I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but couldn't find a thread just devoted to WMD, but what is going on with WMD in Syria?
This indicates an agreement was entered between Syria and Iran in 2005 to develop WMD.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297361,00.html
I recall reports that Russia helped move WMD from Iraq to Syria. To revisit, see the following.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
Whatever the case, it appears there is WMD in Syria, with reports of them seeking nuclear stuff from North Korea, but now with the Mustard Gas and other nerve gases, which we know Saddam Hussein had, was some of this stuff a continuation of what very possibly went to Syria from Iraq? I don't see people saying this yet, but it wouldn't surprise me. Don't look for the anti-Bush WMD people to acknowledge the possibility, but could this be the smoking gun?
Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread, but for now, this should suffice. I just want to see what is known about this.
How can Israel be so beastly? Because of rocket salvos from Gaza, which cannot be stopped by Israel, Israel declared Gaza to be an enemy entity, and will curtain its supplying electricity, etc., to Gaza, and importation of Gazan goods.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1882771620070919
As I suspected, the UN and others are condemning Israel for cutting off fuel and power (but not water) to Gaza.
09.19.07
ISRAEL RETALIATES:
Hamas, the murderous gang that rules Gaza, has declared permanent war on Israel, vowing never to accommodate to the reality of the Jewish state. But Hamas has not only declared war on Israel, the suicidal messianists and their allies in the struggle actually make war on Israel...continuously. As I wrote in this space a short while ago after a Kassam rocket had wounded some 60 soldiers in training only a bit after another rocket had hit a school with children in it, Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak (and his boss Ehud Olmert) would decide to cut off fuel and electrical power from Gaza. Not water, mind you, and not the totality of fuel and electricity hitherto delivered, either. And now it has been announced.
Immediately comes Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, saying that this would violate international law. What international law? He didn't specify. Because there isn't any that prohibits such action in these circumstances. When does a designated enemy which is attacked daily supply enemy territory and an enemy population with provisions necessary to carry out aggressive action?
The Palestinians have demonstrated both homicidal and suicidal instincts. It is not the role of Israel to rescue them from these tendencies.
--The New Republic
I happened to see this and instantly thought of George.
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know."
-- Abraham Lincoln
And I thought about the following when I see Advocate's posts:
"He can expound into the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know."
Profound I ain't, but I try to lighten things up a bit once-in-awhile. It was worth a smile wasn't it?
Subject: One Arab American's Salute
One Arab American's Salute
Despite all the spit, kicks & insults, the Jews would rather build than
destroy
.
EMILIO KARIM DABUL, The New York Daily News, Wednesday, September 19th
2007,
.
One of the greatest Arab poets of the 20th century was a Syrian named
Nizar Qabbani. He was, in his own way, the Pablo Neruda of the Middle
East. His love poems in particular are on a par with anything Don Pablo
wrote.
.
So, it was with great disappointment that I came across one of Qabbani's
poems written in the late 1990s, entitled, "I Am With Terrorism." I
hoped the title would prove ironic. It didn't. Not even close. In fact,
it is one of the most naked, awful pieces of anti-Israel, anti-U.S.
drivel I've ever read.
.
Witness this rhetorical device in which he is able to insult two peoples
with one poetic stone:
"I am with terrorism as long as this new world order is shared between
America and Israel half-half"
.
And that is actually one of the more moderate sections of the poem. As
an Arab-American, I came away from reading it with a real sense of
despair. If one of the great voices of Middle East poetry can do nothing
more than recycle the Arabs-as-victims stance, justified in horrendous
acts of violence against their "oppressors," then what hope is there
ever that Arabs and Israelis will ever know true peace?
.
Having just passed the sixth anniversary of 9/11 - and in the midst of a
new conversation about the so-called "Israel Lobby" that allegedly
dominates U.S. foreign policy - I want to offer an antidote to that
toxic verse and the other vitriol that has poisoned too much Arab
thought.
.
Israel, with all its imperfections, remains the beacon of light for the
Middle East. For that reason, I wish to salute her, not only as one of
America's greatest allies in the war on terror, but as one of the true
miracle countries of this time or any other.
With no apologies to Qabbani, I give you my twist on his verse:
.
"I am with Israel
because a people so long denied bread and freedom, crushed under the
wheels of pharaohs, emperors, czars and Führers,
has done more than any other people to free the world from itself.
.
What single people in history have contributed more to faith, science,
philosophy and the arts?
And done so against the greatest odds, with a sword at their throats.
.
I am with Israel
because my people, so long in the desert,
have not had the courage to acknowledge the great teachers among them,
but instead have turned on them,
blamed them for all evil and shed their blood.
.
What other people could crawl away from the wreckage of the Holocaust
and, instead of seeking revenge, build the miracle called Israel?
.
Why, as Wufa Sultan has asked, have there been no Jewish homicide
bombers?
Perhaps it is because despite all the spit, kicks and insults they've
faced,
along with the constant threat of extinction, the Jews would rather
build than destroy.
.
I am with Israel
because I am with life,
and because beyond its verdant desert,
Israel offers the knowledge that those most desirous of peace and
freedom
are a people who have so long been denied it,
and who with all they know of the world,
look still toward Jerusalem and reach for their enemy's hand."
.
.
Dabul, an editor with the American Congress for Truth, is author of
"Deadline," a novel about terrorism.
Israeli PM faces corruption probe
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, during a weekly cabinet meeting on 23/09
Mr Olmert has insisted he has not done anything wrong
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to face a criminal investigation into his purchase of a Jerusalem property, the justice ministry has said.
The move came after a government watchdog concluded Mr Olmert paid $325,000 (£162,500) below market value for the house.
The prime minister has protested his innocence, insisting the price was fair and the inquiry was "uncalled for".
But he promised to co-operate fully with the investigators.
The BBC's Raffi Berg in Jerusalem says the police investigation into Mr Olmert's property deal could take several months.
If they eventually recommend charging Mr Olmert, the matter will then go to the state attorney for a final decision, at which point Mr Olmert's job could be on the line, our correspondent says.
A Mideast real estate deal
The Boston GlobePublished: September 28, 2007
A tiny, disputed parcel of land called Shebaa Farms, located where Israel, Syria, and Lebanon converge, has long been used as a pretext for armed confrontation. But Israel may now have a chance to remove this sliver of real estate as a source of conflict. This is an opportunity that should not be missed.
Shebaa Farms is currently occupied by Israel but claimed by Lebanon. When demarcating the border between Lebanon and Israel in 2000, after Israel ended an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, the United Nations ruled that Shebaa Farms was part of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria annexed by Israel. The fate of Shebaa Farms, then, would have to be determined in peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.
Earlier this month, Spain's foreign minister, Angel Moratinos, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon describing talks he held recently in Damascus with Syria's president, Bashar Assad. Moratinos said Assad is now willing to have Shebaa Farms transferred to the custody of the UN - even before the UN completes its current work of demarcating the border between Syria and Lebanon.
Assad's offer may seem at first glance to be little more than a ploy to embarrass Israel and to pretend - at a moment when Syria's heavy hand on Lebanon is provoking grave tensions there - that Syria respects Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
Indeed, Israel's initial response to the Moratinos letter was a mixture of rejection and complaint. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government objected that Moratinos had not consulted Israel about his initiative and derided the Syrian proposal as an attempt to put pressure on Israel to give up land without receiving anything in return. For the past year, Olmert's position has been that Israel will transfer Shebaa Farms to Lebanon - the presumed rightful owner - only after Hezbollah obeys a UN resolution calling for the disarming of all Lebanese militias. To cede that territory to Lebanon without such a concession from Hezbollah, Israel's foreign ministry has cautioned, would be to give Hezbollah a "prize," gratis.
But if Israel were to seize the opportunity broached in the Moratinos letter, it could call Assad's bluff, and Hezbollah's. Since 2000, Hezbollah has justified armed struggle against Israel on the grounds that Israel is still an occupying power on Lebanese soil. If Shebaa Farms belonged to Syria, as the UN ruled, then Hezbollah's rationale for refusing to disarm in accordance with the UN's resolution would be undermined. So Assad has been pretending he is willing to recognize Lebanese sovereignty over Shebaa Farms while postponing any transference of title to an indefinite future.
By turning Shebaa Farms over to the UN, Israel could serve its own interests, enhance the prospects for stability in Lebanon, unmask Assad and establish a precedent for ending an occupation by diplomatic means. This is exactly what Israel should do.
Israel admits air strike on Syria
An Israeli Air Force F-16D jet fighter-bomber
It is still not known why Israel carried out the strike or what was hit
Israel has confirmed that it carried out a strike on a Syrian military installation last month.
Syria accused Israel at the time but Israeli officials refused to comment, and the Israeli military censor imposed a strict blackout on information.
The censor's office has now allowed some details to be released.
On Monday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the BBC that a Syrian military construction site was hit in the Israeli air strike on 6 September.
Israeli Army radio reported that Israeli planes attacked a military target "deep inside Syria", quoting the military censor. No further details were given.
The thinking is that the site contained nuclear equipment sold by the North Korea. I guess that, while Israel may tolerate nukes in Iran, it draws the line at Syria, about the most implacable enemy of Israel.
Advocate, would you wish to see strikes by the United States against suspected nuclear sites in Iran & Syria?
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate, would you wish to see strikes by the United States against suspected nuclear sites in Iran & Syria?
Hmmm! First give me your views on that.
Advocate wrote:Hmmm! First give me your views on that.
Oh, great.
That old "I can't answer a simple question until I've heard
your opinion" dance again...
OE, he obviously has a viewpoint on this. Instead of stating it, he is trying to somehow use me to make his point. If he wants my viewpoint, he should be willing to give his.
Well, I can't speak for george, but I'm pretty certain that he has a viewpoint on this. And I'm pretty certain he'll give you his point of view.
But I notice that whenever you get into a situation where the opinions you usually hold collide, you have this habit of wriggling, not answering and demanding an answer from the poster who has just asked you what should otherwise be a really simple question.
It's quite funny to see how you're trying to turn this around, as if it was george who refused to answer your question.
I would not oppose U.S. strikes as a matter of enduring principle, however, I don't think that they are at all warranted by the present situation.
My reason for asking Advocate was that, while he appears quite willing to support (or merely rationalize) such strikes done by Israel, I have the impression that he strongly opposes such aggressive action by the United States. This may well be a defensible position if he also believes the strategic interests of the United States are fundamentally different from those of Israel. However I also have the strong impression that Advocate believes our strategic interests are identical.
I also believe that all of this was as easy for Advocate to guess as it evidently was for old europe. The evasion speaks for itself.
You are attributing a number of things to me on which I have not weighed in. Frankly, such actions by a country are rife with danger, and should not be made except in dire circumstances.
I think that the country's leadership would have to consider intell that the ordinary person doesn't have.
George, I don't know what you mean when you speak of an "enduring principle."
Israel did a preemptive bombing of Iraq following statements by Saddam that he was building a bomb for use on Israel. Israel did what any other country would do in such a circumstance.
Advocate wrote:You are attributing a number of things to me on which I have not weighed in. Frankly, such actions by a country are rife with danger, and should not be made except in dire circumstances.
I think that the country's leadership would have to consider intell that the ordinary person doesn't have.
George, I don't know what you mean when you speak of an "enduring principle."
Israel did a preemptive bombing of Iraq following statements by Saddam that he was building a bomb for use on Israel. Israel did what any other country would do in such a circumstance.
Do you then condemn the recent attacks by Israel on Syria?
By enduring principle I meant that I would not categorically oppose such strikes without considering the circumstances which might argue for them.
You rationalize Israel's bombing of the Iraqi reactor by saying that Saddam's declared intention was to build a bomb for potential use on Israel, and that the strike was only "what any other country would (have done)". The same argument could have been used to justify a first strike by the United States on the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and early 1960s when we had an overwhelming superiority in these weapons and the systems required to deliver them. It could also be used today to rationalize a first strike on China. I don't think that you would approve of either.
