Reply With Quote
Based on the "logic" of preemption, which state in the Middle East doesn't deserve its very own US invasion? Why aren't we going into Bejing and Shanghai today?
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
How do you know Syria was up to something?
Because we attacked.
Well, why did you attack?
Because Syria was up to something.
Based on the "logic" of preemption, which state in the Middle East doesn't deserve its very own US invasion? Why aren't we going into Bejing and Shanghai today?
We're busy, maybe tomorrow.
It's time to shoot up the world.
let's blow up the moon
You're a little ambitious.
yes!!!
why limit democracy to this rock?
When do we liberate Mars?
Anyway, for a sober analysis of what transpired in Syria we turn to "Former Spook," at "In From the Cold."
What Did the Israelis Hit?
Connecting the dots.
Reports continue to circulate about the possible target of last week's Israeli military strike in eastern Syria.
According to The New York Times, U.S. officials believe that weapons caches, earmarked for Hizballah, were the most likely target of the raid, which reportedly included both air and ground units. A Defense Department official told the Times that Israeli warplanes hit "at least one target" in northeastern Syria, but said it was unclear what was struck, and the extent of the bombing damage.
Based on our past experience in BDA (battle damage assessment), that claim is a bit difficult to believe. Given the variety of sensors available to the intelligence community, it seems doubtful that we're largely in the dark about the target and the bombing results. The official's comment to the Times suggests that he (or she) is out of the loop (i.e., doesn't have access to current imagery products), or--more likely--is being deliberately vague about our knowledge of the attack.
But the real stunner in the Times report comes in the sixth paragraph, with this revelation from an unnamed member of the Bush Administration:
The possible transfer of "nuclear material" from North Korea to other rogue states is something we've written about at length, including this most recent installment. Fact is, we don't know the full extent of the "relationship" between Pyongyang, Tehran and Damascus. Clearly, North Korea has been the primary source of ballistic missile technology for both Iran and Syria; both countries have active WMD programs and an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. But clear evidence of a nuclear transfer has never been offered, at least publicly.
However, there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Tehran and Damascus have a more-than-passing interest in Pyongyang's nuclear expertise. Some intelligence analysts suggest that delegations from Iran and Syria were in the DPRK during last year's marginally successful nuclear test. And there were also reports that a number of Syrian technicians died in a 2004 blast at a railroad crossing along the border between China and North Korea. That explosion has been described as both an assassination attempt on Kim Jong-il (who was returning from China along that route), or some sort of failed WMD experiment involving Syria and the DPRK.
In any event, the purported demise of at least 30 Syrian scientists and engineers (by one estimate) remains a bit curious, given the cir stances of their deaths. As you might expect, massive explosions are rare along major rail lines in the DPRK, particularly on a route used by the "Dear Leader" just a few hours earlier.
With North Korea "officially" abandoning its nuclear program (under the Six Party agreement with the U.S. and its partners), a transfer of material and technology to Syria and Iran certainly makes sense from Pyongyang''s perspective. By going along with the agreement, Pyongyang gets energy aid and other goodies from the U.S. and South Korea; the sale of nuclear materials to the Middle East would generate another economic windfall. It would also give the DPRK a mechanism for continuing their nuclear research efforts, while appearing to comply with the Six Party accord.
And, it would be relatively easy for Pyongyang to arrange such a transfer, but difficult for the U.S. to detect. North Korean vessels have delivered missile cargoes to the Middle East for years, and the same transports sighted at airfields near Pyongyang have turned up in Iran and Syria.
Such reporting does not provide conclusive proof that North Korea's nuclear program has moved to the Middle East, but it is cause for concern. More importantly, the Israelis (who had their own nuclear arsenal for more than three decades) know what to look for in spotting suspect nuclear facilities. The sites imaged in Syria apparently have signatures associated with nuclear storage or development capabilities.
So far, both the Israelis (and the U.S.) are being vague about what's been observed. If we had to speculate--and we must emphasize that it's only speculation at this point--we'd guess that Israeli analysts have detected something that resembles a nuclear storage facility. We base our conclusion on this key point: it takes years to build a nuclear R&D facility like Natanz or Esfahan in Iran, and there have been no reports of similar construction projects in Syria. On the other hand, a nuclear storage complex can be built much more quickly, and those facilities (regardless of location) have certain features in common. What might be in that facility--assuming it exists and has a "nuclear function"--is anyone's guess.
We must also emphasize that the reported nuclear facility was apparently not the target for last week's IDF strike. Israel's Ynet News, quoting a Israeli-Arab newspaper published in Nazareth, said that the raid targeted "a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran...it appears that the base was completely destroyed." The paper based its reporting on anonymous Israeli sources.
But that claim is also rather odd. The area described by the newspaper (The Assennara) is home to a major Syrian SCUD facility, built almost entirely underground and extensively hardened. Complete destruction of the base would require exceptionally accurate bombing with penetrating weapons, and quite possibly, a follow-on ground assault. While the Israelis are capable of staging such an attack, the Syria base is heavily defended, and would present an exceptionally challenging target.
By comparison, other sources (including those U.S. officials quoted in the Times) place the target in northeastern Syria, not far from the Iraqi border. That would represent a logical area for training Hizballah crews on long-range rockets supplied by Iran. The area is remote, and the Syrians apparently thought it was relatively immune to Israeli attack (until last week). A less-hardened missile base or logistics facility would be easier to target and destroy, resulting in that "hole in the desert" claimed by IDF sources.
As for the reported "nuclear site," its existence may be short-lived, particularly if Israel has evidence that some sort of transfer has occurred, or is about to take place. That might mean that last week's attack was merely the opening blow, and not an isolated event.
How about we pull out and let Israel shoot up the Middle East without subsidizing them?
How 'bout we help eliminate their existential threat?
Muslim fanatics read Camus and Kafka?
and what would that be, Sartre? Despair? ennui?
If you can't seriously discuss the topic, why don't you just say so?
if you can't take a joke, just say so.
If you can't express yourself properly that's not my fault.
How 'bout we don't start another war based on blog speculation and anonymous administration conjecture?
They cant seriously discuss any topic.
Yeah, I guess it's hard for one to discuss a topic seriously when "we're fighting for freedom" is assumed to be the correct answer.
Why those.....The Syrians are buying nuclear weapons from North Korea...so says Faux News....
Faux NewsU.S. intelligence officials have developed evidence showing that North Korea is helping Syria to develop a nuclear program for weapons purposes, FOX News has learned in recent interviews with sources who have knowledge of the situation.
Syrians emphatically denied the claim on Thursday.
The details of the claims are vague, but one source told FOX News in late August that the North Koreans had sold the Syrians a nuclear facility, most likely related to uranium enrichment. Enriched uranium is necessary both for nuclear power and nuclear weapons uses. The United States accuses Syria of assisting terrorist groups including Hezbollah.
A source said the case has been assigned the internal code name, "Orchard," and the evidence was developed through Israeli channels, possibly with the assistance of U.S. aerial photography.
Other sources, however, questioned Syria's ability to afford such a pricey venture. Those sources said that in recent discussions with U.S. intelligence officials, the officials had spoken of North Korea having sent nuclear scientists, engineers, and other personnel with relevant expertise to Damascus.
Kind of a poor choice of words.U.S. intelligence officials have developed evidence
I haven't looked for it, but anyone know what the Syrian responce is?
They are renaming the country "Cyria."
he won't get it.
Sorry, I've never played Unreal Tournament.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
