lev line.
(The Times, October 31, 1973)

The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out.
(Haarts, November 2, 1973)

General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the
occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it.
(Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973)

Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even
failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing.
(Haarts, November 18, 1973)

The Egyptian navy during the October War outstripped the Israeli navy, particularly in the field of missiles.
(Defense Nationale (French Magazine), November 8, 1973)

The negligence committed in the Yum Kippur War led to the rise of a protest movement led by an Ishiknazi citizen, calling for investigating causes of the defeat of Israeli army in the war. These investigations led to the fall of officials responsible for such negligence. Following the assassination of former premier Yshaac Rabin, a new movement called Peace Generation emerged. This new movement led by Tal Zilberstein calls for the continuation of the peace process with Palestinians.
Both movements are in agreement on the prediction that a revolution, which will erupt from the heart of Israel
street, is in the way.
(Maaref, Israeli Newspaper, September 20, 1998)

The alarm risen sounded at 1.50 p.m. October 6, 1973, in its own connotation, was more than a mere alarm cautioning Israeli citizens to come down to underground shelters. It was rather the outcry reiterated upon burial of the dead. At that time the deceased was the first Israeli republic. When the war was over, the count was restarted and a new history began. After a quarter century from the rise of the State of Israel the pillars and underpinnings of old Israel were turned into a wreckage stranded on road side.

http://www.sis.gov.eg/newvr/october/english/4.htm



*The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:*

1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers,
and it was blocked with the start of the war.

2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter attack.

3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their supply lines were stretched for a long distance.

4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air
Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too
embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in the sources.

5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.

6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an American plane spotted it.

7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main force were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!


Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf

Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/

Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm

*After what is clearly stated in these testimonies from both Usraelis and non Usraelis, only the blind or analphabets will still believe that Arabs lose wars, as the riddled with malice title of this thread implies.. Actually the 1973 war has changed the world. one likes it or not *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mountain Jew said:


> It is a militia that fights using guerilla methods
> 
> 
> Personally, I hope you're right
> Humans have no right to live in this universe
> 
> 
> Israel tells the world about Iran, in order to persuade them to impose sanctions and pressure Iran
> In Hebrew we are also talking about Hezbollah
> Stop playing that little head
> Jews will not disappear, what do not you understand, the numbers are falling among the secular
> WikiLeaks said Israel has 200 +



Ouch. You really hate your own species. 

Wiki leaks says a lot of things. Not all of it is true.


----------



## The SC

Beny Karachun said:


> What happened to the "Pakistan can handle a few nukes"?
> And if we hit Iran that would be hitting two birds with one stone
> 
> 
> 
> If you copy paste, I can copy paste too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see this? By results- we won
> By casualty rates- we won
> By land conquest- we won
> Do you know what that means? THAT WE WON!
> End of story.


You can fantasise and dream what you want,, reality speaks for its self, you lost on every front and your best brains testified to it.. read post#616 again , and if you can not digest it, it is your problem as usual.. those arehard facts than can break your head.. so swallow back your false pride, take some pain killers and go to sleep..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

You can fantasise and dream what you want,, reality speaks for its self, you lost on every front and your best brains testified to it.. read *post#616* again , and if you can not digest it, it is your problem as usual.. those arehard facts than can break your head.. so swallow back your false pride, take some pain killers and go to sleep..


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> You can fantasise and dream what you want,, reality speaks for its self, you lost on every front and your best brains testified to it.. read *post#616* again , and if you can not digest it, it is your problem as usual.. those arehard facts than can break your head.. so swallow back your false pride, take some pain killers and go to sleep..















You see this? By results- we won
By casualty rates- we won
By land conquest- we won
Do you know what that means? THAT WE WON!
End of story.


----------



## The SC

You lost Sinai, and you had to give it back by force, so what is your problem..you hurt from truth, be a man and deal with it or do massada and commit suicide, its your choice.. every general of yours who fought that war said you lost it. so you must be very insane.. do not quote me at all since I do not quote Usraelis.. have some dignity and disappear..

*
Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*

The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements
making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of
equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a
loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
The Gun and Olive Branch

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beny Karachun

The SC said:


> You lost Sinai, and you had to give it back by force, so what is your problem..you hurt from truth, be a man and deal with it or do massada and commit suicide, its your choice.. every general of yours who fought that war said you lost it. so you must be very insane.. do not quote me at all since I do not quote Usraelis.. have some dignity and disappear..
> 
> *
> Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*
> 
> The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
> The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements
> making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of
> equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a
> loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
> The Gun and Olive Branch


How did we loose the Sinai? Egypt got it back 9 years after the end of the war. Again, we won by statistics, results and land conquest, we didn't loose in any way, admins are saying that I am trolling so I will stop replying to this.


----------



## The SC

*Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux:*

Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies.
Painful Days in Israel


----------



## Beny Karachun

You see this? By results- we won
By casualty rates- we won
By land conquest- we won


----------



## Gomig-21

Beny Karachun said:


> Dude, you do know that it was the USSR and the US that pushed us to accept the peace agreement, let alone the ceasefire, right?



Wrong. The Israelis accepted the ceasefire because they had no choice. They couldn't enter Suez City and that was critical for them to show that penetration to the west bank had some viable effect, instead of just a symbolic one which is what it was. Israel needed to bring the conflict to an end because it was way overstretched and vulnerable which is why they had to violate the ceasefire because they couldn't complete their escapade and they needed to do it quickly so that when the ceasefire was reinforced, their forces would be protected under it. Extending the war would not be in Israel's favor. Conveniently ignored.



Beny Karachun said:


> Without this ceasefire your whole third army would have been defeated



Same with the 3 Israeli divisions. They were just as protected by the ceasefire as the 3rd army. If what you said was true, the Israelis would've started destroying the 3rd army sooner but they didn't because they couldn't. Attacking the 3rd army would've extended the war and that would've meant all three divisions on the west bank would've been in trouble as well. Israel couldn't afford to lose any of its 3 best division commanders in Sharon, Adan and Megen. It's amazing how some people underestimate the vulnerability of those divisions and just claim the 3rd army was surrounded and that's it. When supplies were being brought in during the ceasefire and negotiations, the Israeli forces were also recipients lol! There were other critical consequences as well. Yep, they were in a very good position! 



Beny Karachun said:


> and your airforce was practically destroyed at that time,



Is that why the Israeli Air Force gave up attacking the airbases in the delta? It wasn't because the EAF was repelling them successfully but because they were "practically destroyed?" Even helicopters were flying over the Israelis on the west bank dropping napalm and almost killed Moshe Dayan. 



Beny Karachun said:


> and we were about to push into Cairo, and you had nothing but reserve forces with old tanks to try to stop us



It amazes me that people use the "push to Cairo" line. Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Can you stop for a second and just focus on the absurdity of that claim. With what?!?! They couldn't even take Suez City which only had civilian resistance and a few special forces units, and was right in front of them. Sharon and some of his tanks had it handed to them just trying to recon Ismailiya! Now you're telling me they could've drove all the way (while completely ignoring any Egyptian defenses that were listed in another post lol) through the desert and take the great capital of Cairo? My goodness. This is actually great, you know why? Because it truly exposes the misconception of how valid that supposed "surrounding" of the 3rd army was. They needed to hype up other false and absolutely ridiculous claims while ignoring valid ones in order to make up for the ambiguity of its effectiveness. Fortunately not everyone is gullible.

The difference in the two fighting parties and what determined victory in this case is the impact of the military engagement in a strategic and political sense. Egypt had a goal set, hence the military 'offensive.' Israel was on a defensive stand. Egypt's strategic goals were met as a result of the military engagement while Israel's were not. As a matter of fact, Israel ended up in a much worst position as the war came to an end, easily proved by the disengagement process. The supposed encirclement had minor bearing on the outcome because it was lacking true effectiveness. It was more symbolic than a viable threat. 

Egypt had much greater influence on the outcome of the war, hence also holding a better position to protect the 3rd army and even the 2nd should it need to. Some people conveniently choose to ignore some of these facts to make it look like Egypt lost the war. For example, a reason why the 3rd army couldn't be touched as you claim is that Israel was receiving close to 18 million tons of oil from Iran that came through Bab El Mandab which which was successfully blockaded by 2 Egyptian destroyers a couple of submarines throughout the entire war. No oil coming to Israel from Iran. This was HUGE because the Israeli airforce wasn't able to end the blockade and gave up on it. This was so bad for Israel that it made it one of the priorities at the negotiations and the blockade was lift by November 1st. This is how desperate the Israelis were and another main reason why the 3rd army wasn't threatened as much as some think. The other factor in Egypt's favor was in forms of allies and their influence. Saudi Arabia suspended its oil to the west and created a gasoline crisis, especially in the US. Huge bargaining chip for Egypt. Again, these are very critical factors conveniently ignored.



Beny Karachun said:


> You see this? By results- we won
> By casualty rates- we won
> By land conquest- we won



2,500 Israelis KIA in relation to its population at the time would've been equivalent to the US losing 250,000 troops in Vietnam in 10 years instead of 53,000! And this was in 3 weeks of fighting for Israel. Much greater impact when you look at it in the correct relation and not strictly by comparison. While any life is valuable and must not be dismissed as just ok to be KIA, but Egypt could afford a much higher casualty rate than Israel. That stat you posted is invalid.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Frogman

Gomig-21 said:


> While any life is valuable and must not be dismissed as just ok to be KIA, but Egypt could afford a much higher casualty rate than Israel.



We could afford more casualties. We expected more casualties. We had more casualties. Yet it is still absolutely pointless to argue they won the war because of it.

Her Majesty's Navy lost more tonnage in the face of the Germans during the Great war yet did the Germans win the war? No, they were unable to break the blockade on their naval ports which ultimately lead to their strategic defeat.

Judging who "won" a war based on casualties is incredibly shallow and straight up wrong. This isn't a video game your kill death ratio is irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Frogman said:


> We could afford more casualties. We expected more casualties. We had more casualties. Yet it is still absolutely pointless to argue they won the war because of it.
> 
> Her Majesty's Navy lost more tonnage in the face of the Germans during the Great war yet did the Germans win the war? No, they were unable to break the blockade on their naval ports which ultimately lead to their strategic defeat.
> 
> Judging who "won" a war based on casualties is incredibly shallow and straight up wrong. This isn't a video game your kill death ratio is irrelevant.


Yeah, in fact even in 1971 when India helped Bangladesh gain independence, they had a higher casualty rate.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

The SC said:


> Your opinion and "logic" do not hold when The Usraeli highest ranking officials and think tanks from all over the world had this to say:
> Everything stated in these testimonies is in accord with the Fact that Egypt won the war.. It is clearer than water, you should clear your polluted false flag mind, and do not quote me anymore, unless you want to troll and lose your time.. So print it, go face a mirror and read it with a loud voice while you are looking in the mirror at yourself..
> 
> *1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all*
> 
> They Said about the War
> 
> *Introduction*
> The October 1973 War, a radical turning-point in the course of Arab-Israeli conflict, has evoked interest by
> military leaders, strategists, research and study centers and media around the world. This is due to the fact that this war had had far-reaching repercussions and impact on the Middle East region, not only on the military and strategic level but also on the overall political and economic life of the world as a whole. Statements by
> contemporary witnesses to the war are the most truthful historical accounts, documenting facts and impartially and objectively assessing results of the war. Such testimonies should be particularly true, when they are made by major strategists and military experts around the world let alone those witnesses from the other side. After the lapse of a quarter a century, it might be beneficial to review these testimonies in order to learn lessons from the October 1973 War.
> 
> 
> *Israeli Testimonies*
> 
> *Reporting Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister during October War*:
> 
> The Egyptians crossed the canal and hit hard our forces in Sinai. The Syrians pushed deep into the Golan Heights. We incurred grave losses on both fronts. The agonizing question at that time was should we or should we not inform the nation of the truth about the bad situation?!.
> In writing on the Yom Kippur War (October war) - not as a military report- but as a close-by disaster or a horrible nightmare that I myself have suffered from and will continue to haunt me throughout my life.
> 
> *Reporting Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister during October War:*
> 
> The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians. The halo of supremacy and the political and military premise that Israel is stronger than the Arabs; that they would be defeated should they dare to start war did not hold true. It was theory that it would take them the whole night to erect bridges, which we could prevent, using our armored vehicles. But it turned out that it was not easy to prevent them. Our exercise to send tanks to the battle front was very costly. We have never expected that.
> (Press Conference, October 9, 1973)
> 
> The October War was an earthquake that hit Israel. What happened in this war has removed dust off our eyes,
> revealing to us what we could not see before. All this led to a change in the mentality of Israeli leaders.
> (Statements by Dayan, December 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister during October War:*
> 
> Many changes have taken place since October 6,1973. We should, therefore, not overestimate Israel military
> supremacy. On the contrary, there is now an overwhelming sense in Israel of the need to review national rhetoric. We have to keep away from hyperboles and be more realistic. (November 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Aharon Yarev, Former Director of Israeli Intelligence:*
> 
> Undoubtedly, the Arabs came out of the war victorious, while we, in terms of image and feeling, came out torn out and weak. When asked if he won the war, Sadat replied, "Look at what is going on in Israel after the war and you will know the answer to this question".
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem,September 16, 1974)
> 
> *Reporting Haim Hertzog, Former Head of the State of Israel:*
> 
> The October war ended up in a major shock to all Israelis. Moshe Dayan is no longer the same man before. Since then he has been bent on himself. He has always had the conviction that he would not and could not afford to attack. Even amidst Egyptian infiltration, Dayan did not admit his miscalculations. He turned into a sort of a Hamlet, torn out by suspicion, reluctance, and inability to take decision or impose his will. That was the beginning of fall for labour governments which has ruled Israel for 25 years until then. Similarly the war has caused conceptual changes in the mentality of Israeli leadership, who started looking for a new approach and a realistic policy of dealing with the problem through political solutions.
> (From the Memoirs of Haim Hertzog)
> 
> Before October 6, we used to talk too much, this was one of our problems. While the Egyptians learned how to fight, we learned how to talk. They were patient and their statements were more realistic than ours. They were telling and announcing facts so fully that the external world seemed to trust their statements.
> (Comments by Hertzog, November 1973)
> 
> *Reporting Nahom Goldman , Former Head of Jewish Agency:*
> 
> One of the most significant results of October 1973 War was that it put an end to the myth of an invincible Israel and its progressive supremacy over the Arabs.This also cost Israel a high price; about $ 5 billion. It caused a radical change to the economic position of the Jewish Agency, which dropped from a state of boom experienced a year earlier (albeit not firmly grounded as it seemed) to an extremely deep, and ever more intensive and serious crisis. The most serious result was that which affected the psychological side.
> Gone was the Israelis' confidence in their sustained supremacy. Their internal morale was tremendously weakened, which is the most serious thing that can face a nation, particularly Israel. This weakness was embodied into two contradictory forms, which led to an extremely serious polarization of Israel. On the one hand, there were some people who began to question the future of Israel. On the other, increasing fanaticism and hard-line trends were visible, leading to what was called "Massada Complex".
> The citadel, where the Jews took refuge during the Jewish rebellion movement against the Roman Empire, but never surrendered and all died).
> Reporting "Whereto Israel"
> 
> *Reporting Israeli General Ishio Javitch:*
> 
> If we assess achievements against targets, we will find out that the Arabs' victory was more decisive. I should
> admit that the Arabs have achieved a very large part of their objectives. They proved capable of surmounting the fear barrier; got into war and fought efficiently. They also proved capable of forcing their way into the Suez Canal barrier. For Israel, the war ultimately ended without being able to break up Arab armies. We scored no victories. We could not back the Egyptian nor the Syrian army. Nor could we succeed in restoring the deterrent power to the
> Israeli army. To our great sorrow, they snatched the canal out of our grips with the force of arms.
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16, 1974)
> 
> *Reporting Amnon Kapelock, Israeli Military Commentator:*
> 
> The English proverb says, "The higher the rise the more severe is the fall". On October 6, Israel fell off the top
> of the tower of peace and tranquility it had built up for itself.
> The shock was as strong and impressive as prior illusions. It seemed as though the Israelis had waked up from a lengthy, sweet dream to see a long lists of self-evident truth, and indisputable principles, illusions and facts
> they had believed in for several years, shaken and sometimes shattered down by a new, unexpected fact,
> ununderstandable to most Israelis.
> From the perspective of a plain Israeli, the October War can have more than one name such as; war of recovery from a hangover , collapse of legends , end of illusions , a death of sacred heifers .
> Following prior wars, prestigious military parades were often conducted in the Independence Day, where the public viewed war booty captured from the enemy. On the contrary, this time a large exhibition was made in Cairo, two months after the war, where the public viewed tanks, guns, military vehicles and many Israeli weapons captured from the enemy during the war.
> On prior occasions, soldiers returned home in a flurry of happiness and pride. However, this time, returning
> soldiers were gripped with sadness and consternation. Many had to frequent the psychiatric section of the Army's Medical Department, for treatment from "combat shock".
> "Israel: End of a Myth"
> 
> *Reporting Zaev Schev, Israeli Military Commentator:*
> 
> This is the first war for the Israeli army, where many soldiers suffering combat shock and needing psychiatric
> treatment were treated. Some of them forgot their own names and had to refer to hospitals.
> Israel was stunned by the Arabs' success in waging a surprise war on Yum Kippur and scoring military successes. This war has proved that Israel has to reassess the Arab warrior. This time, Israel has paid a very high price.
> The October War has shaken Israel from top to bottom. Instead of overconfidence, suspicions emerged and questions surfaced to the top; should we live for ever on our own devastation? Could we possible stand any other wars?!
> "The October Earthquake: Yum Kippur War"
> 
> *Reporting Israeli Professor Shimon Shamir:*
> 
> I can list for the Arabs five important achievements:
> 
> First: They managed to affect a change in the US political strategy that was unfavour to Israel.
> 
> Second: They succeeded in making the military option happen, thus imposing such efforts on Israel that overburdened its resources and economy.
> 
> Third: They managed to achieve a high level of Arab cooperation in both the military and economic fields,
> 
> particularly as they restored to the oil weapon in October.
> 
> Fourth: Egypt could regain the power of free manoeuvring among major powers, which it lost ten years ago.
> 
> Fifth: The Arabs could change their own image; freeing themselves from the 1967 shock, and becoming more capable of hard work.
> (Symposium on October War, Jerusalem, September 16,1974)
> 
> *Reporting Yussi Belin, Member of the Knesset and Labour Party Leader:*
> 
> The tension that prevailed in the Labor Party in 1973 had crippled the Party, making it unable to take a decision to enter into peace negotiations with the Arabs. This led to the failure of Junnar Jaring's mission of mediation
> between Egypt and Israel. The result was the outbreak of the Yum Kippur War (October) the end of tenure by the Labour Party and consequently a Right-Left equivalence of power, which has until now characterized Israel's political system. Unless an independent leader will have emerged in Israel up to May 4, 1999 ( the date set for declaring a Palestinian State), it would be difficult to prevent the coming disaster from taking place ( following the October
> 1973 and Intifada 1987 disasters).
> 
> 
> *Testimonies by International Experts*
> 
> *Reporting American military historian Trevor Dubuoy, Chairman, Hero Foundation for Scientific Assessment of Historical Battles:*
> 
> As a result of honorable fighting waged by both Egyptian and Syrian armies, the Arabs restored their own pride and self-confidence, which led to the reinforcement of Arab influence on the international arena in general.
> Strategically and politically speaking, there is no doubt that Egypt has won the war.
> With the professional planning and performance whereby the crossing process was accomplished, no other army in the world could have done better. This precise work on the part of the general staff, particularly the element of surprise already achieved, resulted in remarkable success in crossing the Suez Canal on a wide front.
> The Israel Intelligence categorically failed, as military intelligence activity concentrated on antagonist
> capabilities, being out of reckoning. Miscalculation of Arab capabilities gave rise to misconceptions of Arab
> intentions.
> On the other hand, greater credit should be given to Arab security and confidentiality, whereby facts were
> adequately screened to re-affirm prior Israeli misconceptions.
> While the Egyptians waged maritime war essentially through a strategic approach, the Israeli waged it through a tactical one. The Egyptian had imposed a successful siege on shipping traffic to Ilat sea-port by closing down Bab-al-Mandab Strait. Their Mediterranean siege seemed to prevent neutral and Israeli ships from approaching the Israeli coast. On the southern front, Israeli attempts to destroy Egyptian air bases in the Nile Delta categorically failed thanks to the effective Egyptian air defense.
> The Israeli also decided to attempt seizure of the city of Suez. Although their tanks infiltrated into the heart of
> the city, yet resistance was so severe that they had pull back after being inflicted with heavy losses.
> (International Symposium on October War, Cairo, October 27-31, 1975)
> 
> *Reporting British military historian Edger O'Balance:*
> 
> For Israel, the October War has caused an "all-out" change in strategy. It was forcefully ejected from an offensive to a defensive position. Since its inception, Israel has adopted an offensive military position. The Israeli general staff have never cared to contemplate a defensive position.
> The Israeli soldier has realized that defense is now vital for his own survival. Conventional defense, which Israel
> had, for long before the war, vaingloriously looked upon, became acceptable as a military necessity for the
> protection of Israeli borders.
> After the marvelous military operations achieved by the old Islamic conquests and the Crusades, the prestige of the Arab soldier has continually diminished in western eyes, due to varying reasons beyond his control. In this context, Israel has intensified its publicity, until it was surprised in the October 1973 War with Arab soldiers shattering their fetters, defeating Israelis, capturing hundreds of them, downing hundreds of their craft, destroying hundreds of their tanks. In a nutshell, Arab soldiers shattered the myth of invincible Israeli supremacy. What holds true for the Arabs in Napoleon's saying, "The ratio of marble to military equipment is three to one"
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting General Varar Huckly, Combat Development Director, British Army:*
> 
> The lessons learned from October War relate to personnel and their capabilities more than the machinery they
> operate. The impressive achievement made by the Egyptians is the genius and skills of leaders and officers who were trained and waged such an offensive that came as a total surprise to the other party, albeit effected within its sight. As a complement, the soldiers demonstrated such high morale and audacity that would have been, in the past, impossible.
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting French General Albert Merglain:*
> 
> All military experts and political officials were confident that Arabs would never succeed in taking the Israeli
> army by surprise. Contrary to what happened in October War, justifying evidence were many and varied. First, there was extreme confidence in Israeli intelligence services, which were said to be some of the best in the world, particularly as it was known to all that the American special agencies were closely related to them.
> US reconnaissance planes and satellites could shoot all the depth of Arab rear area. Such favourable conditions for monitoring antagonist fronts combined could hardly exist. Therefore, the element of surprise was excluded,
> particularly, as the man-made barrier of the Suez Canal protects the Israeli front line and allows easy and
> effective resistance. The Arab surprise came at 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973. Contrary to negative assertions by all politicians, military experts, pressmen and specialists everywhere, the unexpected took place.
> (Ibid)
> 
> *Reporting French writer Jean-Claud Jipoux:*
> 
> Did Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat conceive, as he sent out his tanks and soldiers to cross the Suez Canal on October 6, that he was releasing an overwhelming, horrible power that could change such world?! Nothing, from Europe to America, from Africa to Asia remained the same since the Yum kippur War. Something even deeper has turned upside down in the relationship that existed between the industrialized world and its old colonies.
> Painful Days in Israel
> 
> 
> *Reporting British Journalist David Hurst:*
> 
> The October War was an earthquake. For the first time in the history of Zionism, the Arabs tried and succeeded in imposing by the force of arm a fait accompli.
> The set-back was not merely military, but it also affected all psychological, diplomatic and economic elements
> making up the power and vitality of a nation. The Israelis paid a high price for merely maintaining a state of
> equivalence with their attackers. Within three weeks, they lost, according to official figures, 2,523 personnel; a
> loss, which, in proportionate terms is two and half times US loss in the Vietnam war over ten years. Following prior Israeli- Arab wars, a deluge of high-quality paper, pictorial books were published to commemorate victory. But this time, the first book published in Israel was entitled Al Mihdal (Negligence). In 1967, Israeli generals lectured their admiring audience on their various expeditions. However, as soon as the October War started they started exchanging accusations and the severest insults both on local and world media. Bereaved mothers and widows later accosted Moshe Dayan, the fallen deity with shouts branding him cut-throat. Prior wars were followed by impressive military parades marking the Independence Day, but this time, nothing of this sort was made. Conversely, the Israelis soon came to know that a large exhibition of booties was opened in Cairo. For the first time, the Israelis saw on Arab televisions the shameful sight of their prisons of war with their drooping heads.
> The Gun and Olive Branch
> 
> *World Media and Press Reports*
> 
> As the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, cutting through the Bar lev-line, the October war changed the course of history both for Egypt and the entire Middle East.
> (Daily Telegraph October 7, 1973)
> 
> The image of the Arab fighter in the aftermath of 1967 War as presented by world press was totally negative, giving
> the impression that a successful military confrontation on the part of the Arab fighter was impossible due to
> Israel's military strength.
> Accordingly, one can understand the extent of change occurring after the Arab fighter has proved his presence and capabilities and how the world press has conveyed such change to world public opinion.
> (The Times, October 7, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptians and Syrians are demonstrating high efficiency, organization and courage. The Arabs have scored a psychological victory that will have its psychological impact. The retention by the Egyptian of the east bank of the canal is a tremendous, unprecedented victory, whereby Israeli illusions that the Arabs were unfit for war have been shattered.
> ( Washington Post, October 10, 1973 )
> 
> Last week was one of chastisement and torture for Israel. Obviously, Arab armies are fighting with strength, courage and determination.
> The Israelis were grouped with sadness and depression as they found out that the war cost them heavily and that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, as they had been told, unable to fight.
> (Financial Times, October 11, 1973)
> 
> Obviously, the Arabs are fighting with unparalleled valour. Definitely, their fierce fighting had a considerable
> role in their victories. At the same time, the Israelis were generally afflicted by a feeling of depression upon
> their agonizing discovery -which cost them a lot- that the Egyptians and Syrians were not, in reality, helpless
> soldiers. There were indications that the Israelis were retreating all through in front of the progressing Egyptian
> and Syrian faces.
> ( The Times, October 11, 1973)
> 
> It was quite clear that the Israelis had lost initiative in this war. This was admitted by their leaders, including
> General Shlomo Jonin, commander of southern front in Sinai, who said, "this is the most difficult war fought by
> Israel since its inception in 1948"
> (Sun, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The secure borders theory adopted for expansionist purposes by Israel since its inception up till now has been
> totally shattered. Israel military mentality must change in the light of October War. This time a psychological myth
> has been shattered. Israel should, from now on, give up the notion that its security can be realized by merely
> occupying land.
> ( Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1973)
> 
> This war has eliminated the feeling of humiliation for the Arab and injured Israel's pride
> (Daily Mail, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptian and Syrian troops caught the Israeli leadership stark naked. It was only after three days that the
> Israeli leadership could mobilize adequate reserve troop to address the situation. The Israeli public opinion was
> sleeping on the conviction that its intelligence services were the most efficient, its army the strongest. Now the
> public opinion in Israel wants to know what happened and why. The question circulated by everybody in Tel-Aviv now is why the Israeli leadership had not been aware before hand of Egypt and Syria's plans?
> (United Press Agency correspondent from Tel-Aviv, October 12, 1973)
> 
> The October War has shattered the security borders theory as understood by Tel-Aviv rulers. The war has proved that Israel's security cannot be guaranteed by tanks and missiles but rather by a peaceful, equitable settlement agreed by the Arab states.
> (L'Humanite, October 17, 1973)
> 
> The Arabs are waging an equitable struggle. The Arabs are fighting in defense of their rights. If one fights in
> defense of his land against an aggressor, he is waging a war of liberation. But to fight in order to continue to
> occupy others' land is blatant aggression.
> (Zeitung of German Democratic Republic, October 19, 1973)
> 
> Egypt has caught up with and even outstripped Israel in the field of missiles and electronics.
> (The Observer, October 20, 1973)
> 
> The Israelis have faced a foe that was far ahead of it in everything, prepared for an extended war of attrition.
> Israel has at the same time faced a foe with better training and more skilled leadership.
> (Associated Press, October 20, 1973)
> 
> Today, a feeling of sadness and depression prevails in Israel. The number of prisoners of war returning from Egypt was more than expected. This means that many lost their lives.
> (Jewish Chronicle, Britain, November 23, 1973)
> 
> Israeli soldiers fled breathless from the Bar-lev line, with soiled bodies and pale faces. Flocks of them fled the
> hell opened against them by the sweeping Egyptian onslaught.
> (Anna Bella (Italy) October 30,1973 )
> 
> Before the October War, the country was pervaded by wrong feelings; the feeling of our hawks of overwhelming military supremacy. Such conviction has led them into a military reassurance purporting that: "We'll cut them into pieces, should they dare to snap a finger at us.
> (Al Hamishmar, Israeli Newspaper, October 29, 1973)
> 
> Al Ferdan east of the Suez Canal was the first site captured by the Egyptian troops. Then, the Egyptian scored their greatest victories, restoring their land since the first day. Their faces showed signs of pride and victory alongnthe Bar-Lev line, which fell apart in front of them. Thus irreversibly gone was the Israeli Bar-Lev line.
> (The Times, October 31, 1973)
> 
> The October War has brought about a concept, apparently unknown to us before; the war-stressed, i.e. those who suffer psychological shock, now dispersed at hospitals and convalescence houses, being treated from the impact of ferocious war. For the first time in their lifetime, Israeli soldier has known the experience of siege and isolation during the fight, the disgrace of capture and fear of ammunition running out.
> (Haarts, November 2, 1973)
> 
> General Yshac Rabin announced that his country had military plans to face all probabilities, including the
> occupation of the North Pole. But it seems that the sweeping Egyptian onslaught at mid-day October 6, 1973, had not been among Israeli probabilities. They, therefore, paid heavily for it.
> (Der Spiegel, (German Magazine), November 5, 1973)
> 
> Up to the date of cease-fire on the Sinai front we had not caused injury to the Egyptian army. Definitely, even
> failing the cease-fire, we would not be able to stop or destroy the Egyptian army. Thus, it can be said that during our fourth war with the Arab, we have realized nothing.
> (Haarts, November 18, 1973)
> 
> The Egyptian navy during the October War outstripped the Israeli navy, particularly in the field of missiles.
> (Defense Nationale (French Magazine), November 8, 1973)
> 
> The negligence committed in the Yum Kippur War led to the rise of a protest movement led by an Ishiknazi citizen, calling for investigating causes of the defeat of Israeli army in the war. These investigations led to the fall of officials responsible for such negligence. Following the assassination of former premier Yshaac Rabin, a new movement called Peace Generation emerged. This new movement led by Tal Zilberstein calls for the continuation of the peace process with Palestinians.
> Both movements are in agreement on the prediction that a revolution, which will erupt from the heart of Israel
> street, is in the way.
> (Maaref, Israeli Newspaper, September 20, 1998)
> 
> The alarm risen sounded at 1.50 p.m. October 6, 1973, in its own connotation, was more than a mere alarm cautioning Israeli citizens to come down to underground shelters. It was rather the outcry reiterated upon burial of the dead. At that time the deceased was the first Israeli republic. When the war was over, the count was restarted and a new history began. After a quarter century from the rise of the State of Israel the pillars and underpinnings of old Israel were turned into a wreckage stranded on road side.
> 
> http://www.sis.gov.eg/newvr/october/english/4.htm
> 
> 
> 
> *The things Israelis won't tell you, simply cause their government did not want them to know especially after the "Unstoppable army" myth:*
> 
> 1- Israel was running low on oil, cause Elat's harbor was the only harbor in Israel than can receive oil tankers,
> and it was blocked with the start of the war.
> 
> 2- Israeli forces were in a desperate situation, they concentrated themselves in a pocket with Egyptian forces all around them, they threatened in the news all over the world to annihilate 3rd army (20,000 out of 80,000 fighting soldiers, 320,000 available fighting forces & 800,000 total army), while in reality their forces were the ones going to be annihilated, that's why Israel accepted cease fire in the first place, they could not afford our counter attack.
> 
> 3- They claim they could have marched to Cairo, but that is wrong, the 101 km sign is only 10 to 15 km from the Suez canal, they could not have marched to Cairo, cause they would have to face the reserve armored forces, besides their supply lines were stretched for a long distance.
> 
> 4- Most Fighters lost to Israeli air force were reported by its pilots that they were hit by a SAM (Surface Air
> Missle), in reality many of those were brought down in dog fighting with Egyptian Air force, they were just too
> embarrassed to admit it, cause they were proud of being Kings of the sky. --> check the Egyptian Air Force link in the sources.
> 
> 5- Most of them know nothing about Elmansora air battle, the one which they lost 17 plane in.
> 
> 6- The US provided Israel with information about the gap, they did not know about it, till an American plane spotted it.
> 
> 7- Yes, Israel transported food & water to the encircled 3rd army (How could they surround it when its main force were on the east side of the canal?), that came through the UN from Egyptian supplies, they (Usraelis) were also running low on supplies and they played the man in between.. to get some for themselves too!!!
> 
> 
> Source(s):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Battle_...
> Kissinger's conversation with Mier --> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-54.pdf
> 
> Elsadat peace plan --> http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/did-golda-meir-cause-the-“yom-kippur-war”/
> 
> Egyptian Air Force --> http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/egipet.htm
> 
> *After what is clearly stated in these testimonies from both Usraelis and non Usraelis, only the blind or analphabets will still believe that Arabs lose wars, as the riddled with malice title of this thread implies.. Actually the 1973 war has changed the world. one likes it or not *


Thanks for the information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## c-dome1

HannibalBarca said:


> Jericho 3 can touch Pakistan..; and Israel do not have hundreds of J3 only few... in MIRV way...


how do you know how meny we have?


----------

