IAEA: “No Credible Evidence” of Nuke Activity in Syria

US, Israel refuse to cooperate with inquest into Syria strike: diplomat, Larisa Alexandrovna/Raw Story (Thanks T-desco)

The International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations nuclear watchdog – has not been able to conduct an investigation into the events surrounding the Sept. 6 Israeli bombing of a Syrian military installation because neither the Bush administration nor Israel are cooperating.

A diplomatic source close to the Vienna based IAEA told Raw Story that both the United States and Israel have been approached by the organization requesting supporting evidence of a nuclear reactor which media sources have cited, based on anonymous sources in both governments, as the reason for the Israeli strike.

The source also explained that the satellite footage, which the IAEA obtained through commercial channels for lack of any “credible evidence,” does not show a nuclear reactor in the early construction phase.

Another source, close to the IAEA, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the topic, told RAW STORY last week that based on satellite imagery, evidence that “it was nuclear related is shaky” and pointed out that even basic security for such a facility – such as “security fences” – is missing.…

The diplomat close to the IAEA also confirmed the lack of radiation signatures, but explained that a reactor still under construction would not yet be fully loaded with the necessary materials and would not therefore give off any radiation. The diplomat, however, again pointed to the satellite images, which do not show a nuclear reactor under construction in any case, explaining certain geometric configurations are necessary for such a facility, including certain height indicators as well as the lack of security such as armed guards.…

After mystery raid, the prospect of Syrian-Israeli talks, AP

Israel’s reported new secret peace feelers to Syria have deepened the mystery over the countries’ relations and the reason why Israeli warplanes bombed a target inside Syria two months ago.

The United States has unofficially said that Israel’s target was a nascent Syrian nuclear program. But outside analysts and the U.N. maintain there isn’t proof of that, and say the Syrian site could well have been something else, including possibly a radar station.

Meanwhile, many in the region and in Europe remain skeptical about what proof the United States or Israel have that the bombed Syrian site was nuclear-linked.

“There hasn’t been anything that constitutes a definitive smoking gun proof that this facility the Israelis attacked was indeed a nuclear facility,” said David Hartwell, Middle East and North Africa editor for Jane’s Country Risk in London.

Syria has denied any nuclear ambitions and the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has asked the United States and Israel to show proof.

A diplomat familiar with IAEA affairs, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, said one theory being considered within the agency is that the bombed site may have been a forward radar system, and not a nuclear site. …

Comments (43)


1. annie said:

N’importe quoi!
Le fait du prince bush/olmert.
Et on se demanderait d’où vient la rage des Arabes ?
La violence naît de l’injustice et nous sommes en plein dedans.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 5:30 pm

 

2. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Right, all the injustice is external. Of course not. The injustice is the way Arab leaders treat their peoples and do not let them achieve their potential. That is where the Arab rage comes from. All the rest is just excuses.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 5:45 pm

 

3. Alex said:

AIG

Try to read the parts you dont like … lik “no evidence of Syrian nuclear reactor” … what do you think?

Israel and the US are not cooperating and not able to present any credible evidence.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 6:05 pm

 

4. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
I think the US and Israel would be stupid to provide the IAEA with any information. This will quickly get to Syria and help stop such information reaching Israel and the US in the future.

If there is “no evidence”, let the Syrians allow the IAEA to inspect the site. Then let’s hear that there is “no evidence”. But I am not holding my breath. What are the Syrians hiding? Let them invite journalists and the IAEA if they want any reasonable person to believe them.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 7:44 pm

 

5. Alex said:

Remember how Abraham commented on your approach:

If he accused you of being a child molester … are not forced to prove you are not?

What if he kept you busy non-stop with one accusation after another?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 8:05 pm

 

6. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
You are recycling a bad argument.
Why did Syria clean the site?
What has Syria got to lose from allowing an inspection at a specific site? It has got nothing to lose unless it was a nuclear site. Otherwise, it can easily make Israel look stupid.

On the other hand, Israel and the US may lose important information sources if they provide info to the IAEA.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 8:19 pm

 

7. IsraeliGuy said:

Alex, this is a weird (and rare) case where all the parties involved wish to silence the story.

Israel and the US have already achieved what they wanted.
The facility is gone and no longer a threat to anybody.

So what’s the point of sharing information, which can only teach everybody about the Israeli and the American intelligence gathering capabilities, means and assets?

Syria is not interested to show what was bombed for obvious reasons.
If it was different, you’d see them inviting reporters to the site, inviting IAEA experts and going to the UNSC to ask for a condemnation.

The IAEA is not sending anybody to Syria because it doesn’t want the world to know that they’re responsible for a MAJOR screw up.

How could this Syrian warehouse existed for several years without them knowing about it?
How embarrassing.
Don’t expect to see any inspectors on the Syrian site.

ElBaradei will do his utmost not to find anything : )

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 8:59 pm

 

8. ugarit said:

“Why did Syria clean the site?” — What’s wrong with cleaning the site! So Syria should keep it as it was after the attack? Why? What country would ever do that? Every country has things to hide.

The site didn’t even have a visible fence around it! Is that how countries protect their military assets. Perhaps, the Syrian government was delinquent.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 10:20 pm

 

9. IsraeliGuy said:

If you want your secret nuclear related facility to avoid satellite detection – will you put a fence and air defense systems around it?

That’s the first thing that will draw satellite images analyzers’ attention to it.

Naturally, the picture is totally different when you have a well known facility that everybody know about.
In that case, of course you’ll put all possible defenses.

But when you’ve got a secret installation in the middle of nowhere and you want to keep it labeled as an ‘innocent building’, you put nothing around it.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 10:34 pm

 

10. Losing Hope Quickly said:

This kind of behavior by the US and Israel is pathetic – either admit wrong-doing and apologize or provide proof to justify attacking a sovereign state…the international community would not stand for this if it were the other way around, but I since this was carried out in order to keep Israel ‘safe’ we are obligated somehow to allow such illegal actions even when not provided with the proof — double standards me thinks!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 11:11 pm

 

11. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Double standards? Where? Let the Syrians go to the UN Security Council and request a condemnation of Israel. The Syrians did not even bother because they were afriad to answer questions from council members.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 14th, 2007, 11:55 pm

 

12. abraham said:

AIG,

How many children did you kill and where did you hide the bodies? If you insist on your innocence, please let us see satellite photos of your backyard so we can confirm there hasn’t been any recent activity.

I’m convinced you are a serial killer. Prove you are not.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 12:12 am

 

13. Losing Hope Quickly said:

Why bother requesting condemnation of Israel from the UN (which is not likely to be issued) remind me please me how many UNSC resolutions Israel still openly violates?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 12:18 am

 

14. Nur al-Cubicle said:

This kind of behavior by the US and Israel is pathetic

It is the SOP: rumor and innuendo. From the nuclear suitcase to Saddam’s WMD, to uranium shipments from Niger, to stolen Russian Cruise missiles.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 12:19 am

 

15. Alex said:

AIG, IG

1) Israel is protecting its intelligence sources
2) Israel did not want to embarrass the Assad regime
3) Israel did not want to jeopardize the American Korean agreement.
4) Syria did not want to put a fence to fool Israel.

.
.
.
10) Israel was just kidding.

Here is a nice quote from Tryon Edwards:

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, and will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 2:36 am

 

16. Syrian said:

Guys,

What is This building doing in the middle of the Syrian desert completely unprotected. Could it be another…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 3:46 am

 

17. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
He who trusts a tyrant is a fool.
1-4 are all correct.

And if you see me digging up my backyard before the police arrive, you can bet that I am hiding something. That is exactly what the Syrians did. Very simple to prove they are innocent: Allow IAEA inspections and ask journalists to photograph the bombed site. But the Syrians did the opposite. They destroyed the evidence. Actions speak much stronger than words. Israel was willing to risk a war to take out the nuclear site. The Syrians covered it up because it was a nuclear site. All the evidence fits.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 3:50 am

 

18. ugarit said:

“Double standards? Where? Let the Syrians go to the UN Security Council and request a condemnation of Israel. The Syrians did not even bother because they were afriad to answer questions from council members.”

Come on! The Syrians know that the UN is under US control.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:06 am

 

19. ugarit said:

“And if you see me digging up my backyard before the police arrive, you can bet that I am hiding something. ”

The US and Israel are not the police they are the bully and gangster of the block

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:08 am

 

20. ugarit said:

“But when you’ve got a secret installation in the middle of nowhere and you want to keep it labeled as an ‘innocent building’, you put nothing around it.”

That’s laughable. So if they had a fence then it would also not be an innocent building? Right?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:11 am

 

21. Alex said:

AIG,

Sure, you adopted one possible explanation of why the Syrians cleaned the site. But the rest of the story does not match.

There are many other explanations. If I am to use your logic: that Israel is not providing evidence because it does not want the IAEA to know about its sources of intelligence gathering, then … Similarly … Syria was not sure the IAEA team that will inspect the site does not have Israeli spies who would inspect Syria’s missiles radars or assembly complex (or both) that Israel bombed.

You know that Syria’s most effective strategic defense against a possible Israeli initiated war in the future is those long range Missiles.

there are other explanations, but … you get the picture.

Actually you probably don’t.

As for your other “proof” … why didn’t Syria go to the security council? …hmmm

You want to take a look at the history of Israel related UNSC resolutions?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:41 am

 

22. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
So what, let the US veto a resolution. If Russia, China and Europe supports it and the US vetoes it, it will still be a huge black eye to Israel and the US. But the Syrians did not pursue this route because they were afraid of the questions they will be asked.

And your other argument is not convincing also. Let’s assume the site is a ware house or a factory for long range missiles. Syria could easily remove the missiles from the site and then invite IAEA and journalists to see that the building was just a warehouse or a factory. But no, they had to wreck or bury the WHOLE building because people looking closely at it would see that it is modeled after a North Korean nuclear facility. So the fact that Syria buried the building is a strong indication that it was a nuclear facility.

Actions speak stronger than words. Israel risked a war and Syria cleaned the site. So all the evidence fits with the fact that the site was a nuclear one.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:55 am

 

23. ausamaa said:

Ok, why quip about what the mysterious raid was or was not. Let us say that may be it was a nuclear site, so now what?! Are Israelies now feeling an “enhanced” sense of security? And is Israel gonna go after the tens of thousands of “non-nuclear” missiles that Syria has in its arsenal and that covers Israel from the North to the South?

BTW, we thought for a while that Israel and Bush said that they wanted to take care of Iran’s nuclear programe, anything happening on that front by any chance? No will to act? No capabilities to do it? Or no Iranian nuclear programe? Or, all the above put together?

Is that what they call going on a fool’s errand? Bush and Israel’s acts I mean.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 5:21 am

 

24. Alex said:

AIG,

Regardless of the resolution being considered, Russia and China do not vote against the US in the Middle East. You know that, right?

If there is no unanimity among the Superpowers, they simply have more meetings and they don’t vote… they attenuate the language used in the original resolution until it has no meaning at all then they vote on that version.

And your continued determination that the building is SURELY a nuclear site … I realize that you are not compatible with uncertainty … it’s ok. I won’t make things too difficult for you. You can continue believing the one and only plausible scenario that you decided to believe… Syria indeed was building a Korean style reactor and your superheros destroyed it.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 6:15 am

 

25. t_desco said:

IsraeliGuy unknowingly made a very good argument that it wasn’t a nuclear site:

“If you want your secret nuclear related facility to avoid satellite detection – will you put a fence and air defense systems around it?

That’s the first thing that will draw satellite images analyzers’ attention to it.”

(my emphasis)

I think that there are only two possible ways for Syria to build a nuclear reactor, either with complete transparency or in complete secrecy, in order to “avoid satellite detection” and not to “draw satellite images analyzers’ attention”. I don’t see how a building site of that size, clearly visible even on commercially available images, could escape the attention of Israeli and American analyzers (and for such a long time). A Yongbyon type reactor would have to run for a year to produce enough plutonium for a single bomb, but it is even easier to detect and identify a reactor once it is operating, e.g. by the thermal energy and probably also certain radioactive isotopes emitted
by the plant.

As was first pointed out by British civil engineer here on SC, the building is not tall enough for a Yongbyon type reactor.

The “diplomat close to the IAEA” seems to confirm this, saying that “certain geometric configurations are necessary for such a facility, including certain height indicators“, and that therefore the satellite images “do not show a nuclear reactor under construction”.

Apparently, the site could have been “a forward radar system”:

“A diplomat familiar with IAEA affairs … said one theory being considered within the agency is that the bombed site may have been a forward radar system … “.

The building was situated in a small valley, at the upper end but still some 28-38m down in the valley, according the (probably not very accurate) data on Google Earth (the estimated height of the building was about 24m).

Would that be a suitable place for a radar site, and what kind of radar would that be?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 12:51 pm

 

26. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Not true regarding middle east resolutions in the UNSC. They can be brought to a vote by any UNSC member and that means Qatar can force a vote if Syria asks it.
And there were several resolutions in the past in which the US had to veto exactly because it was voted against. YOU posted a link to that list. So the Syrians could have very easily given Israel and the US a black eye had they really been innocent.

The totality of the evidence shows that most probably the site was a nuclear one. We will wait until Asad falls to be 100% sure. Of course, when it comes to Syria you demand 100% info before acting, but as for Israel or the US, you are willing to accept isoteric evidence from pecliar sources to prove your case. I will not lower myself to your standards.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 2:29 pm

 

27. Alex said:

T_Desco

Don’t you know that AIG and his friendly media sources have answers to any argument you can come with?

The building was not tall enough?

1) The Engineer who made that claim is not qualified (or has suspect motivations … or both.)

2) The rest of the necessary building height was underground

What’s wrong with you? huh? … You are totally on the wrong track. You should be trying to prove that the Syrians were indeed trying to build nuclear weapons.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 4:03 pm

 

28. Friend in America said:

The world will not conclusively know that the site was a reactor under construction until Israeli and American intelligence is fully disclosed and Syria confirms the site was nuclear or provides verifiable proof in denial. That will not happen for some time, maybe as long as a decade.

I believe the IAEA diplomat said IAEA has no information that it was a reactor under construction. There was no implication the IAEA had made any investigation. Some observers and media writers such as the Raw Story reporters, do not understand the workings of IAEA and assume the agency is something it is not. IAEA is an administraive agency. It operates on information given to it. So, it monitors, and to some extent regulates, nuclear projects brought to its attention. It does not investigate reports of undisclosed facilities (unless directed to do so by the U.N. Security Council).
The International Nuclear Treaty requires each signing country to report to IAEA any start up. Syria did not report this project, either because it wanted to build one secretly or the facility fell outside the Treaty’s reporting requirements. Israel and U.S. has not turned over its evidence because they lack confidence in IAEA and because they believe the duty falls on Syria to disclose exactly what it was doing at that site and why after the site the entire project was removed thereby limiting any outside agency’s ability to ascertain the precise nature of the project.

The behavour of the government in Damascus does not fit into a pattern of evidence suggesting the site was a radar facility. The behavour does fit a pattern pointing to a secret nuclear project. However, this is just interpetation. Nothing is conclusive until the records, photos, etc of the three parties are revealed.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 5:35 pm

 

29. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Don’t you see how you are undermining your own argument?
If the building clearly could not be a nuclear related one, why did Syria clean the site and bury/dismantle the building? All they would have had to do was call journalists and the IAEA.
They didn’t do it, because the building was a nuclear facility.
Actions speak louder than words. Non-guilty parties do not destroy evidence. It is really quite simple.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 6:57 pm

 

30. Alex said:

AIG,

You really suffer from an advanced case of selective attention.

I will copy and paste from my comment from yesterday (above) this part which is my answer to our question:

Sure, you adopted one possible explanation of why the Syrians cleaned the site. But the rest of the story does not match.

There are many other explanations. If I am to use your logic: that Israel is not providing evidence because it does not want the IAEA to know about its sources of intelligence gathering, then … Similarly … Syria was not sure the IAEA team that will inspect the site does not have Israeli spies who would inspect Syria’s missiles radars or assembly complex (or both) that Israel bombed.

You know that Syria’s most effective strategic defense against a possible Israeli initiated war in the future is those long range Missiles.

there are other explanations, but … you get the picture.

Actually you probably don’t.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 7:39 pm

 

31. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
And I answered you then that it is simple to get the missiles out of the building and show that it is not a nuclear site. But the Syrians didn’t, they cleaned the site.

There are many explanations but very few reasonable ones. The one that fits the evidence best is that a nuclear site was bombed.

And by the way, you are very simple to understand. Your main goal: Make sure the Christian community in Syria survives. Since you believe that under democracy or the transition to democracy what happened to the Jews in Syria will happen to the Christians, you have betrayed your beliefs about freedom and democracy and support Asad and the status quo. Since you don’t want Asad to fall, you are willing to hold any position that will help keep him in power. You are especially worried about Asad’s nuclear program because it provides a strong reason to attack him. If the Christians need Asad to survive in Syria, they do not belong in Syria. They should just leave instead of supporting an oppressive regime.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 8:48 pm

 

32. Alex said:

AIG

The Syrians could not have done what you suggested .. once they remove things … Mr. Bolton will leak lots of photos of trucks removing things .. in which case .. why even bother invite any journalist … YOU will be the first to say “the inspection is useless because because the Syrians removed all the relevant incriminating evidence .. and here are the satellite images showing trucks removing everything”

You are right … Making sure the Christians of Syria remain safely part of Syria is one of my hopes. But if you have not noticed … seeing the end of the conflict between Syria and Israel is another one.

Given what happened in Iraq the past two decades (sanctions and two wars) … the two million dead Iraqis are not easy to forget. Think of the millions of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis and you might be able to understand what motivates me the most.

I want to minimize the madness and the killing… I want to see a win/win way out of each conflict.

And no, your “let’s wait for democracy” is not doable. You have your opinion, I have my own. The only realistic solution to most problems is to work on solving all of them. The Syrian regime believes strongly in this conclusion … That makes them my favorites as you have noticed.

Look at all my opinions and you will see that I am impressed by anyone who has a calm and wise approach that does not try to crush the enemies but to understand them and help them be friends.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 9:09 pm

 

33. SimoHurtta said:

The totality of the evidence shows that most probably the site was a nuclear one.

What totality? A couple a planted newspaper stories with anonymous sources. An extremely shady research organization which with some “miracle” managed to buy just that commercial satellite picture where is that big building in question. Then claiming that it is a “North Korean reactor” because the roof dimensions fit and there is a water pumping station. Come-on that is no evidence. Only a devoted pro-Israeli believes in such propaganda.

This AIG’s “best proof is that Syria has not brought the incident to UNSC” is a rather poor evidence to prove that it was a nuclear reactor. A much better proof that it was not, is the fact that Israel and USA have not used such a “propaganda victory” with the secret “reactor”.

The claims that Israel doesn’t want to humiliate the Syrian regime are one of best pieces of humour presented in the recent years. It is as amusing when somebody would claim that USA did deliberately not “find” the Iraqi WMD’s not to humiliate Saddam’s former regime. In circumstances when Israel claims Iran to have a secret nuclear program, how on earth would Israel not tell about a secret Syrian reactor? It would strengthen considerably Israel’s case against Iran. Israel is famous in using very imaginative strategies in their propaganda wars. The most recent attempt by Israel to urge Walt Disney Company to sue Hams is certainly one of the most funniest.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 9:09 pm

 

34. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
No, your argument is incorrect. It is the BUILDING that indicates whether it is a nuclear site or not. The Syrians could easily have said: It is a military warehouse, not a nuclear site. We took out the weapons, but please IAEA come take a look and see that the building is not at all designed like a nuclear site and that there are no radiation traces. But Syria didn’t do that did they? They buried/dismantled the building in order to conceal the evidence that it is a nuclear site. YOU brought the evidence of some fringe “experts” saying the BUILDING could not be a nuclear site. Why then not let IAEA inspect the BUILDING, not what the weapons taken from inside? The only reasonable explanation, it is a nuclear site.

Your strategy Alex regarding the Christian Syrians is completely mistaken. Based on the strategy you are pursuing, Asad will come down in a crash and the Christians and Alawites will crash with him.

The Christians and Alawites are riding a tiger. They fall off, they get eaten. The only thing to do is tame the tiger and the only one that can do it is Bashar by slowly ceding power. But he has not done any of that and the inevitable crash will come, if not next year then in 10 or 15. And then the “revenge” factor you are so afraid of will kick in and the Christians will suffer the same fate as the Jews. I would advise the Christians to leave Syria while they can.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 10:30 pm

 

35. abraham said:

Alex,

Since you are banning certain messages, can you please extend that ban to insane people that keep bringing up the now thoroughly debunked idea that Syria had a nuclear program?

I’m speaking primarily of AIG, of course, who seems to think anyone cares what he has to say at this point. I’m tired of his messages about this polluting the message board.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 10:31 pm

 

36. abraham said:

Another Insane Guy:

I would advise the Christians to leave Syria while they can.

I would suggest Israelis leave Israel while they can. US welfare will dry up in 10 years or less and your standard of living will drop to that of your Palestinian hostages.

Isn’t there a magic unicorn you should be chasing around candyland or something?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 10:38 pm

 

37. abraham said:

And if you see me digging up my backyard before the police arrive, you can bet that I am hiding something. That is exactly what the Syrians did.

Wow! If that’s not an admission of guilt I don’t know what is.

Just how many children did you kill? I’ll bet they’re all Palestinian.

Can we get this guy’s IP address and hand it over to Israeli authorities?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 15th, 2007, 10:44 pm

 

38. Alex said:

AIG,

Abraham is demonstrating to you how we Syrians feel about the endless negative treatments that Israel and America continuously apply to Syria’s image. Some are justified of course but too many are pure garbage … we Syrians believe so. Israel and America are simply making us like the regime more and more in comparison.

You have no idea how much you are over doing it… every time there is an accusation that is not easy to prove it is better to drop it. Very few in Syria are buying it. It is simply annoying to hear more accusations.

But … believe whatever you want to believe.

As for the Christian Syrians … you are reading too much in what I wrote … my emphasis was on regional peace process and trying to end or calm the bloody conflicts… I do not want to see a repeat of what happened in Iraq .. this is my main motivation.

Abraham,

I will not delete AIG’s messages if he is not using bad language, and if he is not threatening anyone.

For now we are thankful he is considerably more polite with us.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 12:23 am

 

39. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Go ahead and like the regime because others are criticizing it. It seems childish to me. It is a real pity that Syrians cannot see the difference between criticizing Asad and the regime and criticizing Syria and Syrians in general. All the crticism is directed at the Asad regime. That you and others take it personally is very strange to say the least.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 1:16 am

 

40. norman said:

The more aig and others criticize Syria and president Assad the more Syrians like what president Assad and Syria are doing in the middle east, so keep it up .

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 3:08 am

 

41. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Yes Norman, I understand it and I find it very childish. Your self esteem is so low that you decide to a favor a tyrant that oppresses your people just to spite a stranger that writes on a blog and angers you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 4:11 am

 

42. Alex said:

AIG

Why is it that you explain everything I say in the most negative way?

This time it was “childish”

You still believe you are the sophisticated one and the rest of us here are either naive, or cowards, or simply foolish in our believes.

I’ll try to explain: When 8 out of the last 10 rumors I heard from Assad’s adversaries turned out to be false .. then Assad’s adversaries are really not impressive … and the calm way Assad deals with those rumors is quite impressive

You can criticize the real things .. corruption … bad management … monopoly on power … these are serious issues and there is a lot to criticize.

But when you start criticizing EVERYTHING … then you are not going to make a good impression on me or on most Syrians.

Just like the American administration is not making a good impression in Syira .. same applies to the Lebanese M14 group .. same applies (to a lesser extent) to Saudi Arabia …

All of the above went overboard in criticizing Bashar.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 8:00 am

 

43. AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Which thing that I have said has turned out to be false? What have the Americans said about Asad that has turned out to be false? You want to believe that these things are false, but that is another matter.

Calm way that Asad deals with “rumours”? Are you serious? The guy has gone on an assasination spree in Lebanon. Of course he denies all connection. And then you admire him for this. Does he deal with nuclear allegation calmly? No, he cleans the site. You admire him for that also?

And yes, when you support a dictator just because others criticize him, that is extremely childish.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 16th, 2007, 11:32 am

 

Post a comment