or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Attacking Syria?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Attacking Syria?

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Do you see it on the horizon? The far right around here are saber rattling.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #2 of 30
I hope we do.
post #3 of 30
It's a "hard job" but... Bring them on !!!
I'm The Boss... This Is Champaign...
Merry Christmas !
Reply
I'm The Boss... This Is Champaign...
Merry Christmas !
Reply
post #4 of 30
'We gonna smoke 'em out!'
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by pierr_alex
It's a "hard job" but... Bring them on !!!

I think the correct term is "hard work".
post #6 of 30
We do have access to Afgan opium so why don't we just burn it up wind of syria and well "smoke them out".
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #7 of 30
The medium far right to center far right are against it.
post #8 of 30
Who?

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #9 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
We do have access to Afgan opium so why don't we just burn it up wind of syria and well "smoke them out".

That would be groovy.
post #10 of 30
Thread Starter 
The level of sarcasim suggests none of you see it coming. Good to hear. Niether do I.
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
The level of sarcasim suggests none of you see it coming. Good to hear. Niether do I.

I think it's just the opposite. Something will happen with Syria, as it is an easier target than Iran and a reasonable one considering our strategic position in Iraq. The sarcasm, in other words, means that it is a foregone conclusion.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #12 of 30
The recent bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is being predictably blamed on Syria.

When a serious crime is committed, one of the first things investigators look at is motivation in order to help determine and find the perpetrators. What does Syria have to gain by the assassination of one of Lebanon's most popular figures? At best, nothing. What has Syria got to lose by this act of terrorism? Everything. (btw, When I say "Syria" I am referring to the Syrian leadership, as opposed to its people).

Syria has been long denounced by the Bush administration as a sponsor of terrorism, and listed as a rogue state that requires a regime change. What methods would "any party who wants to see leadership changes (in Syria)" use to start the ball rolling, in order to weaken the image and status of the Assad government in the region, to set off a chain of events that results in a regime change? It's far easier, and cheaper to initiate changes from within by pulling off acts that destabilize, rather than go the military action (air strikes/invasion) route. Naturally, if the "softening up" methods dont pan out properly, the military option is always on the table.

Even if this was the work of a team of Syrians, can anyone honestly say that they were working for and on behalf of the Syrian government? No way. Assad and his crew may be an unsavory bunch, but they surely aren't completel morons. This was without a doubt the work of parties hostile to the Assad regime. This wont go down well with the conservatives on this board, but Israel and the neocons within the Bush admin will be privately jubilant at this turn of events.

Lets see what pans out.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #13 of 30
I normally laugh at conspiricy theories, but the thought that the US government performed the assassination also occured to me...

Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact now, so we will have to take them both out at once.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I normally laugh at conspiricy theories, but the thought that the US government performed the assassination also occured to me...

Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact now, so we will have to take them both out at once.

You laugh at conspiracy theories? Surely it depends on who is selling them to you! There have been some extraordinary conspiracy theories, with little to zero basis in fact that have been sold to the American people in the last 4 years, that have been swallowed without question, just because the Bush administration has been the party doing the selling. For one example: "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and represents a gathering threat to the national security of the United States". This was a wild, baseless conspiracy theory, and look how many undiscerning morons didnt see the "Elvis seen alive on Saturn's largest moon, in an elaborate weddding ceremony with 2 headed alien bride" element.

Regarding the Hariri assassination , whoever was responsible would have covered their tracks extremely carefully. I imagine that within the next few days, some previously unheard of "Islamic" group will claim responsibility, and everyone will be "satisfied".

In this incident, all "explanations" should be treated with extreme skepticism, especially those which point to people with a connection to the Syrian government. This is exactly what Assad''s opponents need to happen.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 30
I wasn't being sarcastic though. I hope we do attack Syria.
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I wasn't being sarcastic though. I hope we do attack Syria.

I realize the end you're looking for, but I hope it can be accomplished by means other than massive bloodshed and upheaval.
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
The recent bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is being predictably blamed on Syria.

When a serious crime is committed, one of the first things investigators look at is motivation in order to help determine and find the perpetrators. What does Syria have to gain by the assassination of one of Lebanon's most popular figures? At best, nothing. What has Syria got to lose by this act of terrorism? Everything. (btw, When I say "Syria" I am referring to the Syrian leadership, as opposed to its people).

Syria has been long denounced by the Bush administration as a sponsor of terrorism, and listed as a rogue state that requires a regime change. What methods would "any party who wants to see leadership changes (in Syria)" use to start the ball rolling, in order to weaken the image and status of the Assad government in the region, to set off a chain of events that results in a regime change? It's far easier, and cheaper to initiate changes from within by pulling off acts that destabilize, rather than go the military action (air strikes/invasion) route. Naturally, if the "softening up" methods dont pan out properly, the military option is always on the table.

Even if this was the work of a team of Syrians, can anyone honestly say that they were working for and on behalf of the Syrian government? No way. Assad and his crew may be an unsavory bunch, but they surely aren't completel morons. This was without a doubt the work of parties hostile to the Assad regime. This wont go down well with the conservatives on this board, but Israel and the neocons within the Bush admin will be privately jubilant at this turn of events.

Lets see what pans out.

According to many Lebanese and General Anoun, Syria is certainly behind this crime.
In the past, Syria and his secret services has used this kind of dirty tricks.
Rafik Hariri, knew that his life was threaten : "it will be me or them" he told 15 days ago one of his friend.

Yes such practices are not only criminal, horrible, but also stupid. But tha's the way Syria do it. It's not the first time they used such methods.

Syria has nothing to do in lebanon. They are only interested to stay here, in order to make an exchange : get rid of Lebanon, if Israel leave Golan. The problem is that Lebanese people have nothing to do with that conflict.

I would also answer to the question " are they Moron ? " : yes they are. A dictatorship lost the sense of reality. When you have the habit to have people around you, claiming that you are always right, when you have the culture of oppression and violence, you loose common sense.
Most dictators act in a stupid way, a way that leads to their end.
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
I realize the end you're looking for, but I hope it can be accomplished by means other than massive bloodshed and upheaval.

sadly mankind isn't that smart. Sometimes we have to have our asses strung up against the wall before we realise how stupid we've been.
post #19 of 30
Does anyone see a problem here? WHO ARE WE TO SAY IF A COUNTRY NEEDS A REGIME CHANGE? What if China said that the US needs a regime change? What would we do? What could we do? Nothing. We would be in the same situation that these Middle Eastern countries are in. China's military, as far as technolgy, may not be on par with the US's yet but what they lack in technology they make up for in sheer manpower. Dont get me wrong, I support Bush on most issues (SS,taxes,etc.)but as far as foreign policy, I think some changes need to be made. Personally, I would prefer a return to the isolationalist period where we were all about the US and the US alone.
The Supreme Being
Reply
The Supreme Being
Reply
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Protostar
Does anyone see a problem here? WHO ARE WE TO SAY IF A COUNTRY NEEDS A REGIME CHANGE? What if China said that the US needs a regime change? What would we do? What could we do? Nothing. We would be in the same situation that these Middle Eastern countries are in. China's military, as far as technolgy, may not be on par with the US's yet but what they lack in technology they make up for in sheer manpower. Dont get me wrong, I support Bush on most issues (SS,taxes,etc.)but as far as foreign policy, I think some changes need to be made. Personally, I would prefer a return to the isolationalist period where we were all about the US and the US alone.


and one example that would show how isolationism benefitted a nation at any time in history would be?

that's exactly what i thought.
post #21 of 30
From Lebanese sources it seems the prevailing opinion is blaming Syria and/or pro-Syrian locals for murdering Rafic al Hariri, although there are also claims that the more conservative clique within the Syrian ruling community was behind it so to discourage any reform from Bashar al-Assad who reportedly tends to lack his father's control skills.
Obviously, given the regime currently in place there one should not expect a thourough investigation of the crime.

As for attacking Syria, that seems improbable; even if one wanted to actively trigger regime change, a military attack would not be needed. All that would be required is that Syria no longer rules over Lebanon (whose economy also acts as Syria's economy, since Syria doesn't have much of its own these days).
It so happens that both the U.S.A. and France are in full agreement when it comes to the matter of Syria leaving Lebanon, and more importantly many Lebanese across communities and religions, agree now as well.
Now that's haven't been witnessed since way before the civil war.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #22 of 30
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

It looks like Syria is behind a good deal of the insurgency in Iraq, including most of the stuff in Mosul.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #23 of 30
Syria has been a thorn in our side for far too long. I agree we need to burn the barn and kill the rats, but Syria is a unique problem with a very simple solution. World opinion is heavily against the Syrian government. They have no viable democratic allies to plead their case, and it is well known they have been occupiers in Lebanon, which has subsequently resulted in them supporting the assassination of former PM Hariri. They are out of options. It is now a diplomatic fight that the US and her allies can win.

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
... and it is well known they have been occupiers in Lebanon, which has subsequently resulted in them supporting the assassination of former PM Hariri.

You mustn't forget that Lebanon and Syria should have been one nation and it was strategic/colonial european decisions that have teared apart the nation.

You also musn't forget that the occupation of half of Lebanon by Syria has stopped a brutal civil-war on top of stopping Israel.

And to think that the assassination of Hariri was a syrian job is just rediculous, because everyone knows that creating a martyr by killing a widely known, public and powerful person that opposes Syria's influence in that situation can only lead to the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.

So the assassination was obviously done by another party. I can see a few possibilities:

a) A group that has ties to Al-Qaida or that at least wants to have ties to Al-Qaida kills Hariri a rich man that is a very good friend of the Saudi-regime. Remember Al-Qaida's goal nowadays is to topple the saudi-regime.

b) Mossad could have done the assassination in order to force Syria out of Lebanon. Wouldn't be the first time Mossad has done such assassinations on arabic politicians.

c) The CIA could have done it in order to prepare the condemnation of Syria and in order to blame Syria for the insurgency in Iraq and to build a case that portrays Syria as supporting terrorists and of having itself a terroristic regime...

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
You mustn't forget that Lebanon and Syria should have been one nation and it was strategic/colonial european decisions that have teared apart the nation.

You also musn't forget that the occupation of half of Lebanon by Syria has stopped a brutal civil-war on top of stopping Israel.

And to think that the assassination of Hariri was a syrian job is just rediculous, because everyone knows that creating a martyr by killing a widely known, public and powerful person that opposes Syria's influence in that situation can only lead to the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.

... and latest reports from the Syrian government say that Syria is going to start withdrawing its troops from Lebanon. They obviously did not cover their tracks very well.

Quote:
So the assassination was obviously done by another party. I can see a few possibilities:

a) A group that has ties to Al-Qaida or that at least wants to have ties to Al-Qaida kills Hariri a rich man that is a very good friend of the Saudi-regime. Remember Al-Qaida's goal nowadays is to topple the saudi-regime.

I like this theory. Very good thinking, however, I believe this would have claimed the assassination. It would definitely give them them the theater and publicity to promote their "cause." I do agree al-Qaida is after the Saudi's now, but if that is the case, what do they have to gain by assassinating Hariri? He's out of power. It makes more sense to go straight for the throat and attack the Saudi's directly. Any group trying to win the favor (or money) of al-Qaida would have done what Zarqawi did in Iraq ... claim responsibility for the attacks and then pledge their allegience. It would be much easier to communicate through mass media (like Al Jazeera) and it also provides a public venue for the sub-group and al-Qaida itself, giving them an outlet to push their propoganda on the people.

Quote:
b) Mossad could have done the assassination in order to force Syria out of Lebanon. Wouldn't be the first time Mossad has done such assassinations on arabic politicians.

Another interesting observation, but if Syria is not responsible, why would they be refusing to address the situation publicly? It really depends on how Syria wants to be seen by the world. They have yet to condemn the assassination and have not done much to distance themselves from it. If it smells like a rat...

Quote:
c) The CIA could have done it in order to prepare the condemnation of Syria and in order to blame Syria for the insurgency in Iraq and to build a case that portrays Syria as supporting terrorists and of having itself a terroristic regime...

Very true, but lets not forget that the CIA is in the middle of a major overhaul right now and has suffered a black eye from faulty intelligence and the cutback of human intel on the ground. You also run the risk of being caught too. Syria is a terrorist state. Most of the rest rest of the world agrees, so why run the risk of being caught trying to set them up? It's a situation that can be solved with heavy international pressure, and there is no need to involve the CIA in any high-level assassinations.

Thanks for the post! I like your avenue of thinking, and what keeps me from thinking along the lines you are, are three things:

1) No one has stepped forward to claim the attack

2) Syria has announced publicly that they will start withdrawing troops from Lebanon

3) Syria has done nothing so far to distance themsleves from the Hariri assassination, and I am rather surprised by this. I would have expected them to vehemently deny their involvement whether they did it or not

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
[B]

I like this theory. Very good thinking, however, I believe this would have claimed the assassination. It would definitely give them them the theater and publicity to promote their "cause." I do agree al-Qaida is after the Saudi's now, but if that is the case, what do they have to gain by assassinating Hariri? He's out of power. It makes more sense to go straight for the throat and attack the Saudi's directly. Any group trying to win the favor (or money) of al-Qaida would have done what Zarqawi did in Iraq ... claim responsibility for the attacks and then pledge their allegience.

[B]

Another interesting observation, but if Syria is not responsible, why would they be refusing to address the situation publicly? It really depends on how Syria wants to be seen by the world. They have yet to condemn the assassination and have not done much to distance themselves from it. If it smells like a rat...




Very true, but lets not forget that the CIA is in the middle of a major overhaul right now and has suffered a black eye from faulty intelligence and the cutback of human intel on the ground. You also run the risk of being caught too. Syria is a terrorist state. Most of the rest rest of the world agrees, so why run the risk of being caught trying to set them up? It's a situation that can be solved with heavy international pressure, and there is no need to involve the CIA in any high-level assassinations.


Thanks for the post! I like your avenue of thinking, and what keeps me from thinking along the lines you are, are three things:

1) No one has stepped forward to claim the attack

2) Syria has announced publicly that they will start withdrawing troops from Lebanon

3) Syria has done nothing so far to distance themsleves from the Hariri assassination, and I am rather surprised by this. I would have expected them to vehemently deny their involvement whether they did it or not

Actually there is a new islamistic group that has claimed responsibility for the assassination, and Syria's dictator as well as other leading syrian politicians have publicly condemned the assassination. It's all reported in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4265675.stm

You are right though that the CIA has no immediate interest and also not enough capability to pull it off.
I think it's a fourty-sixty-joker between Syria and Israel, I don't think a new islamist group has done it on its own, as the assassination was very professional, with lots of explosives and very good intelligence. There's clearly the signature of a secret-service in action, if it was the Mossad or Syria's/Lebanon's secret-service is still not clear to me.


Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Actually there is a new islamistic group that has claimed responsibility for the assassination, and Syria's dictator as well as other leading syrian politicians have publicly condemned the assassination. It's all reported in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4265675.stm

Nightcrawler

This is what Sammi-Jo predicted near the top of this thread. Just a comment.
Smile on mighty Jesus,
Spinal Meningitis got me down!
Reply
Smile on mighty Jesus,
Spinal Meningitis got me down!
Reply
post #28 of 30
Lebanon is a divided nation without a doubt, polarized between pro western and pro Iranian style traditional islamic leadership. Yesterdays massive pro Assad demonstration (of at least a half million people) proved it, dwarfing the recent anti-Syria rallies. http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/fisky.htm

Syrian troops ended up being stationed in Lebanon as a result of the Israeli incursions in the 1980s and were brought in at the request of the Lebanese government. It should be the decision of the Lebanese and Syrian Governments as regards Syrian troops stationed in Lebanon and it doesn't help for the US to go blundering around with a "diplomatic bulldozer" (ie do what we want, and now or else), in order to bring about change that is clearly designed to aid one party in the region.

A forced intervention at the hand of the U.S. will cause massive headaches well into the future.

edit: Originally I said "Syria is a divided nation...." It is strange that such an obvious blunder wasn't seized upon..oh well
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
You mustn't forget that Lebanon and Syria should have been one nation and it was strategic/colonial european decisions that have teared apart the nation.

Should have been?...according to who? Proponents of a Greater Syria? Even if you were backward enough to still cling to that concept, you know, it was only used within the Ottoman empire to designate a clustered geographic area. Greater Syria was not considered a separate country or entity, even by those who actually used the name. Lebabnon has for thousands of years meant a specific geographic area and people. So has Syria or Assyrians. Invoking 'Great Syria' as an intro to your arguement shows a certain degree of dishonesty and a fairly obviously agenda.

Lebanon and Syria have independant, though intricately linked histories. Even when ruled by common conquerers, they had different identities. Just because Persia and Mesopotamia were ruled at times by the ame people, doesn't make a claim that Iraq and Iran should have been one nation an honest claim. Nor is your claim that Syria and Lebanon Should have been one nation any more honest.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler

You also musn't forget that the occupation of half of Lebanon by Syria has stopped a brutal civil-war on top of stopping Israel.

Actually, have to comment on this one too. Syria stopped Israel? That's pretty funny.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Attacking Syria?