Old Pictures of Syrian Nuke Site Suggest "Refried Beans" - Syria Comment

Old Pictures of Syrian Nuke Site Suggest “Refried Beans”

More questions are being raised about the solidity of Washington's allegations that the site in Syria hit by Israel was a nuclear plant. A 2003 photo of the site has just been published by the NY Times, which forces us to go back to the four year old debates over whther Syria was developing nuclear power. Bolton and his neocon hawks lost the debate at the time. The CIA and State Department intelligence prevailed over neocon allegations. They argued that the Syrian danger was either being inflated or misread. 

In the intervening years, Bolton has tried to make the case for a nuclear Syria three times. Each time he was wrong. The three times were: 1. He accused Syria of taking in Saddam's WMD and nuclear stuff. He was wrong. 2. He accused Syria of being part of the Khan, Pakistani ring of nuclear proliferators along with Libya. Wrong. Mohammed el Beradae said no indication of this existed and challenged Bolton, who backed down. 3. Finally, a ship traveling from North Korea to Syria was stopped in Nicosia, Cyprus and searched because Interpol indicated it was transporting nuclear technology. It turned out to have nothing but defensive missile technology aboard. It was allowed to continue on its way. Three times Bolton tried to accuse Syria of developing nuclear weapons and came up short. What is different about this time?

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat. …

In the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed after a dispute erupted in part over whether Syria was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Some intelligence officials said Mr. Bolton overstated the Syrian threat.

“There was disagreement about what Syria was interested in and how much we should be monitoring it,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview yesterday. “There was activity in Syria that I felt was evidence that they were trying to develop a nuclear program.”

Mr. Bolton declined to say whether he had knowledge at the time about the site that the Israelis struck in September.

Spokesmen for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council declined to comment.

Phantoms Over Syria
Eveything Israel wants you to know about its secret airstrike
by Philip Giraldi 

There are other reasons that depicting Damascus as the latest nuclear aspirant is suspect. Destroying a weapons facility would scatter traces of radioactive material that could be detected, especially since the attack took place close to the Turkish border. No such evidence has been reported. Also notable is the absence of solid intelligence. If Israel knows conclusively that Syria has a nuclear program, surely it would have made its case in the wake of the Sept. 6 raid. Far from doing so, Tel Aviv has kept a security lid on the incident, suggesting that it would prefer to promote the story of a military success against Damascus without being too specific about the details.

Even the Bush White House, generally willing to use any hint of malfeasance to condemn Damascus and Tehran, has been reluctant to confirm the story. It doesn’t need to. Official silence—narrated by a compliant press taking uncorroborated dictation—is cementing a public impression. That’s the way disinformation works. Done right, no one stops to ask where it came from—or who benefits……
__________________________________________

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.  

A British civil engineer, who explains that his "father worked as an engineer in the British nuclear power industry on among, other items, refueling machines for gas-cooled reactors and fuel design for breeder reactors. I visited my first nuclear power station (a Magnox one) in my early teens." [The Syrian and North Korean sites were copied from a British Magnox prototype.] He writes

Joshua,

If the Syrian Ambassador says that the building hit was a military warehouse then I am inclined to believe him with the only qualification that if the building in the ISIS report was indeed the target then it could more accurately be described as a storage bunker.

The ISIS report states that the North Korean reactor is based on an old Russian design. This is rubbish, any expert would know that the North Koreans based their reactor on the old British Magnox design.

The building shown in the ISIS report does not correspond with existing known Magnox reactor sites for one very simple reason. Where are all the ancillary buildings? If you look at the Yongbyon site in North Korea or the Calder Hall and Chapelcross sites in the UK, you will see a large number of ancillary buildings which contain such facilities as canteens, washrooms and changing facilities laboratories and offices. Where are the spent fuel storage facilities?

For example, the Calder Hall site consists of 62 separate buildings – OK, there are four larger reactors at Calder Hall but I would certainly expect to see more than the "reactor building" and one additional building of indeterminate use. If you look at Yongbyon you will also see a fuel fabrication, plutonium reprocessing and laboratory facilities next door to the reactor. Fuel fabrication for the UK Magnox reactors was admittedly performed at another site (Springfield in Lancashire) but that was because the British intended to have a large civilian nuclear program as well and fuel reprocessing was performed at the Windscale next door to Calder Hall.

Now some may say that it is in the early stages of construction and that the ancillary building will appear later so where are the construction materials and the site offices – just look at any large construction project to see what I mean.

Magnox reactors are gas-cooled rather than water cooled so there would need to be a heat exchanger to transfer heat to the cooling water – no sign of that or the associated pipe work yet – so is the “pump” a pump?

The North Koreans have ringed the reactor at Yongbyon with 22 missile batteries according to the Global Security website – one would expect the Syrians to do something similar – they have done this at their alleged chemical weapons site at Al Saffir.

Finally, the building is not tall enough – the fuel channels in a Magnox reactor run vertically and the fuel elements need to be handled with a refuelling machine to protect the site workers from radiation from the spent fuel. Typically, there is one fuel element per channel so the refuelling machine needs to be taller than the reactor core is high. So, to accommodate the refuelling machine there needs to be a substantial space above the top of the reactor. The two ISIS analysts allude to this in their comments:

The taller roof of North Korea’s reactor measures approximately 32 meters by 24 meters on its sides. There also appears to be a faint square on top of the Syrian building’s roof. It is unclear whether something would be built there, but its dimensions, 24 meters by 22 meters, are consistent with the subsequent construction of an upper roof.

To build a reinforced concrete roof and then almost immediately cut a hole in it to build an extension on top is just plain stupid. Once you start assembling the reactor core out of graphite blocks, there is no way that you would contemplate further unnecessary construction work above that.

Regards, …
High Wycombe, UK

Yesterday William Arkin wrote that it was “hard to believe that Syria … is stupid enough to think it could build a nuclear reactor and get away with it”.

Steve Clemons raises the same question:

“But on a more theoretical level, I guess one question I have is why would Syria even start down that path given all that Iran is now going through. Missile enhancements seems understandable — but this nuke path, if correct, doesn’t make strategic sense.”
The Washington Note

Comments (111)


majedkhaldoun said:

I am sure the building was not a nuclear one, but I think Syria was wrong in cleaning the area,before they show it to the public, USA and Israel knew now and before the bombing, that it has no nuclear facility,but they were tired of watching it.

October 27th, 2007, 5:45 pm

 

concerned Syrian said:

If Syria is in fact innocent of building a nuclear reactor of any kind, Syrian politicians at the highest levels should seize this opportunity to show the world how aggressive Israel has been towards Syria. Instead, they have chosen to stay silent and clear the site of any evidence. It seems sometimes silence does speak volumes.

October 27th, 2007, 6:14 pm

 

why-discuss said:

It seems clearer than ever that the whole thing was a media disinformation hoax similar that what we have seen before to create an impression and manipulate the public opinion.

Arab press have to learn using this new weapon and reply with same kind of fabricated stories and rumours that the US and Israel have become expert in.

October 27th, 2007, 6:23 pm

 

why-discuss said:

Concerned Syrian

Do you think anyone would have believed Syria?? The western world is so radicalized against Syria that they would have shrugged off any accusations agaist Israel.

October 27th, 2007, 7:24 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Why,
You are totally mistaken on this. Many in the world would be happy to show how stupid the Americans and Israelis are. Why would the Chinese, Indians, Russians and Europeans not believe what their journalist’s saw? Why would the anti-Iraq war Americans not use this as a way to bludgeon the Bush administration?

If it weren’t a nuclear facility the Iranians would have insisted that journalists be allowed in order to show how bad American and Israeli intelligence is and why it can’t be trusted in the case of Iran also.

Concerned Syrian is concerned for a very good reason.

October 27th, 2007, 7:30 pm

 

Friend in America said:

My comment: Here is the full article. The questions raised are about American intelligence. Maybe Bolton wasn’t so wrong. The change in the American position in September resulted from new intelligence information presented to American intelligence officials in early September, the details of which have yet to be disclosed.

Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions
(I cannot get the photo to reproduce. It shows the building in a ravine not far from the Euphrates River with a road coming up to the site from the river. The building appears to be the same size and shape as the building inthe August 6 photo. What looks like a railroad track is on the river bank).

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: October 27, 2007
The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.

In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.

Yesterday independent analysts, examining the latest satellite image, suggested that work on the site might have begun around 2001, and the senior intelligence official agreed with that analysis. That early date is potentially significant in terms of North Korea’s suspected aid to Syria, suggesting that North Korea could have begun its assistance in the late 1990s.

A dispute has broken out between conservatives and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the administration’s pursuit of diplomacy with North Korea in the face of intelligence that North Korea might have helped Syria design a nuclear reactor.

The new image may give ammunition to those in the administration, including Ms. Rice, who call for diplomacy. If North Korea started its Syrian aid long ago, the officials could argue that the assistance was historical, not current, and that diplomacy should move ahead.

The progress of the site in late 2003 also raises new questions about a disagreement at the time between intelligence analysts and John R. Bolton, then the State Department’s top arms control official.

In the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed after a dispute erupted in part over whether Syria was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Some intelligence officials said Mr. Bolton overstated the Syrian threat.

“There was disagreement about what Syria was interested in and how much we should be monitoring it,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview yesterday. “There was activity in Syria that I felt was evidence that they were trying to develop a nuclear program.”

Mr. Bolton declined to say whether he had knowledge at the time about the site that the Israelis struck in September.

Spokesmen for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council declined to comment.

The new image of the desolate Syrian site was released yesterday by GeoEye, in Dulles, Va. Mark Brender, the company’s vice president for communications and marketing, said the picture was taken on Sept. 16, 2003. He added that the image had been collected as part of the company’s agenda of building a large archive of global images.

Earlier this week, federal and private analysts identified the precise location of the Syrian site, and since then rival companies have raced to release images. The site is on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, 90 miles north of the Iraqi border.

Images taken in August, before the Israeli raid, show a tall building about 150 feet wide on each side that analysts suspect might have sheltered a half-built nuclear reactor. Also visible is a pumping station on the Euphrates, which may be significant because reactors need water for cooling.

John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Va., that analyzes satellite images, said the 2003 picture showed the tall building in the midst of early construction, surrounded by churned earth. He put the groundbreaking in 2001.

“It’s uncommon to see such activity in the middle of nowhere,” he said, adding that it was sufficiently unusual to have worried American intelligence officials. “I’d have put it on my suspect site list and kept watching,” he said.

The senior intelligence official said that American spy satellites and analysts had, in fact, watched the site for years.

“It was noticed, without knowing what it was,” the official said. “You revisit every so often, but it was not a high priority. You see things that raise the flag and you know you have to keep looking. It was a case of watching it evolve.”

Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it was surprising from the photos how little progress had been made at the site between 2003 and 2007.

But Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.

William J. Broad reported from New York, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

October 27th, 2007, 7:44 pm

 

abraham said:

Iraq welcomed journalists into its country to prove they were not building WMDs, for all the good that did. Look at Iraq today.

Syrians are too smart to play the same game. Neocons and zionists are too stupid to realize that Syria is too smart to play that game.

As Why-Discuss pointed out, it is useless for Syria to try to defend itself. There is more value in keeping things vague and to let the neocons and zionists flail away at nothing and get flustered by their own rhetoric and lies. It’s a risky strategy but I think in the end it will work. So far it is. No serious journalist or policy maker is buying into this nonsense.

And notwithstanding the many reports that have come out in recent days and weeks regarding this non-event, if anyone still believes ANYTHING US officials have to say–whether it be Bolton or Rice or any one of those modern-day jack-booted thugs–then you have a serious mental disorder and need to check yourself into an institution immediately. If these clowns in either the US or Israel have any proof whatsoever then let them come forward and show it. Syria is under no obligation to defend itself from defamatory claims made by anti-Semites.

I don’t know what facist legal system they practice in Israel, but in the US we theoretically operate on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. At least we used to until Bush and his wacky gang of monkeys took over the country and turned the Constitution upside down.

This is just more anti-Semitic libel from Euro-American zionists.

October 27th, 2007, 9:10 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

How can journalist prove that there is no WMD in a country as big as Iraq? They can’t.

How can journalist’s prove that a specific site is not a nuclear plant? Easy, they just visit the site and take pictures.

And by the way, there is proof enough that in most countries it would be followed by a search warrant. These cannot be issued at the international level and that is why the Syrians cleaned the site before anyone could inspect it.

October 27th, 2007, 9:22 pm

 
 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
I am having problems posting in the “Sattelite picture” thread so here is my answer to your post there.

Alex,
Thanks for the clarification. According to you even a war between Israel and Syria would not be dramatic as it would not change the Syrian opinion that the Golan belongs to Syria.

I think that the results are quite dramatic. By hitting the nuclear plant Israel pushed back Syrian nuclear plans for many years and this certainly changed the balance of power. The fact that Israel could attack Syria and not have any plane shot down demonstrates Israel’s absolute air superiority and changes the balance of power. The fact that Iran and Syria did not retaliate after a hit against such a strategic target changes the balance of power and deterence.

On another somewhat related note, Imad Moustapha is really not helping Syria:
http://religion-and-policy.blogspot.com/2007/10/hes-kidding-right.html

October 27th, 2007, 9:29 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Blowback,

First the correct link:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf

Second, are you serious? They mean concealing it from air or sattelite photographs. The Syrians are not going to allow inspection, let alone inspectors with heavy equipment.

October 27th, 2007, 9:37 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG,

Again, your opinion is based on the suggestion that Israel indeed hit a nuclear weapons facility. When we KNOW for a fact that this is what happened, then I would modify my “not dramatic” assessment.

As for War between Syria and Israel .. Syria did not allow this to escalate into a war … And therefore … nothing Dramatic happened.

As for Israel Air superiority … again, nothing changed… noone claimed Israel does not have a clear advantage there. Ther was no change in balance of power … Syria still has over a thousand long range missiles .. if Israel hit 10 missiles at that location (warehouse?) then the number went down from 1050 to 1040 missies… nothing dramatic.

As for Syria not responding: again, go back to Syria not wanting to allow the Neocons to drag the country into a war with Israel. The Syrias are, again, hoping to survive this year until a more friendly administration is elected next year and they can start peace negotiations with Israel.

In addition, again, we know that Syria’s air defenses are not that effective, even if they tried to confront the Israeli planes.

But of course there is also the pre-1973 war incident when Israeli planes shot down 12 Syrian planes and Syria did not use its SAM 6 missiles … Israel concluded that Syria has nothing. that was wrong.

You can read about it in this link if you want.

On September 13, 1973, Israel shot down 12 Syrian aircraft to 1 Israeli loss when IAF jets were attacked during a reconnaissance mission over Syrian territory. This naturally reinforced the military belief that the Arabs would not attack due to Israel’s once-again proven air capability.

At the same time, Israel had not yet experienced the effectiveness of the Arab Surface-to Air missile defenses.

A few days later, after the September 13 air battle, Aman Chief Eli Zeira argued that the Arabs would not contemplate even a war of attrition before the end of 1975.

And finally, I am not saying that nothing dramatic WILL happen in the future … but that nothing HAPPENED.

October 27th, 2007, 9:47 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,

And how will we “know” that a nuclear facility was attacked?
The only thing you will believe is an admission by the Syrian regime. That is a little too high a standard for “know” in my opinon.

You are avoiding the elephant in the room. What was the large pumping station for?

October 27th, 2007, 10:15 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG.

I am not an expert in Nuclear weapons facilities. Are you?

I can express my opinion … tell you about my observations … say “probably” … but I can not expect everone out there to accept my version of the story.

Let me tell you about the first few weeks after Hariri’s assassination. Suddenly everyone became an expert in bomb making and in assassination … the most popular theory was that the bomb was underground and therefore Syrian intelligence had to know because only they can allow anyone underground.

I read many articles and I got many emails with attachments explaining with very “convincing” analysis that “proved” it was an underground bomb…. and therefore the Syrians did it.

Now we still don’t know who killed hariri … but know that all the “experts” were wrong .. many times.

I won’t mention Powell’s WMD show at the UNSC … all the newspapers at the time believed it and we were supposed to also believe it …

Anything wrong with waiting for a proof? … not from the Syrian government…. in court, a fair and neural judge decides, not the accuser and not the accused.

October 27th, 2007, 10:29 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

AIG,

My friend, I’m pretty sure, as I said on this blog since day 1, that the target was indeed nuclear related.

The risk is far too high for the target to be just a minor ‘standard’ target, like an ordinary missile depot, yet another weapons shipment to HA, etc.

Nobody launches such a strike, especially just a few days before Rosh Hashana, on a ‘non dramatic’ target.
It had to be a SUPER DRAMATIC high value target in the eyes of Israel.

The Syrian (non) reaction to the strike, not going to the UNSC with full power, the lies by their Ambassador to Washington, not bringing foreign reporters to the warehouse, gazebo, patio or whatever, speaks volumes.

But here’s a suggestion, my friend: some people here either can’t or won’t be persuaded, regardless of what really happened.

Some, honestly don’t believe anything they’ll read on the media – any media.
For others, it’s a matter of national pride and it’s understandable.

Others, especially from Syria itself, won’t write what they feel, for the fear of being arrested by the authorities.
I totally understand them too and I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

Anyway, as you see, we’re getting the news via the Salami method: piece by piece, gradually.

I assume there will be some more satellite images to be released soon.
I also believe that we’re gonna hear from the IAEA soon, who are the 2nd victims of this strike.
They’re gonna fight to remain relevant.

Syria is signed to the NNPT and it’s quite possible that they’ll ask the Syrians to dispatch a team of experts to examine the site.

I wonder what will the Syrian reply be.

October 27th, 2007, 11:16 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

This nuclear reactor story is getting rather absurd. The only real evidence is that the roof’s dimensions are about the same as in a North Korean reactor building. How many buildings with about 50 x 50 meter roof are there in the world? Must be tens of thousands. Are they all North Korean nuclear power stations? There must be some North Korean reactors even in Israel and much more in USA.

These ISIS experts are rather “strange” to be seriously taken as analysts. How can a guy (Paul Brannan) who graduated in 2004 with a B.A. in Government and a concentration in International Affairs, be a senior analyst? Well, senior in ISIS. His job is to inspect satellite images, but with what kind of training and using what kind of data? Is he a self learned Google Earth “expert” as we common mortals? Where does ISIS get their financing? That would be the first thing a real reporter would ask ISIS.

The ISIS “experts” say in their Syria update 1

6). Dismantling and removing the building at such a rapid pace dramatically complicates any inspection of the facilities and suggests that Syria may be trying to hide what was there. Iraq followed a similar strategy in the 1991 after the first Gulf War, though eventually the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UN inspectors pieced together a full picture of Iraq’s activities.

These guys forget to mention that the reactor in Iraq was build by French and in the Israeli attack a French researcher was killed. IAEA also monitored the building. And that Orsiak was destroyed in 1980 and then closed and held under IAEA supervision. If the ruins were covered with sand 11 years later and after US attacks, what has it to do as an “evidence” of similar pattern with Syria. The IAEA complains were about transferring the nuclear material (which France had sold to Iraq) to be taken to a different palace.

Haaretz tells the readers:

Numerous foreign media reports have suggested the IAF bombed a partially-constructed nuclear reactor on the bank of the Euphrates River in northeast Syria, some 90 kilometers from the Iraq border.

Well the numerous reports are all quoting the same few reports. The first reports more or less planted in US press did not catch much media wind. Mainly the US “loyal” press and Israelis quoted them. The ISIS report with its pictures was a propaganda jackpot. Unbelievable many papers quoted that. But what was ISIS only evidence – the roof dimensions.

Now in the Israeli reactor news the reporters do not even put the reactor word in brackets. The reactor case is proven – by the dimensions of the roof and an analysis by a guy with three years of experience in using Google Earth. What does it of the quality of western press? They are so desperate to promote new wars based on rumours spread by anonymous sources and evidence which nobody can see as convincing. What if a Iranian “ISIS” had picked up a “49 x 49 meter” roof building, lets say, in Eritrea and claims with a satellite picture, that it is a nuclear reactor because some Israeli reactor building has a roof about the same size? Who would take that “analysis” seriously?

October 27th, 2007, 11:31 pm

 

why-discuss said:

For those who believe in the nuclear WMD theory in Syria

One. Israel has found that saying nothing make imaginations go wild. They never admitted or denied their nuclear bombs development the same way as they did not admitted officially or denied the bombing of a nuclear building in Syria. Israel is playing smart and hopes that the silence be full of threatening meanings.

Two. In case Syria was developping nuclear, do you think they will expose it to US satellites and espionnage that are all over the area, come on?. If ever they have been doing it seriously, they would have followed iranian advices and hide it underground. This building may be the old stuff dating 2003..

Israel is getting 2 billions or 3 billions dollars each year to upgrade their military equipment. It would be pathetic if their army would be inferior to Syria’s poorly equipped military. Therefore, I don’t think Syria will ever consider initiating a war on Israel even when provoked by Israel attacking a vague target such as this building. They would rather be patient and if cornered, they’ll use guerillas tactics that have shown to be very effective in front of a high-tech army.
As mentionned, I believe Syria is safely waiting for a change in that disastrous and hysterical US administration that seems totally divided and sigmatized with continuous failures.

October 27th, 2007, 11:39 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

What is the large water pumping station for? You always forget that part.

The totality of the evidence makes it clear that it is a nuclear site.

Let’s look at the evidence:
1) Isolated site
2) Large and strange building with curious dimensions similar to North Korean reactors
3) Water pumping station
4) Syrian lies and changing stories
5) US government leaks deemed reliable enough to report by NY times and Washington post
6) Syria cleaning the site quickly
7) Syria not inviting journalists to the site
8) Syria not going to the UNSC
9) No condemnation by Europe, Russia or China to the Israeli attack. The only ones to officially condem are North Korea and Iran.
10) Israel risking a war to attack it
11) Imad Moustapha not being able to say what North Korea provides Syria in exchange for Syrian grains

In my opinion the totality of the evidence is very strong that a nuclear facility was attacked.

October 28th, 2007, 12:18 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,

What kind of proof would convince you it was a nuclear facility?

October 28th, 2007, 12:19 am

 

norman said:

Israel has more than 200 nuclear bomb , Israel occupy Arab land , so how dare the US and Israel complain about Syria trying to force Israel to comply with Security counsel resolutions , Syria does not owe anybody any explanation , It has to prepare for war to take it’s rights.

October 28th, 2007, 1:01 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Well, Norman – actually neither the US nor Israel complained about anything.

Non of them filed a complaint with the UN Security Council, the IAEA or any other formal body, as far as I know.

October 28th, 2007, 1:27 am

 

jo6pac said:

Now if we can just get some Aluminum tubes and yellow cake in to the story with a few other, they said that they heard from a source that they are sure we have another ? It up to you to fill in ? I’m not sure why we in the US we still believe in this but we do, just keep telling a bigger lie and soon people will believe it.
jo6pac

October 28th, 2007, 1:39 am

 

Alex said:

Israeliguy,

I’m sorry, but your last comments do not really go too well with “I understand the Syrians”

You are suggesting that many Syrians here are not agreeing with yo because … they are in Syria and they are scared that if they do not support their regime’s version of the story then they will be punished!

Can I respectfully tell you that this is not very logical? … if a Syrian hates the regime and he is scared if he wrote here agreeing with your way of seeing things … then that Syrian will do one of two things:

1) risk it and write his real opinion … you know, since most are anonymous here.

2) Simply … not write anything! … believe me we do not penalize them here at Syria comment for non participation.

A Syrian who hates the regime … will not write anything to support the regime…

Let me give yo an example: When Israel does something really criminal and the Arabs decide to take you to the Security council and Ambassador Bolton used to twist some arms of the other 15 members who would normally vote against Israel … some of those countires decied to abstain from voting in that case .. they would like to vote against Israel, but they are afraid to anger the Untied States.

And that can also explain to you why Syria did nto take it to the security Council … was that really a question worth asking? .. when was the last time Syria or any agressed Arab country got the UNSC to do anything agianst Israel?

—————–

Your second suggestion .. too patriotic to criticize anything in their country. I can’t talk about others but … I have criticized a lot, although you won’t notice it because you formed the impression that I am too patriotic.

Yesterday I criticized Bashar for the terrible things he said when he received the pope in Damascus … when he said tha t”the Jews killed Jesus christ”.

So … if I am not afraid of criticizing Bashar himself, then your conclusion about me is not true. I am patriotic, but not in that silly way. I remind you for the thousandth time that I invited more regime critics that regime supporters to my Creative Forum.

As for others … May I suggest that it would be very helpful if you study carefully their opinions in general, not only in Israel related issues. For example Jamal who criticized Israel many times the past few weeks, since AIG started to write here, Jamal is more of a regime critic than you are.

But … you prefer to understand that anyone who disagrees with you and AIG must be blined by patriotism or forced to sit behind his computer screen and do his syria comment homework with a gun on his head held by a syrian intelligence agent.

———————-

As for your other observations … that the normally peaceful Israel would not have risked war with syria if this was not a nuclear weapons site .. may I remind you that your pilots “risked war” more thatn once the past few years for no reason … like when they flew low over President Assad’s home in Lattakia … just for fun!

I won’t talk about the 2006 Lebanon war which THEY STARTED very consciously … because two of their soldiers were kidnpped by Hizbollah… this is a topic you can give me many Israeli answers to, please stick to the very necessary flying over Assad’s summer home instead.

Actually … hold a minute … we never thought about it … could it be that … the Israeli pilots were looking for Saddam’s hidden nuclear peapons iN Lattakia?? … afterall Debka mentioned it at the time! … so Israeli planes risked war at that time too for a necessary cause.

———————–

I will tell you one last thing … the same thing I was telling our Lebanese commentators here for two years now … the Syrians are confident there is nothing to hide. I don’t KNOW if they did or did not kill Hariri, I don’t know if they had any nuclear facilities in that location … but they are also confident there is nothing.

As for Ambassador Moustapha’s “lies” … I know Israel has very high standards and it only lies for highly moreal reasons… like lying by assuring syria the day before it attacked … then follow it with “we respect Syria and we respect Bashar”, but can you tell me how seious were Imda’s “lies”? … did they hurt anyone like the neocon’s lies (supported by Israel) about Iraqi WMD’s that caused the death of hundreds of thousand of poor Iraqis …

Again … do you KNOW anything that makes it necessary to start with the negativity again?

If you have not noticed, our discussion here the past two days have been more pleasant, more constructive, and more interestng since we decided to stop the personality attacks and character assassination.

Please keep it this way. I know you said “I understand” .. but you really said: No matter what the Syrians say … we “israeliguys” are always right … the Syrians who disagreee with us are simply blinded by patriotism or scared from the regime.

I really do not want to spend more time repeating the obvious points above which are only useful to counter your persoal redicule. I do not want to keep countering personality attacks through my silly links to Wikipedia’s defence mechanisms to point out your tactics.

Can we please go back to sticking to the issues and the facts? .. if Israeliguys here believe it was nuclear, and if the New York times reported the story, and if Bolton started it … that makes it another Iraqi WMD’s story for now … please try to control your confidence level and keep analyzing until there is a NEUTRAL party PROVING your version of the story.

Sorry if I am too Canadian for you .. I understand .. you are afterall a middle easterner .. you don’t understand what “innocent until proven guilty” means .. you don’t understand that judges are supposed to be neutral, not Syrian, Israeli or neocon judges.

———-

Sorry for the sarcasm, but as I explained last time. I will be limiting such arguments to one accusation and one response. So the one who starts to move the conversation to personality attacks (or redicule) gets penalized by not having the last word.

I just had the last word.

If I start it next time, then you will have the last word.

I hope all of you try to keep focusig on the issues and feel free to say whatever you want there .. like you all did the past two days.

October 28th, 2007, 1:57 am

 

concerned Syrian said:

Why-Discuss,

It is true that Syria and many other Arab states have failed in the past to go the UNSC and get anything done to stop Israeli aggression…

…BUT that doesn’t mean that a) you stop defending yourself or your rights on the international stage and b) that you don’t take this opportunity to explain to the millions of people around the world who are trying to understand what really happened in Syria on that fateful day. Rather than trying to second-guess how people will react, put the evidence out there and allow them to judge for themselves what happened.

With all the pro-American and pro-Israeli media out there, Arab states, particularly Syria cannot afford to allow an opportunity to show its supposed innocence to the world’s media pass it by so easily.

Yet again Syrian politics today just like its recent history is marked by missed opportunities.

October 28th, 2007, 3:12 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,

What a long lecture.
1) What proof is enough for you?
2) Who is the “judge” you approve of?
3) What is the excuse for the water pumping station?

And I have to say that you are just as guilty in the “innocent until proven guilty” category. Now, any claim you make about Israel I will hold you to this standard. And of course remind you that since you are Syrian, you cannot be the judge in these cases. For starters:
Please prove Israel started the 2006 July war. The UN said Hizballah started. Do you know better than the UN?

In international affairs there is no “judge” or jury or the concept of innocent till proven guilty. These concepts apply only to justice of individuals in democratic countries. All you can do is look at the evidence and decide what makes sense. And you are not dealing with the evidence at all. What doesn’t suit your theory you ignore.

It is amusing to me that you defend Bashar with “innocent until proven guilty” but do not defend the countless of thousands that Bashar has abused and denied the “innocent until proven guilty” rights. In fact, you support Bashar while he continues with these practices because your priority is the regional issues.

What would you think if Bolton said that he is for denying Syrian rights because he is more worried about the regional situation in the middle east?

Are you ready to seriously discuss the evidence?

October 28th, 2007, 3:20 am

 

Bashmann said:

Alex,

Don’t let your emotions blind your judgements. I love Syria too, but from what I’ve read and seen so far, something big must have been in the making for Israel to take such a risky strike.

Whether its Nuclear or not, that is yet to be seen.

IG,

Don’t assume the reluctance on the parts of the few to comment on this issue is a sign of proof, I have posted a few comments on this already and I believe we will read more about it in the coming weeks. So lets sit back, relax, have a beer, and wait for the news to slowly show who is wrong and who is right.

I’m willing to bet my money, it was a nascant nuclear facility.

Any takers? 🙂

Or we could all be wrong and be left guessing for the next 15 years since no one of the participants are willing to speak about it officially.

Cheers.

October 28th, 2007, 4:01 am

 

abraham said:

Oh please, AIG, don’t be so dense. It’s not the responsibility of journalists to prove anything. They just report.

The US and Israel say they have “intelligence”. This could be an eyewitness, a satellite photograph, a detectable signature of some type, etc. Well, show something. These are serious allegations. Very serious. Israel allegedly bombed an enemy country’s territory over them. Why aren’t they providing any actual evidence? Even a shred of proof? All we have heard are allegations, repeated over and over, with no substance. Nothing but talk. Just words.

What is the large water pumping station for? You always forget that part.

Where is the proof that this is a pumping station? Nothing has been substantiated. All we have seen are grainy photos from 100 miles up in the sky. All you offer are talking points and unsubstantiated allegations. You have no argument. You may as well go yell at a wall. It would actually be more effective.

5) US government leaks deemed reliable enough to report by NY times and Washington post

HAHAHAHAHAHA. If either paper was even half as honest as Ha’aretz I would be impressed by their reporting.

The totality of the evidence makes it clear that it is a nuclear site.

What “evidence”? All we have is TALK. All you do is TALK. You say the same empty words over and over. The reason you don’t get a satisfactory response is because your questions are vacuous.

Israeli Guy said:

Some, honestly don’t believe anything they’ll read on the media – any media. For others, it’s a matter of national pride and it’s understandable.

No, you have it wrong, which is to say you are looking at it from the Israeli perspective.

The Bush regime and the Israeli regime were both pushing bogus information to press for war against Saddam. Israel proffered all sorts of “intelligence” they had claiming they know Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program. But you (Israelis) knew you were just goading your big, stupid, lumbering, adopted brother the USA to go to war for you. The media bought this bogus information because they were shallow and timid and acted like a megaphone for the Bush regime to make war a certainty.

We’ve seen this play before. Same script, same cast of characters (with Syria filling in for Iraq), same production company.

It’s not a matter of not believing the media, which is valid anyway. Most of the news media in the US and in much of the rest of the world is increasingly controlled by business elites who are in league with a regime that wants permanent war. It is understandable that we would be distrustful of a media that has failed us repeatedly for the past decade or more. The news media in the US is mostly distrusted across the political spectrum.

No, with regards to these latest allegations, we’re being cautious and reasoned. Given the information known and the lack of credibility of the players, there is no reason to lend any credence whatsoever to this latest salvo in the propaganda war, this antisemitic ploy by the West to conquer the Arabs.

October 28th, 2007, 4:06 am

 

Thomas said:

Another round of tortured arguments by those who want to to defend the regime of Assad the Goat. Dr. Landis should fly right over their with some of his elbow patched colleagues and prove to the world that Syria was just building a new Disneyland on the river. It was all part of Syria’s economic development plan financed through the tourism ministry. Its a shame to because NEOCONS like to take their kids to Disneyland!

October 28th, 2007, 4:13 am

 

Syrian said:

Alex,

It seems that the story of a nuclear reactor can gain a whole lot more credibility if Israel would officially claim that they struck a nuclear facility. What are they afraid of? Why would they not make the official announcement? Are they that unsure about their intelligence?

Don’t you think that would be a place to start to convince a whole lot of people of the credibility of these stories? Maybe we should ask out Israeli friends here to pressure their elected and representative government to at least acknowledge something about the attack. They certainly would be more successful than we would trying to get the Syrian dictatorial government to present proof of innocence.

October 28th, 2007, 4:15 am

 

Syrian said:

Bashmann,

What risky strike? Havn’t you heard that Syria is Isolated and no one will come to their defense. Were you not around the last time Israeli IAF fighters bombed the empty training camp? The Syrians are not going to attack israel in retaliation because that would be a war they know they will lose. Syria cannot gain any political leverage over israel by whining and complaining when they have no friends. It was a hell of a lot riskier for Israel to attack Lebanon than it ever was to make a bombing exercise over Syria.

October 28th, 2007, 4:32 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

If this is an orchestrated attempt by Israel and the US to frame Syria then Syira’s actions are even more unexplainable.

Why didn’t Syria take journalist on a tour of what was bombed? Let’s say it is a military warehouse. Syria has every right to have one. What would it have hurt to show it? The coverup just makes the Syrians look very guilty.

Until the North Korean agreement is implemented, it is prudent not to make the North Koreans lose face. Therefore I think it is a correct strategy for the Israeli government not to say anything.

October 28th, 2007, 4:57 am

 

abraham said:

Yeah, whatever AIG, you master analyst. Just as it is in Syria’s interest not to say anything either, apparently. This much is evident to any observer.

October 28th, 2007, 5:04 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

If it is not a nuclear facility, then it is in the interest of the Syrian’s to talk and they would have talked and made a big stink.

But since it is a nuclear facility, the Syrians have to coverup and be quiet. Simple enough.

October 28th, 2007, 5:15 am

 

Syrian said:

AIG,

You keep on asking the wrong question. You want to know why Syria didn’t take journalists to the site of the bombing. You should be asking why your government is not acknowledging anything about the strike. All they have to say, officially, is “we struck an unfinished nuclear reactor” without implicating (embarrassing) North Korea (of course why Israel would be worried about embarrassing NK reamins a mystery).

I am amazed you would take the stance of not questioning your government’s objective of carrying out such a strike that placed you and all other Israeli’s at risk; especially considering how you have been an avid defender of democracy and the right of the citizens to question their government. You are displaying blind faith in your government’s action and that, my friend, is the road to dictatorships.

October 28th, 2007, 5:17 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Syrian,

On the contrary, I always question my government. But in this case, with the sensitivity regarding North Korea I am content with waiting for the full information a few months. It is a sensitive issue for the US and Israel needs to help its allies.

You seem a little confused as your answers to me and Bashmann are contradictory: Did Israel risk war with Syria or not?

To me you say it did, to Bashmann you say it didn’t. Well which is it?

October 28th, 2007, 5:26 am

 

Syrian said:

AIG,

Israel did not take any risk of starting a war with Syria because of this strike. Israel, Syria and just about everyone in the world knows that the only way a war will start between Israel and Syria is if Israel attacks Syria through the Jolan Heights with the full force of the military.

The reason I used that line of argument with you is because you have used it as proof of the importance of the site that was struck in an earlier thread (if I am mistaken about that then my apologies.)

October 28th, 2007, 5:40 am

 

abraham said:

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

If it is not a nuclear facility, then it is in the interest of the Syrian’s to talk and they would have talked and made a big stink.

But since it is a nuclear facility, the Syrians have to coverup and be quiet. Simple enough.

That is a rather pedestrian analysis. As I say, the Syrians are playing chess, but you are thinking in checkers.

October 28th, 2007, 5:42 am

 

Syrian said:

AIG,

and on the first point of questioning your government. You say “am content with waiting for the full information a few months” However, you have been going on and on here to convince everyone that It was a nuclear site What additional information will make this knowledge more full? It sounds to me like you are confused about whether or not you know it was a nuclear site.

October 28th, 2007, 5:43 am

 

Alex said:

AIG,

1) There are hundreds of water pumping stations on that river … do you KNOW that this one was unique in size or purpose?

You asked a reasonable question, but it is far from being “a proof”.

2) Why have it there? .. who knows .. I gave you one possibility .. that this is a place where they had a warehouse for long range missiles … maybe with some launching pads hidden in the nearby hills, but you came back SURE it was not.

I will not continue to test your perceptions against mine.

3) regarding “innocent until proven guilty” … This only refers to a final judgment. You can still have your own impressions and opinions even if there is no proof … we’ll be happy to hear them. But please do not start any direct or indirect accusations and insults to any one here for not seeing things the way you see them in Israel.

Everyone here will respect your obvious passion for democracy. But …Israel is Syria’s enemy … There is no communication between the two people … it is going to be predictable that you will often see things in exactly the opposite way the Syrians see it… even if they love democracy like you do.

Finally… you said I am also guilty of not respecting the “innocent until proven guilty” .. you are right … but only since you showed up … I do it to mirror your style. You showed up here and started to insult half the commentators.

Akbar can tell you that my specialty here was not attacking Israel or being judgmental .. until you showed up. I was only promoting the good side of Israel to Syrians on this forum … posting all the pro-peace Haaretz articles was the typical Israel news I added.

As for my position on internal Syrian reforms compared to my priority to controlling regional conflicts, I don’t think you will understand it by comparing me to Bolton… this is a personal preference and it is not worth discussing here.

The past two days, everything was fine here. Let’s keep t this way .. I did not psycho analyze you and you did not call me a regime figure. You did not call SimuHurrta antisemitic and he did not have to write two pages to defend himself.

Again, all your opinions are more than welcome … as long as you keep in mind they count for nothing more and nothing less than anyone else’s opinions.

October 28th, 2007, 6:47 am

 
 

SimoHurtta said:

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

What is the large water pumping station for? You always forget that part.

The totality of the evidence makes it clear that it is a nuclear site.

Let’s look at the evidence:
….

Well, well AIG, lucky that you are not working as a police there in your liberal religious community. Your prisons would be full with people arrested by evidence based on pure speculation and evidence nobody can take seriously.

Lets look at your evidence closer.
1) Isolated site.
Well then there are tens of millions of North Korean reactors around the world, if isolated is the keyword. Osirak was 16 kilometres from Baghdad. Research reactors are normally in densely populated areas around the world. Syria had no reason to build the reactor on a remote area. So your “isolated site” in it self doesn’t proof anything.
2) Large and strange building with curious dimensions similar to North Korean reactors.
That is the only “proof” given so far, meaning the roof dimensions. How many buildings with the North Korean roof dimensions are there around the world? Thousands. In the dimensions is nothing “curious” which could seen as a real evidence.
3) Water pumping station
A water pumping station doesn’t proof anything. All human activity needs water, especially industrial sites, and a pumping station can be used to serve multiple “customers”. As you AIG can see there is much agricultural activity near the pumping station. Upwards and downwards the river. Are all buildings near water pumping stations really nuclear reactors?
4) Syrian lies and changing stories
It doesn’t proof that it was a nuclear reactor. The site could be used for several military purposes and it is natural that Syria doesn’t tell anything in details before Israel (and USA) officially has made their claims.
5) US government leaks deemed reliable enough to report by NY times and Washington post
That is a “negative” proof. The anonymous leaks of US government in NY Times and Washington Post have so many times proven to be wrong (especially with Iraq), that a wise reporter would triple check their stories. In this case checking is impossible.
6) Syria cleaning the site quickly
Well, that is no proof. In any case Syrians would have to clean it. Especially if it was a chemical warehouse. On the other hand what country wants a defensive failure as a lasting monument? Equally Israel is fast cleaning the sites where its defence “collapsed”. USA was extreme fast to ship the 911 buildings steal abroad, before it could be thoroughly studied, and in cleaning the site. Some say to hide evidence. But equally that “evidence” is pure speculation.

7) Syria not inviting journalists to the site
Syria is not doing it because it first needs an official admission of Israel what was the target. What if Syria would take the press there, to that present “site”, and after the newspaper stories Israel would say that the “site” was not the target?
8) Syria not going to the UNSC
Why to bother to go to UNSC before Israel gives information of their target? There is also the US veto. On the other hand if Israel and USA had solid proof of the reactor why didn’t they go to UNSC and AIEI?
9) No condemnation by Europe, Russia or China to the Israeli attack. The only ones to officially condem are North Korea and Iran.
How on earth any government in Europe etc can condemn the action if there are no details publicly available? In this kind of cases countries take side only when there is enough information what happened. By the way has your government provided Turkey that information they wanted about the attack?
10) Israel risking a war to attack it
Well, well. AIG, poor AIG. Israel has attacked and lied so many times in the past, that it is unnecessary to go through that long list again. Israel needs a new war to keep the US money and weapons flowing and to keep the occupied areas. Israel has realized that the Arab peace initiative is dangerous for them. They loose the occupied areas and fast their international status without a war. Israel needs a new war, Arab countries not. Time (=oil and gas) is on Arabs’ side.
11) Imad Moustapha not being able to say what North Korea provides Syria in exchange for Syrian grains
What on earth has it to do with nuclear reactor evidence? If an ambassador doesn’t give a straight answer of the trade, does it mean that the North Koreans give nuclear reactor in return in the trade between countries? One could ask, why North Korea didn’t give straight weapon grade plutonium if it was demanded to sell something “nuclear” to Syria. Why to risk everything by building a reactor to that very conspicuous position?


As said the only real evidence given so far is the size of the roof. Your “evidence” is only far-fetched speculations bound to a extremely weakly proven conspiracy theory.

October 28th, 2007, 8:35 am

 

Shual said:

“new war to keep the US money”, a very intresting point, SimoHurtta.

But not a war, an isolated action with no big risk for a war [1]. Eigth days before the strike Barak was asking for about 20Billion NIS for his reform of the IDF [2] and several hundreds of millions for the developing of the “Iron Dome”-project. [..] Last week he was in Washington and the [extremly helpless acting] US-gov gave him everything he asked for. I think Barak is no idiot and he and Ashkenazi are not the personalities to push Israel in an adventure.

[1] “In regard to the tense relationship between Israel and Syria, Barak said that he can sense that the tension is beginning to dissipate. An associate of the defense minister explained that it appears that Israel’s tireless efforts to calm Syrian fears of an imminent conflict have finally taken effect, and now the Syrians view Israel as less aggressive. Barak told the Knesset panel that he can see “similarities between the young [current Syrian President Bashar] Assad and his father [former Syrian president Hafez] Assad.”

[2] 5 key-reform-points: “Operating an active anti-rocket defense system; improving the Israel Defense Forces’ ability to maneuver in the realm of defense and protection; extending the IDF’s logistical stamina in terms of supplies; increasing the amount of training exercises, including live fire training; tackling the issue of the IDF’s ability to operate deep within enemy territory.” [All Barak in front of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee]

October 28th, 2007, 11:19 am

 

T said:

1. Send the ynet spy/reporter back in w/ a radiation detector. If its a cache of DU thats found, Israel is justified to bomb Tennessee.

2. Question Donald Rumsfeld if we can catch him between European indictments. He was on the Board of Directors of ABB (1990-2001) which sold North Korea the design and key components for their nuke reactors. He would know all these details. He is ultimately responsible if this nuke pattern proliferated to other shores and should be prosecuted. That, and his famous Saddam handshake should be enough to establish his credibility regarding M.E.
regimes in any court of law.

By the way Simohurrta- you said: “Well, well AIG, lucky that you are not working as a police there in your liberal religious community. Your prisons would be full with people arrested by evidence based on pure speculation and evidence nobody can take seriously.”
They are. They are called Palestinians and its Ketziot Prison youre thinking of.

October 28th, 2007, 12:31 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

**********
“Israeliguy,

I’m sorry, but your last comments do not really go too well with “I understand the Syrians”

You are suggesting that many Syrians here are not agreeing with yo because … they are in Syria and they are scared that if they do not support their regime’s version of the story then they will be punished!

Can I respectfully tell you that this is not very logical? … if a Syrian hates the regime and he is scared if he wrote here agreeing with your way of seeing things … then that Syrian will do one of two things:

1) risk it and write his real opinion … you know, since most are anonymous here.

2) Simply … not write anything! … believe me we do not penalize them here at Syria comment for non participation.

A Syrian who hates the regime … will not write anything to support the regime… ”
**********

Alex, when you write from Syria, there’s no such thing as ‘anonymous’.
I mean, a surfer may be anonymous to you, the admin of the site, but he’s not anonymous to the regime, if they wish to check a poster’s identity.

Since the regime is monitoring internet access in Syria, it can pretty easily check, through the Syrian ISP’s log, who entered this blog on a given time (of posting something they “shouldn’t have”) – and arrest him/her.

As I said, technically, it’s pretty easy, so the people from Syria do not enjoy any anonymity if the regime wants to find them.

That’s why I understand why Syrian from Syria won’t write anything different than the regime’s official line.
It’s too risky and it’s not worth it.
Wouldn’t you agree?

**********
“And that can also explain to you why Syria did nto take it to the security Council … was that really a question worth asking? .. when was the last time Syria or any agressed Arab country got the UNSC to do anything agianst Israel?”
**********

When was the last time an Arab country missed an opportunity to address Israel’s policy on the UNSC?
Why losing a fantastic arena to embarras both Israel and the US?

The way I see it, it’s a win-win situation for the Syrians.
If Israel is denounced – they win.

But even if the US uses its veto power, they win again, by showing to the whole world that the US is shielding Israel and as responsible as Israel is to the mess and disorder in the Middle East.

By that, they’ll give a precious gift and a huge boost to the entire anti American or anti Bush camp worldwide.

Why missing such a glorious opportunity?
It doesn’t make sense to me.

No Arab country have misses a golden opportunity like this to gain some expensive points on the international public opinion front for nothing.

The reason they’re not going there is pretty obvious to me.

**********
“Your second suggestion .. too patriotic to criticize anything in their country. I can’t talk about others but … I have criticized a lot, although you won’t notice it because you formed the impression that I am too patriotic.

Yesterday I criticized Bashar for the terrible things he said when he received the pope in Damascus … when he said tha t”the Jews killed Jesus christ”.

So … if I am not afraid of criticizing Bashar himself, then your conclusion about me is not true. I am patriotic, but not in that silly way. I remind you for the thousandth time that I invited more regime critics that regime supporters to my Creative Forum.

**********

I never formed the impression that you’re too patriotic.
Where did you see me claim that?

All I said that such attacks (such as Israel’s), hurt some people’s national pride and may bring them to not admitting how they really feel about what’s going on.

Sometimes people prefer to put on a poker face and say that business is usual, that nothing happened, that it’s a lie – although deep down they may feel quite differently.

As I said, I feel it’s pretty normal.
It’s not a Syrian patent.

**********
“As for others … May I suggest that it would be very helpful if you study carefully their opinions in general, not only in Israel related issues. For example Jamal who criticized Israel many times the past few weeks, since AIG started to write here, Jamal is more of a regime critic than you are.

But … you prefer to understand that anyone who disagrees with you and AIG must be blined by patriotism or forced to sit behind his computer screen and do his syria comment homework with a gun on his head held by a syrian intelligence agent.”
**********

I actually congradulated Jamal the other day, saluting him for encouraging a free, open and civilized debate.

Regarding your other claim, how did you reach that conclusion?

As I previously said, this blog has some great commentaors who are fun to read.
Many of them are Israel’s critics, but they still write valuable stuff, so I enjoy reading them.

Naturally, when I feel people are wrong, I write my own personal counter opinion, just like when other people feel that I’m wrong – they write their own angle, point of view and opinion.

Can’t see what’s wrong with that.

**********
“As for your other observations … that the normally peaceful Israel would not have risked war with syria if this was not a nuclear weapons site .. may I remind you that your pilots “risked war” more thatn once the past few years for no reason … like when they flew low over President Assad’s home in Lattakia … just for fun!

I won’t talk about the 2006 Lebanon war which THEY STARTED very consciously … because two of their soldiers were kidnpped by Hizbollah… this is a topic you can give me many Israeli answers to, please stick to the very necessary flying over Assad’s summer home instead.

Actually … hold a minute … we never thought about it … could it be that … the Israeli pilots were looking for Saddam’s hidden nuclear peapons iN Lattakia?? … afterall Debka mentioned it at the time! … so Israeli planes risked war at that time too for a necessary cause.

**********

The IAF didn’t fly over Assad’s home in Lattakia “just for fun”.

It was right after the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, was taken by Hamas.
As you know, Hamas’ leadership is hosted in Damascus by Assad, orchastrating attacks on Israel, but you seem to forget that.

You portray it as if the pilots were bored, so they decided to kill some time by flying over Assad’s home.
I’m afraid that’s not the case.

**********
“As for Ambassador Moustapha’s “lies” … I know Israel has very high standards and it only lies for highly moreal reasons… like lying by assuring syria the day before it attacked … then follow it with “we respect Syria and we respect Bashar”, but can you tell me how seious were Imda’s “lies”? … did they hurt anyone like the neocon’s lies (supported by Israel) about Iraqi WMD’s that caused the death of hundreds of thousand of poor Iraqis … ”
**********

Alex, all I’m saying is when an Ambassador is being caught lying in such a blatant way, it kills his and his country’s credibility.

That’s all.

**********
“Again … do you KNOW anything that makes it necessary to start with the negativity again?

If you have not noticed, our discussion here the past two days have been more pleasant, more constructive, and more interestng since we decided to stop the personality attacks and character assassination.”
**********

Where did you see me do personality attacks and character assassination?
My post didn’t refer to anybody specific and was quite general.

For a personality attack, you need a personality, and you can’t find one in my comment.
I think you misinterperted it and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

**********
“Please keep it this way. I know you said “I understand” .. but you really said: No matter what the Syrians say … we “israeliguys” are always right … the Syrians who disagreee with us are simply blinded by patriotism or scared from the regime.”
**********

So basically, what you’re saying is something like “I know that you said X, but I know you mean Y”?

**********
“I really do not want to spend more time repeating the obvious points above which are only useful to counter your persoal redicule. I do not want to keep countering personality attacks through my silly links to Wikipedia’s defence mechanisms to point out your tactics.”
**********

I’m totally against personal attacks on commentators here.

Regarding redicule, anybody here can redicule whatever he wants: Israel, Syria, The US, Olmert, Assad, Bush, etc.

Right?

**********
“Can we please go back to sticking to the issues and the facts? .. if Israeliguys here believe it was nuclear, and if the New York times reported the story, and if Bolton started it … that makes it another Iraqi WMD’s story for now … please try to control your confidence level and keep analyzing until there is a NEUTRAL party PROVING your version of the story.

Sorry if I am too Canadian for you .. I understand .. you are afterall a middle easterner .. you don’t understand what “innocent until proven guilty” means .. you don’t understand that judges are supposed to be neutral, not Syrian, Israeli or neocon judges.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but as I explained last time. I will be limiting such arguments to one accusation and one response. So the one who starts to move the conversation to personality attacks (or redicule) gets penalized by not having the last word.

I just had the last word.

If I start it next time, then you will have the last word.

I hope all of you try to keep focusig on the issues and feel free to say whatever you want there .. like you all did the past two days.”
**********

I am sticking to the issues and the facts, but you should know that blog comments include facts, opinions, analysis, questions, doubts, disbelief, confidence, denial, guesses, estimations, etc.

Even ‘facts’ are being seen differently by different people with difference perspectives.
Right?

Oh, and I like your sarcasm, so no need to apologize for it : )

October 28th, 2007, 12:57 pm

 

t_desco said:

It’s great to have a civil engineer with actual knowledge about Magnox reactors commenting on the ISIS reports!

This is, in my opinion, an incredible oversight by the “nuclear experts” (who don’t happen to be civil engineers):

“Finally, the building is not tall enough – the fuel channels in a Magnox reactor run vertically and the fuel elements need to be handled with a refuelling machine to protect the site workers from radiation from the spent fuel.”

And it may not even be an oversight:

“The two ISIS analysts allude to this in their comments”.

In that case it would have to be called spin.

Would it be possible to compensate for the lack in tallness by digging a deeper hole in comparison to the Yongbyon reactor (however, we don’t know if any hole was dug at the Syrian site)?

Even in that case the ISIS report would have to be classified as spin because it failed to acknowledge the problem.

Regarding the question of emissions of a Magnox reactor, here is the example of Wylfa:

“Aerial emissions are routinely analysed and are found to contain small amounts of argon-41 from residual impurities in coolant air, carbon-14 arising from oxidation of graphite in the reactor, sulphur-35 from activation of sulphide impurities, tritium from moisture in the reactor gas circuit, and beta-emitting particulates (predominately cobalt-60) from dust in the gas stream that gets activated during passage through the reactor. ”
(“Visit of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to the Wylfa Nuclear Power Plant”, RPII-07/02)

Could one expect similar or even greater emissions with a Yongbyon type reactor (given that North Korean nuclear safety standards are probably considerably lower than in the UK)?

Would these emissions be easily detectable?

Earlier Magnox designs, relying on steel pressure vessels, had a peculiar “shine” to them. How efficient is the concrete biological shield in the North Korean Yongbyon model?

Finally, what to make of this strange comment quoted by the Jerusalem Post:

“The fact that the infrastructure had been built at least four years ago did not mean the facility had always been used for the same purposes as it was being used for immediately before the Israeli strike, former OC Air Force Maj.-Gen. (res.) Eitan Ben Eliyahu told Channel 10 on Saturday evening.”

So the Syrians built, say, a warehouse and then it suddenly occured to them that they could transform it into a nuclear reactor? What??

October 28th, 2007, 1:03 pm

 

T said:

DEBKAfile –
Advanced Russian Air Defense Missile Cannot Protect Syrian and Iranian Skies

September 7, 2007, 1:16 PM (GMT+02:00)

Russian-made Pantsyr S1 fire control and radar systems

DEBKAfile’s military experts conclude from the way Damascus described the episode Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased from Russia to repel air assailants, failed to down the Israeli jets accused of penetrating northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean the night before.

The new Pantsyr missiles therefore leave Syrian and Iranian airspace vulnerable to hostile intrusion.

The Israeli plane or planes were described by a Syrian military spokesman as “forced to leave by Syrian air defense fire after dropping ammunition over deserted areas without causing casualties.” He warned “the Israeli enemy against repeating its aggressive action” and said his government reserved the right to respond in an appropriate manner.

Western intelligence circles stress that information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. They assume that the “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the improved Pantsyr missiles was immobilized by superior electronic capabilities exercised by the jets before they were “forced to leave.”

Syria took delivery in mid-August of 10 batteries of sophisticated Russian Pantsyr-S1E Air Defense Missile fire control systems with advanced radar, those sources report. They have just been installed in Syria.

Understanding that the Pantsyr-S1E had failed in its mission to bring down trespassing aircraft, Moscow hastened Thursday, Sept 6, to officially deny selling these systems to Syria or Iran and called on Israel to respect international law. This was diplomatic-speak for a warning against attacking the Russian-made missiles batteries stations where Russian instructors are working alongside Syrian teams.

Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands, as well as discovering how many each received.

They estimate that at least three or four batteries of the first batch of ten were shipped to Iran to boost its air defense arsenal; another 50 are thought to be on the way, of which Syria will keep 36.

The purported Israeli air force flights over the Pantsyr-S1E site established that the new Russian missiles, activated for the first time in the Middle East, are effective and dangerous but can be disarmed. Western military sources attribute to those Israeli or other air force planes superior electronics for jamming the Russian missile systems, but stress nonetheless that they were extremely lucky to get away unharmed, or at worst, with damage minor enough for a safe return to base.

The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable.

Washington like Jerusalem withheld comment in the immediate aftermath of the episode. After its original disclosure, Damascus too is holding silent. Western intelligence sources believe the Syrians in consultation with the Russians and Tehran are weighing action to gain further media mileage from the incident. They may decide to exhibit some of the “ammunition” dropped by the Israeli aircraft as proof of Israel’s contempt for international law. A military response may come next.

Pantsir-S1 or Panzir (“Shell” in English) is a short-range, mobile air defense system, combining two 30mm anti-aircraft guns and 12 surface-to-air missiles which can fire on the move. It can simultaneously engage two separate targets at 12 targets per minute, ranging from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, ballistic and cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions and unmanned air vehicles. It can also engage light-armored ground targets.

The Pantsyr S1 short-range air defense system is designed to provide point defense of key military and industrial facilities and air defense support for military units during air and ground operations.

The integrated missile and gun armament creates an uninterrupted engagement zone of 18 to 20 km in range and of up to 10 km in altitude. Immunity to jamming is promised via a common multimode and multi-spectral radar and optical control system. The combined missile and artillery capability makes the Russian system the most advanced air defense system in the world. Syria and Iran believe it provides the best possible protection against American or Israeli air and missile attack. Stationed in al Hamma, at the meeting point of the Syrian-Jordanian and Israeli borders, the missile’s detection range of 30 km takes in all of Israel’s northern air force bases.

October 28th, 2007, 11:09 am

October 28th, 2007, 1:11 pm

 

norman said:

I think Syria should benefit from all the news about the attack and start a tour to Syria and the northeastern part to improve the economy in that area , I am sure will have many tour guides, and many Israelis like IG and AIG will be glad to pay we might be able something out of their presence on this Syrian site.

October 28th, 2007, 2:30 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

Your excuses are ridiculous.

Not take journalists because then Israel would say that it is not the right site? If journalists are shown a bombed building, do you think they will believe Israel if is said it dodn’t bomb it and that the Syrians blew it up themselves? Get real.

Regarding the pumping station, it is a large one and serves 2 isolated buildings. Yes, that is very normal.

Any attack by Israel on Syria risks a war. It may be a small risk or a big risk, but it is certainly a risk.

Syria acknowledged it was attacked. You forget that. All they did was say it was not a nuclear facility. Why was there no condemnation by Russia or China? Because the international community understands what the Syrians are up to. Every little thing Israel does the Arabs take to the UNSC and if not successful there, they go to the General Assembley. Syria and the Arabs did nothing this time. Qatar is on the UNSC and even it did not do anything.

October 28th, 2007, 3:38 pm

 

why-discuss said:

I have never seen a silence generating so much talks. Maybe that was the whole purpose, encourage speculations and everyone plays Hercule Poirot while Israel blocks fuel to Gaza to punish democracy. Maybe they should pipe lethal gaz instead… Would anyone move?

October 28th, 2007, 4:08 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

I am sure the Syrians would come defend the Palestinians like they have always done. Why aren’t you blaming yourself for not doing anything to help the Palestinians?

Back to the two wrongs make a right mode? Trying to deflect the argument to Israel? I will not get tired pointing this out.

October 28th, 2007, 4:13 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

>i>Regarding the pumping station, it is a large one and serves 2 isolated buildings. Yes, that is very normal.

Oh well AIG, maybe you in Israel are not so familiar with water pipes. A rather new invention to transport water from place A to places B, C, D etc. Widely used in Europe and Arab countries. How on earth do you know that the water pumping station is serving only two buildings? If you watch little closer the landscape you notice that the fields are rather near. Maybe that spot in the river is simply good (deep enough, clear water etc) for a water pumping station to serve a larger area.

Syria acknowledged it was attacked. You forget that.

You must be reading different comments than those I wrote. Have I ever said that Israel did not attack Syria? Of course Israel attacked, but the whole discussion was that target a nuclear reactor and more importantly of the evidence we have got that it is a nuclear reactor. So far I would see that the most important evidence is the dimensions of the roof. If you take that seriously as a real evidence, you are naive. Would you believe an equal story about an Israeli building composed by an Iranian “ISIS”? No you would not.

By the why AIG, who finances ISIS? Satellite images are not free. Well they are in Google Earth. Follow the money, you know.

I must confess that before the Iraq war I didn’t know much about OSIRAK. I believed mostly to the Israeli propaganda, that it was a full-scale nuclear “factory”. An overblown fairytale like so many other “stories” in the heroic history of modern Israel. It was a surprise to me that it was a small research reactor and even a more bigger surprise was that it was under IEAE control. This time I am not ready to swallow all propaganda fed through the media.

Hmmmm do not be so sure of the UNSC. It might be still enter that stage.

Israel apologizes to Turkey over Syria air strike

“If indeed Israeli planes entered Turkish airspace, then there was no intention of undermining or questioning Turkish sovereignty, which we respect,” the official quoted Olmert as telling cabinet ministers during their closed weekly session.

Seems AIG that your PM doesn’t know where your war planes fly. “If indeed Israeli planes entered Turkish airspace” that is humour. And the humour gets even better “then there was no intention of undermining or questioning Turkish sovereignty, which we respect,”.

October 28th, 2007, 4:26 pm

 

blowback said:

T – take the time to read the Bekaa Valley Air Battle, June 1982 by Matthew M. Hurley:

Another technological innovation that contributed to the Israeli victory was the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV). The IAF used this drone aircraft in the months preceding the invasion to “fingerprint” surface-to-air radar, providing information vital to Israeli countermeasures. When the battle actually began, RPVs were used as “decoys” to simulate electronically the radar signature of full-size strike aircraft and trick the Syrians into activating their SAM target acquisition and tracking radars. This ruse provided ample targets for the AGM-78 Standard antiradiation missile (ARM) and AGM-45 Shrike air-launched ARMs that followed. Other RPVs served as cheap and survivable intelligence platforms because they were constructed out of aluminum and composite materials for a minimal radar and infrared signature. once launched, they were employed most often as photographic platforms or “real-time” video intelligence systems whose fields of view, zoom ratios, and flight plans could be preprogrammed or changed at the discretion of the commander. Once the tactical reconnaissance and deception functions were completed and strike aircraft were directed to the SAM sites, air-launched laser-guided ordnance was guided to the target by laser designators mounted on the RPVs.

From what Alastair Crooke of Conflicts Forum reported recently, it looks like the IAF was trying for a re-run of the Bekaa Valley Air Battle:

The Syrians saw on their radars the four Israeli aircraft that penetrated into Northern Syria from the Mediterranean; but they also saw the much larger numbers of Israeli aircraft that were flying in a holding position close to Cyprus. The Syrians had no intention of disclosing their anti-aircraft missile capacities to Israel; and the intruders continued without hindrance to drop munitions and their long-range fuel tanks without pressing any serious attack. The four aircraft then circuited to re-join the larger group still flying a holding pattern off Cyprus, before all returned to Israel as a single formation.

Maybe this time the Syrians demonstrated good fire discipline and maybe in future they will follow Russian ground-based air defence tactics.

Syrian SAM operators also invited disaster upon themselves. Their Soviet equipment was generally regarded as quite good; Syrian handling of it was appalling. As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, “The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn’t want to dig latrines–seriously.” The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle. Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to “hide” them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air. It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage. According to a 1981 article in Soviet Military Review, alternate firing positions, defensive ambushes, regular repositioning of mobile SAMs to confuse enemy intelligence, and the emplacement of dummy SAM sites are fundamental considerations for the effective deployment and survivability of ground-based air defenses.

October 28th, 2007, 4:57 pm

 

abraham said:

IG:

Alex, when you write from Syria, there’s no such thing as ‘anonymous’. I mean, a surfer may be anonymous to you, the admin of the site, but he’s not anonymous to the regime, if they wish to check a poster’s identity.

Since the regime is monitoring internet access in Syria, it can pretty easily check, through the Syrian ISP’s log, who entered this blog on a given time (of posting something they “shouldn’t have”) – and arrest him/her.

As I said, technically, it’s pretty easy, so the people from Syria do not enjoy any anonymity if the regime wants to find them.

Are you assuming that Syrian internet users are so dumb that they aren’t familiar with the many techniques that can be used to roam the internet anonymously?

Your imagination runs wild, Israeli. You have such contempt for Arabs that you think they are all robots parroting the regime with no possiiblity of independent thought. And you think they are so dumb that they can’t figure out how to remain anonymous on the internet, which is actually quite easy with many freely available tools.

You don’t realize it, because you’re Israeli and this is how Israelis act by nature, but you are being insulting.

October 28th, 2007, 5:48 pm

 

idaf said:

2 new developments:

1- IAEA chief lashes out over Israeli raid in Syria
Chief UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei Sunday accused Israel of taking “the law into their own hands” with a raid on Syria and demanded more information about what was hit.

Neither Israel nor the United States has furnished “any evidence at all” to prove that the Syrian site bombed last month was a secret nuclear facility, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

2-Olmert apologised to Turkey for Syria raid
Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has acknowledged for the first time that Israeli warplanes may have violated Turkey’s air space during a raid on Syria last month, an official said Sunday.

October 28th, 2007, 5:51 pm

 

abraham said:

And before we hear more about how corrupt Syria is, Israel is every bit as corrupt, if not more:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915309.html

Those who live in glass houses should not cast the first stone.

October 28th, 2007, 6:12 pm

 

ugarit said:

“The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration;”

This is very true. However, the mobile missiles that survived were the ones that moved after firing as they should have been doing all along. Someone very close to me was doing the proper thing and would fire and move and hence survived and was able to destroy some targets.

October 28th, 2007, 6:24 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Once again the two wrongs make a right.
Let’s see:
The report was in an Israeli newspaper regarding an Israeli minister who was forced to resign and is under investigation.

When I read in Tishrin that Bashar is under investigation, then you will have a leg to stand on. The fact is that the press in Israel is free and therefore can report about corruption. In Syria the press is not free and therefore corruption runs wild. Maybe one day you will understand the benefit of a free press.

And by the way, any Syrian that uses anonymizer or some other method to conceal where he surfs, would be the first to be investigated. That is a sure red flag. So IG was not insulting anybody. He is telling it like it is. Why do some Syrians find the truth insulting?

October 28th, 2007, 6:27 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,
Osirak is an excellent example. Everybody condemned the attack on it. Even the US condemned Israel. But now everybody is quiet including Russia and China. Because everyone is quite confident that Syria was attempting to develop nuclear weapons and that they will look stupid when the truth comes out.

And now the Syrians claim it was a military building. You have a clear case of Bashar and Imad Moustapha lying through their teeth: “Nothing was hit”, “A warehouse” etc. They have lost all credibility in the eyes of most people. Yet you believe them.

October 28th, 2007, 6:32 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Ugarit,
Since no Israeli plane was shot down in that battle, how could your friend have hit any target, let alone several targets?

October 28th, 2007, 6:36 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

NEWSWEEK: A New Intelligence Failure?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/62321

October 28th, 2007, 6:47 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

The following from the article is very telling:
“Immediately after the bombing, many nuclear-proliferation experts in the United States and Europe expressed doubt that Syria had the money or the scientific capability for a secret atomic program. They also questioned whether North Korea would be desperate and greedy enough to sell nuclear wares to Syria. The new photos now have skeptics admitting they may have been mistaken.”

Alex and Sim, what kind of evidence would convince you? I think just a Syrian admission.

October 28th, 2007, 7:00 pm

 

Alex said:

Israeliguy,

I just want you to know that most (almost all) Syrians writing here are outside Syria. There is no fear of Syrian security agents arresting them. all the names you see here are not real names …

So … the opinions are genuine. No one is scared here.

————
You said:

I’m totally against personal attacks on commentators here.

Regarding redicule, anybody here can redicule whatever he wants: Israel, Syria, The US, Olmert, Assad, Bush, etc.

Right?

Right … but I still remember your first advice to me on the Golan Heights discussion, when you said:

By the way, I see that you’re mocking Mr. Olmert’s popularity and mentioning that “these days falls within the margin of error”.
Let me tell you that it’s not a good policy to persuade an Israeli in the need of peace by mocking his leader – even if you feel that he’s a joke.

Ironically, just days ago, Mr. Olmert’s popularity went straight up after…. Yep, the Syria ‘flyover’.

Even if the reader hates Olmert, when he’ll read such a comment on a Syrian site, his patriotic feelings will overshadow his hate to the man.
Nobody likes it when his leader is being mocked by his enemy’s ‘media’ and it’s not making your argument more effective, in my humble opinion.

So …. which one do you prefer? : )

I prefer that we stick to a balanced standard that applies equally to both sides.

If Israeliguys here will continue to amplify Bashar and Imad’s obvious dodging questions about what was hit in the Strike like the comment above:

“you have a clear case of Bashar and Imad Moustapha lying through their teeth

Then you are pushing “Syrianguys” to start amplifying Israel’s many lies and turning this into endless name calling.

Sarcasm is funny when it is not a refection of total lack of respect and anger. I use it all the time when i communicate with my good friends .. those I know already can take it for what it is. But when Syrians and Israelis are communicating … I would think twice before I start to be sarcastic.

But this is just my personal opinion. you are free of course to use sarcasm against Syrian leaders.

————

You said:

So basically, what you’re saying is something like “I know that you said X, but I know you mean Y”?

Actually .. you said X and you said Y … all I was trying to tell you was that it as obvious that X (I understand) was not enough to hide Y (commentators here oppose us Israeliguys simply because they are patriotic (emotional) and or scared from the Syrian regime.

————–

“Alex, all I’m saying is when an Ambassador is being caught lying in such a blatant way, it kills his and his country’s credibility.”

Wow … KILLS his country’s credibility???? … Blatant way??

Are you talking about politics?? mideast politics? Are you lving in a country that does not lie?

How do you perceive Prime minister Olmert’s words today that “if our planes did enter Turkish airspace then we are sorry” …. if??? … like they don’t have flight data? … those were F15s, not bicycles.

Did you forget the first few days after the operation? … please go back and read what Israeli politicians said about this operation, then compare it to what really happened (according to you) … are those LIES KILLING Israel’s credibility?

I understand if you would feel this way about a wife who lies to her husband about what she did last night … but …

This tremendous lie that KILLED Syria’s credibility is only dramatic if YOU WANT TO see it this way. The drama in your words is quite a good indication.

Those who are a bit more neutral can easily understand that when the ambassador (or bashar) are answering questions during an interview … when a reporter asks them “what was hit?” … and when they really prefer not to give Israel and the neocons an excuse to escalate this into a war then their answers to “what was hit” are short .. that means “I do not want to answer this question in a way that makes me answer a next question about how come Syria will not retaliate”

The only place were Imad took the initiative to elaborate was when he assured the interviewer that Syria was not developing nuclear weapons.

Draw your own conclusions.

But again, if you insist on dramatizing Imad’s interview, then expect to drag down this discussion to that same distortion style.

Last point, about Syrian pride and if it was hurt through Israel’s successful operation …whatever it was:

I will talk about myself … I do not have a big issue with Israeli planes flying over Syria and doing something … your satellites are already spying on Syria … you even have good spies entering Syria from every neighboring Arab country. Even Fatah is spying on Syria for Israel.

I am very proud of the wisdom of the Syrians who are not allowing anyone to drag Syria into war. If war and aggression makes you proud, wisdom and avoiding unnecessary conflicts makes me proud.

Basically … don’t worry about our pride.

October 28th, 2007, 8:14 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

Alex and Sim, what kind of evidence would convince you? I think just a Syrian admission.

Good solid evidence naturally AIG. Not only the roof dimensions and a wild interpretation made by a guy with 3 years experience of using Google Earth.

A perfectly fair AIG question would be, if it was a nuclear reactor, why doesn’t Israel (and USA) co-operate now with IAEA. If the nuclear reactor was destroyed, what is the rational reason now not to give all possible help to ElBaradei. USA and Israel have been years blaming all possible Arab countries for having WMD programs. They do not have to worry about IAEA not being able to control the reactor because it is “destroyed”.

Now when USA and Israel finally have in your mind a good case, why not let IAEA inspect. If IAEA finds that Israeli suspicions were right, 10 points for your team and it would hugely benefit your team’s case against Iran. But what if IAEA doesn’t agree, your team will loose completely their face. And you can forget Iran.

I am no nuclear expert, but ElBaradei and his teams are and ElBaradei is not convinced by the ISIS analysis. The Newsweek story you quote only speaks about numerous anonymous (like normal) nuclear experts changing their view. What kind of a real expert relays on a couple of small satellite pictures and a couple of page s analysis which main evidence is the roof dimensions.

Israel Had `No Business’ Bombing Syria, UN Nuclear Chief Says

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) — Israel had “no business” bombing Syria and lacks “any evidence at all” that its target was a nuclear facility, the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

“Until today, we have not received information about nuclear-related activities, clandestine nuclear-related activities in Syria,” ElBaradei said.

Have you AIG ever thought of the possibility that maybe the Syrians build that huge building at least six years ago in that rather (satellite)eye-catching point to as a decoy-duck for Israelis? It would be the spy story of the millennium. Israelis bombed an empty decoy-duck because they were cheated in a big way.It would make a good movie, but Hollywood would probably not produce it. It would take decades to recover from that humiliation. That theory is as believable with the present information as your favourite theory. 🙂

October 28th, 2007, 8:17 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

So why doesn’t Syria give Israel and the US a great slap in the face and shows all the world that it is not a nuclear site? Becuase it is.

And if Israel would have cooperated with the IAEA would Syria allow inspections of the site? Of course not. They would have denied the Israeli allegations and you would have said there is not enough evidence to warrant inspections, because satellite images are not good enough evidence for you.

Your whole theory doesn’t make sense. All Syria has to do to prove your theory is to let the IAEA inspect. But they won’t. They can just invite them to inspect now and make Israel and the US look very stupid. But they won’t. Why? Because it is a nuclear facility.

Simple explanations work best. If Israel would have hit a hospital, there would be 1000 journalists there. But as it stands, Israel hit a nuclear facility and the Syrians are forced to act like they are acting in the hope that naive people will believe them.

October 28th, 2007, 8:43 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG,

If Israel hit a hospital then yes, Syria should and probably would show it. But if Israel hit a sensitive, non nuclear, military site where Koreans are helping the Syrians improve their long range missiles, .. there will be no world sympathy… it will be a neutral story .. there won’t be much criticism of Israel anyway .. the press is kind to you … there will be no use for Syria to open up a military area to the Israel-friendly press.

And which expert I would beliee? … ElBaradei for example?

Anyway … I guess you want to ask a CIA expert (Ray Close) on the next post why he does not agree with you either.

October 28th, 2007, 8:49 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

And again I’ll ask. Give me an example of “good solid evidence” that would convince you. You keep evading this question.

October 28th, 2007, 8:49 pm

 

abraham said:

Why do some Syrians find the truth insulting?

The truth is fine, and welcomed. It is your lies, distortions, and propaganda that are insulting.

Look, I’ve had enough of you. You have no concept of debate. You base everything you say on personal opinion or your own deluded interpretation of what you read in the news media. You just try to flood the comments section with your obnoxious ramblings and cannot grasp the concept of alternative points of view. I’d have better luck debating a brick. At least I’d find the brick more stimulating.

The comments section remains functional, but barely. It is on the verge of being inundated with your worthless and inane opinions, but then that is your goal anyway. Part of the zionist playbook is to attach yourself to a well-visited and respected Arab blog and start dumping garbage into the environment in the hopes that it will poison the whole discussion. I’m not one for censoring comments or shutting out certain commenters, but in your case I’d make an exception as you bring absolutely nothing useful to the conversation. You are only here to agitate and irritate. You’ve succeeded. Now please go home. And when I say “home” I mean back to Europe from where your ancestors came, zionist.

October 28th, 2007, 8:58 pm

 

abraham said:

And I’m sure I’m not the first one to point this out, but where are the satellite photos of the bombed out and burning building? How come all we have seen are photos before the alleged bombing and photos after the alleged clean-up?

Let’s see some [deleted by admin] satellite images of the building right after it was allegedly destroyed by this mythical Israeli airstrike!!

Why aren’t such photos available? What is the problem? Does Israel have any? Does the US have any? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY? They can get photos of the building before and some photos once the site is scraped clean but nothing in between? Were their satellites under maintenance during this time? Was the moon in the way? Do spy satellites only fly over Syria every third Sunday?

[Deleted by admin]

This whole thing is so stupid, and anyone who believes anything reported in the press, and especially anything told by the US or Israeli government, is stupid as well.

October 28th, 2007, 9:07 pm

 

ugarit said:

“Since no Israeli plane was shot down in that battle, how could your friend have hit any target, let alone several targets?”

That’s Israeli propaganda. Over twenty targets were destroyed and in fact Syria lost even more than what the Israeli’s estimated.

October 28th, 2007, 9:09 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

When somebody doesn’t agree with you he doesn’t bring “anything useful” to the conversation. Oh well.

So your theory is that the syrians built a large building for several years, and then quickly dismantled it between August and October for no good reason? It is you who are assuming that the Syrians are stupid. Why would they build the building and then quickly make it disappear unless Israel attacked it in the meantime?

Now that the coordinates of the buildings are known, anyone can go look through the commercial satellite picture databases and see what pictures are available. Why don’t you do it and prove that the Israelis are lying?

October 28th, 2007, 9:18 pm

 

ugarit said:

“They can get photos of the building before and some photos once the site is scraped clean but nothing in between? Were their satellites under maintenance during this time? Was the moon in the way? Do spy satellites only fly over Syria every”

Every day at around noon, local syrian time, low orbiting satellites have the capability to take the best possible pictures of most of Syria. So clearly there is something that we’re not supposed to see perhaps because it’s not flattering to the US and Israel.

October 28th, 2007, 9:20 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Ugarit,
What nonsense. Israel cannot lose 20 planes and pilots with the government being able to hide it. You just don’t understand how Israel works. In addition, there were no Israeli planes found on the ground in the Bekaa. There were no Israeli casualties in the air battle. Your friend is just pulling your leg. It takes several hours to move a SAM battery and there was not enough time to do it during the battle.

There was not one Russian or American source that said that even one Israeli plane went down. If 20 were hit, the Russians would have made a big deal out of it since they suffered a blow to their prestige because of the battle and its results.

October 28th, 2007, 9:29 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Dear Alex,

I know that most people here are located outside of Syria.

I also know that it would be extremely risky for a Syrian who is in Syria right now, to express himself freely about the current affairs, on this blog – am I wrong?

Regarding my advice – you took it from a different site, Creative Syria, which I thought is a Syrian site, at the time I wrote there, a few weeks ago.

The article to which I commented there, was addressed to Israelis – right?
I just gave you an advice, that if you try to persuade Israelis with something on a Syrian website, mocking their leader won’t be an effective method.

Let’s call it a ‘marketing tip’, if you will : )

On the other hand, this is an American owned blog which is read by everybody: Syrians, Israelis, Americans and anybody else who is interested in Middle East politics and affairs.

It’s a different arena, different circumstances and different audience – so my advice there, which was a response to the specific article there – doesn’t apply here.

Regarding Syrian or Israeli lies.
Feel free to expose them whenever you have them.
As a very wise man once said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

An artificial ‘agreement’ of not exposing Israeli lies for not exposing Syrian ones, won’t hold water anyway and to be honest, I can’t see how does it benefit anybody either.

Regarding sarcasm: a few comments above, Why-Discuss said “I have never seen a silence generating so much talks. Maybe that was the whole purpose, encourage speculations and everyone plays Hercule Poirot while Israel blocks fuel to Gaza to punish democracy. Maybe they should pipe lethal gaz instead… Would anyone move?”

Now, although me and Why-Discuss can’t agree on many issues, including the one he commented about, it was great sarcasm and I can’t deny it.

He made his point powerfully, using just a few lines of text – and the sarcasm there, gave his comment a real punch.

Wouldn’t you agree?

I really think that sarcasm is a totally legitimate tool in debates and should not be limited.
It’s a great way to make a point and banning or limiting it artificially, hurts the debate.

Naturally, if your comments include nothing but sarcasm, it’s a poor way to communicate, but having some just adds spice to the debates and make them more interesting.

Just my $0.02.

October 28th, 2007, 9:41 pm

 

Alex said:

Abraham

You make excellent points (in my opinion), but I still hope you tone down the angry tone.

AIG, Ugarit,

I have to agree with AIG on this one. I have not heard of any Israeli planes shot down over Lebanon during that famous battle.

One of my relatives was an engineer at one of those SAM bases. He was taking a shower when an Israeli missile destroyed his base.

According to him, it was one sided.

But I will be happy to hear more about what you heard.

October 28th, 2007, 9:44 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

Sim,

And again I’ll ask. Give me an example of “good solid evidence” that would convince you. You keep evading this question.

On Cheshvan 16, 5768
If you do not understand after my rather detailed answers, blame your self. Of course the solid evidence should come firstly from the Israel/US side, because they performed a risky act of war by attacking a sovereign state. Then IAEA verifys Israeli evidence. Nothing more complex.

It is unbelievable stupid to demand Syria to proof that Israel was wrong about the nuclear reactor, because Israel now can say we never claimed it was nuclear reactor. It was Bolton and those anonymous guys + ISIS experts who claimed that. Do you finally understand my point? Abraham said it right this is like talking to bullheaded brick.

A new theory of the attacks reason:

Finally, another possible explanation was revealed during the recent Israeli airstrike on what was claimed to be a fledgling Syrian nuclear program a few weeks ago: that Israel is poking and prodding the boundaries of the international community’s patience to see just how far it can go before the international community responds so strongly that the United States is forced to do something about it — all with the aim of working out what kind of response a strike on Iran might provoke.

October 28th, 2007, 9:48 pm

 

T said:

T said:
Dear Blowback,
Thank you for your information.

There are those who know. And its not that difficult, the news even trickled down to the streets of Beirut. But it wouldnt justify a preemptive strike- while claiming the site had the gravity of a nuke plant might be able to squeak by and mollify allies.
US quiet on the affair? Because it was a joint US-Israeli attack? Or was it just dual-citizen pilots? We know the planes ultimately originated w/ US of course, but it is much more than that.
As 6 of the Minot Airforce Base pilot/loaders in that Barksdale nuclear missile flight fiasco died in accidents shortly after that incident was leaked to the press, it is unlikely that any conscience-stricken US pilots in this operation will ever open their mouths, had they ever been so inclined.
But any real info can always be wiped away with a FEMA-style press conference w/ FEMA “reporters” in the audience… Tacitly admitting that our regular press corp is about the same caliber. If a FEMA insider hadnt leaked what happened- no one would have been the wiser. More farce.
October 28th, 2007, 9:20 pm

October 28th, 2007, 10:10 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,
And how does the IAEA verify Israeli evidence if Syria will not allow inspections?

Slight problem isn’t it?

How can you inspect a site the Syrians cleaned?

Also a problem.

October 28th, 2007, 10:17 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

I would like to add something to the ongoing debate.

Some of the commentators here look for a definite proof, an absolute evidence, that it was indeed a nuclear related facility.

Right now, I believe that 3 parties (and perhaps more) hold such evidence: Syria, Israel and the US.

Syria has no reason to expose the truth about the facility for obvious reasons.
So it leaves Israel and the US.

But why should they?
It’s yesterday’s war.

It’s not like Israel is trying to persuade the IAEA to take action against the Syrian facility.
Action has already been taken.
The facility is gone.
Problem was solved, as far as Israel is concerened.

As far as I can remember, Israel never exposed any satellite imagery of its own and it probably never will.

Israel doesn’t want the world to know about its spy satellite capabilities, so these (or any other) images will not be presented.

Israel will not jeopardize information sources on the ground, like spies it has in Syria – so their testimonies won’t be presented either.

After all, in the eyes of Israel, no further action is needed.
This is a closed case.
The facility is no longer there and is not a threat any more.

The only ones who are truly still interested in more information are the international press, intelligence services worldwide and lots of ordinary people all over the world (like you and me), who are very curious of course.

October 28th, 2007, 10:19 pm

 

norman said:

Israel Had `No Business’ Bombing Syria, UN Nuclear Chief Says

By Lorraine Woellert

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) — Israel had “no business” bombing Syria and lacks “any evidence at all” that its target was a nuclear facility, the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog group, called the Sept. 6 raid “very distressful” and a violation of UN rules that require member nations to alert investigators if there is evidence of nuclear activity.

“To bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn’t lead to any solution,” ElBaradei said on CNN’s “Late Edition” program.

Israeli officials have indirectly acknowledged the raid, while refusing to discuss the details. North Korea denied newspaper reports that it might be helping Syria build a nuclear plant. Satellite photographs taken of the site since the attack show it cleared of all debris.

Syrian officials told ElBaradei that the cluster of buildings targeted by the Israeli air force was a “military facility,” and has “nothing to do with nuclear,” the IAEA chief said.

Israel has provided no evidence to support a claim that the buildings hit were connected to a nuclear program. The UN has purchased its own commercial satellite images of the site and is studying them, ElBaradei said.

“Until today, we have not received information about nuclear-related activities, clandestine nuclear-related activities in Syria,” ElBaradei said.

The Israeli air attack was aimed at a partly built atomic reactor site to demonstrate Israel’s unwillingness to allow neighboring Syria to possess nuclear weapons, the New York Times reported Oct. 13, citing unidentified U.S. and foreign officials with access to intelligence reports. President George W. Bush and members of his administration have refused to confirm whether the bombing took place or whether the U.S. was consulted beforehand.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: October 28, 2007 14:35 EDT

October 28th, 2007, 10:26 pm

 

ugarit said:

Alex said:”According to him, it was one sided.”

Absolutely. I’m not making a claim that it wasn’t. Syrian jets were also jammed on the runways and all that the pilots heard was heavy metal music. Syria overwhelmingly lost. However, there was at least one mobile unit that survived and succeeded in destroying several targets. This information is from a very reliable source. It’s been 24 years since I was told this so my memory may be faulty. BTW, That same unit destroyed the American fighter jet over Lebanon. The same source said that Syria lost closer to a hundred aircraft and not the 80 that’s usually quoted

October 28th, 2007, 10:27 pm

 

Alex said:

Thanks Ugarit. I remember the two American jets shot down by the Syrians.

AIG, IG

I think it would be prudent for you to calmly read ElBaradei’s outraged opinion after his agency already spoke to the Syrians who told them it was a military facility (like I suggested since last week, by the way) and after his agency purchased its own satellite images and started to analyze them.

You know ElBaradei is a pro, right? … would he already go on the record clearly against the Americans and Israelis if there was any significant chance that Israel destroyed a nuclear weapons factory??

I want to remind you of the lies issue you dramatically raised many times so far … if you decided that Ambassador Imad’s “lies” were that dramatic (even though they dd not cause anyone any harm) .. I want you to know something; Israel and its Neocon friends in Washington destroyed the credibility of the United States. Elbaradei and Ray Close were both alarmed … because this is very dangerous … not to have a credible “only super power” … it is in Israel’s best interest to have a more credible and more popular United States … your best ally.

And it is also in the interest of everyone, including Syria to have a credible … Jimmy Carter or James Baker type of American leader.

I don’t know what to hope for in this case … on the one hand I want to prove that Syria was not developing nuclear weapons … on the other hand … I want to not be worried even more at the sad situation we are in … in case there were no nuclear weapons and the whole thing was another Israeli inspired American “mistake”

As a Syrian … the first part concerns me, as a human being living on this planet .. the second part is scary.

October 28th, 2007, 10:44 pm

 

T said:

What supreme arrogance. The Chosen have spoken and now “this is a closed case”. The Law of the Jungle prevails and Might Makes Right.
Its “yesterday’s war” and “After all in the eyes of Israel, no further action is needed.” (And what other eyes matter of course??) Because the perpetrators are satisfied and got their way. And are accountable to no one. Well in the eyes of the world, Israel is a criminal regime and should be transferred out of the region (something Iraeli officials advocate freely and publically towards the Palestinians), or for once be accountable for their actions- without recourse to hiding behind the Holocaust (which gives them entitlement and indemnity to commit all crimes). Or without sueing, bankrupting , blacklisting or blacking out any dissent by slinging “anti-semite” slurs and employing CampusWatch-type surveillance.
Would that we all could reap such fabulous benefits out of our sufferings, misfortunes and persecution.
If it were Syria that had pre-emptively bombed Israel, instead of vice versa, this case would never end and the whining would go on and on and on w/ the Israeli-allied US press serving as psyops disseminators.

October 28th, 2007, 10:52 pm

 

abraham said:

AIG:

Why don’t you do it and prove that the Israelis are lying?

Why don’t you first prove that you don’t molest children?

October 28th, 2007, 10:57 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:
Sim,
And how does the IAEA verify Israeli evidence if Syria will not allow inspections?
Slight problem isn’t it?
How can you inspect a site the Syrians cleaned?
Also a problem.

Has AIG Syria said it allows no inspections? Shouldn’t Israel first say officially what it did hit? Slight problem isn’t it?

Of course inspection is based on satellite photos and other evidence and finally if needed on the site. Certainly there are thousands of images from the the buildin, destroying and cleaning of the site, which will reveal much information for real experts. No problem at all.

AIG, nothing personal, but should you learn some common sense. It is obvious that your barrel of counter arguments is long ago empty. Why keeping repeating your hollow arguments and questions without any substance? Lets wait for new information.

By the way AIG ‘India, Israel planned to hit Kahuta in 1980s’

Who is the real terrorist of the world? Israel really seems have something “personal” against Muslim states. No nukes to Muslims but a plenty for Jews. Hmmmm…

October 28th, 2007, 10:59 pm

 

T said:

I have never molested anyone. How outrageous. What planet are you on?

October 28th, 2007, 11:01 pm

 

abraham said:

T, I’m responding to our resident satellite imagery expert AIG, not you.

October 28th, 2007, 11:07 pm

 

T said:

Still outrageous- I am not sure how this relates to the nuke propaganda deluge being launched by Israel and neocon press, but it is Catholic priests- NOT the Jewish community- who are being convicted for child molesting. Jewish parents overwhelmingly do an excellent job raising stable, healthy, successful kids. That is pretty clear to all.
My point is that we need to analyze why one member of the world community consistently, over decades, seems entitled to commit crimes that other nations couldnt get away with. What is driving this indemnity? Should ANY nation have carte blanche? On what grounds is it exercised and where does it stop? What are the boundaries that entitle one nation (US or Israel) to simply bomb, shrug it off and nonchalantly walk away? Does this privilege derive from exploiting a ‘victim’ status? On the brink of a war w/ Iran pushed by these same parties, these are not idle, shallow issues. World peace hangs on the answers.

October 28th, 2007, 11:17 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Alex,

If you’ll randomly group 100 people from Syria, Israel or the US and ask them who Mohamed ElBaradei is, I’m sure many of them will have the right answer.

If you’ll ask the same people who is Ray Close, I’m sure almost nobody will have the slightest idea.

Besides, on any ex-CIA station chief that says X, you’ll be able to find another ex-CIA station chief that says Y.

He bases his comments on his personal opinion – not raw data.
His opinion doesn’t hold more or less weight than any other CIA retiree.

Now, regarding ElBaradei.
Right now, this man is fighting for his professional life, his reputation, his credibility and his legacy.

As I said weeks ago, he needs to do some explaining how come his organization didn’t have any information about the Syrian facility.

I’m sure he’s mad and frustrated.
Nobody in such a sensitive position likes to be presented as an amateur (which seems the case).

His strategy was pretty much expected – but it looks like he doesn’t have too many partners around the world.

Most of them were pretty silent – remember?
And even most Arab countries didn’t jump at Israel after the attack.

This is still an ‘evolving story’.
Since the press will not leave the matter so fast and demand answers from the IAEA, I assume we’ll hear some more from ElBaradei in the coming weeks – and consequently from the Syrians.

October 28th, 2007, 11:23 pm

 

Alex said:

T

You owe us catholics an apology!

How could you insult our religious leaders by generalizing the actions of a small percentage?

Landis .. shame on you for encouraging this kind of hate.

Ok, I’m joking.

But you know, the fact everyone can freely insult catholics without hearing the catholic equivalent of “antisemitic” tells you something.

October 28th, 2007, 11:23 pm

 

Alex said:

IG

So now Elbaradei has to go, right.

Will Israel find a photo of him having a glass of wine with his mistress in a small restaurant in Venice perhaps? 🙂

October 28th, 2007, 11:27 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Alex, only if she’s not Jewish.
We wouldn’t want to frame one of our own 😉

October 28th, 2007, 11:30 pm

 

T said:

Alex,
I am Catholic myself and have priest and nuns in my family. I heard these allegations years before from the “inside” so to speak. Before the massive court settlements began.
But you are right, this is a political blog. Lets stick to politics. Lets leave the sex nonsense to MSM (who wont let us escape it). Disgusting.

October 28th, 2007, 11:30 pm

 

T said:

Just one question- how does AnotherIsraeliguy know know I am a “she”? More IT surveillance?
Is the Mega of the Monica Lewinsky-Clinton phone wiretapping scandal in play here at Joshua’s shop too?

October 28th, 2007, 11:38 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

T, disgusting indeed.

I’m wondering why this person is branding another blog commentator here as a child molester, for no obvious reason.

How ugly.

October 28th, 2007, 11:42 pm

 

Alex said:

T,

Israeliguy was answering my sarcastic comments about Israel deciding to frame Elbaradei with a mistress in a venice restaurant.

The “she” was referring to ElBaradei’s mistress.

October 28th, 2007, 11:45 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

T, I’m not spying on you : )

My answer where I mentioned ‘she’, was addressed to Alex.
It was you who exposed your gender – by mistake.

October 28th, 2007, 11:49 pm

 

norman said:

I wonder if attacking the Catholics in the US is really an attack on Christianity.

October 29th, 2007, 12:23 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Norman, why would you want to attack the Catholics in the US?
Is being a Catholic a crime?

October 29th, 2007, 12:29 am

 

norman said:

I am not attacking the Catholics , You are.

October 29th, 2007, 1:13 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Where did you see that?

October 29th, 2007, 1:17 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,

Why are you escaping the obvious? Syria cleaned the site. What is there to inspect? The Syrians do not want and will not agree to inspections. What would it have helped if Israel would have given the info to the IAEA?

You want thousands of pictures? Where do you think these will come from? The Finnish government? Let the IAEA do their job if they can. To me it seems that they are a paper tiger. Inspections are needed for the evidence you want, how convenient that the Syrians will not allow inspections and have cleaned the site so as to make inspections useless.

As I said, if a hospital would have been hit, there would be 1000 journalists there. The Syrian coverup is an admission of guilt.

You do not believe the NY times or the Washington post but you put your faith in a Pakistani news paper or a book by authors that you don’t know anything about. Your standards are curious. In any case, letting Pakistan get a bomb was a mistake and I am glad if my country tried to stop it. Too bad that the Americans at that time did not see the repercussions of that. The Pakistanis have been the major proliferators of nuclear technology and sold expertise both the North Korea and Iran. Syria got its technology from North Korea. By stopping Pakistan, the world would have been much safer.

October 29th, 2007, 1:28 am

 

norman said:

Aren’t Israel and the US the most dangerous to world peace not Syria or Iran.!

October 29th, 2007, 1:47 am

 

abraham said:

Ugh. I guess Alex may have been onto something when she suggested we ban sarcasm.

I WAS BEING SARCASTIC.

More to the point, AIG thinks that it’s OK for someone to make an accusation against another, and then make that other person prove the accusation is not true. So, for example, Israel has accused Syria of starting a nuclear program, so now Syria must prove it does not have a nuclear program.

Now, I have “intelligence” that AIG is a child molester. I am not saying he is, I am just saying I might have “intelligence”. “Data”. “Information”.

So, it is now incumbant on AIG to prove he is not, in fact, a child molester.

I love how the logic in the land of the insane works. It takes the burden of proof off of the accuser and puts it on the accused, just like it should be!*

* in Israel

October 29th, 2007, 3:31 am

 

abraham said:

Of course, leave it to the zionists to misinterpret what you say and then demonize you for it. Do zionists naturally have poor reading comprehension skills?

October 29th, 2007, 3:36 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sorry, but I find many debators here irrational. They make claims about Israel without any proof while rejecting any evidence against Syria as not proof enough. Really amusing.

October 29th, 2007, 3:59 am

 

ausamaa said:

Anotherisraeliguy says:

“They make claims about Israel without any proof”

Yeh, it is all lies and misconceptions. Israel is a Democratic, Humanitarian, Peace-Loving state,except for… hmmm, well, nevermind, it is not worth arguing about!

It is becoming rather a boring exchange! So why even bother?

October 29th, 2007, 4:21 am

 

T said:

NO ONE is attacking Catholics. Quoting or referring to court cases that are of several years duration in the news media is not hate speech or Catholic bashing. Fact- these court cases/settlements are high profile public record. Very sorry to have brought it up to begin with as it unfortunately diverted attention from the real issue.
This is a political blog, not Fox news.
(And please dont call me a “she” or this whole ridiculous thing will somehow segue into a sex change discussion. I am happy the way I am! and please no hate-speech accusations based on sexism).

October 29th, 2007, 5:49 am

 

ausamaa said:

T,

You sure dont sound like a she, to me at least. “SHE”s are usually smart and do not invoke Catholics, Prpostants and Baptists into their speach. And if they do, they do not equate them “progressive and humanitarian” Zionism. Actually I missed the whole point about Catholics.

And ABRAHAMS, I like your views, but Alex is a man, so do not get carried away. He is soft spoken, but he is a Guy!

Josh, what the heck is happening here? Fame is OK, but serious discussion is something else. ISRAELIGUY, ANOTHERISRAELIGUY, and similars?? I do miss Jibran, remember him??!!

I can digest the Harriri Syria-bashing crowd more than the Nuclear Dair Al Zour Nuclear Plant stuff enthusiastic crowd. And in Dair Al Zour of all places? And four years old stuff? And everyone is coy about it? WOW! Actually, I am sure Syria Must become Nuclear one day if peacefull Israel is, but I do not believe the notion that Syria is becoming seriously Nuclear now. It could have bought a couple of N Bombs instead of wasting time developing the. And, heck, Syria did what it wanted to do, stood up to all, and managed fine without being Nuclear, and the Nuclears got defeated, that is good enough for me. For now at least.

Habibi, Syria will remain what it it is. It screwed the whole neo-cons project and what is done is done. Like in the song, Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Hey Hey , Goodbye. It is safe now. Strong and defiant as ever, It is moving on -in my beleife-, moving on but not fast enough maybe. But the neo-cons bad times are behind for all what it was worth.

But this is getting out of hand if we have to spend hours discussing and ethnically-racist Israel and exonrating it, and discussing Brazilian Sattelite pics.

I envy Alex for his patience, but Alex, words never achieve nothing with such maniacs. They know where the buddies are buried -and who slaughtered them too-, so why waste time convincing them of anything.

I really miss the Gibran days!!!! At least he was sincere in what he beleived in, no Stupid and CHUTZPAH speaches like the more recent new comers. They want to defend Israli crimes on a Syrian oriented site!!!!

Shoo Sayer haoun ya ammy????

October 29th, 2007, 9:26 am

 

Zenobia said:

Can I just step in here to point out what a ridiculous game of “who’s on first”….. this dialogue turned into. It is like a verbal exchange from Alice in Wonderland.
Yes, sarcasm is bad because the commentors are too literal to recognize when someone is being ironic.

However, for clarification,….. there was nothing going on here about sex or anybody molesting anybody….Catholics….or T’s gender!… you guys are nuts.
This all started from one tiny comment of Abraham’s……
“Why don’t you do it and prove that the Israelis are lying?

Why don’t you first prove that you don’t molest children?

but he wasn’t simply being sarcastic.
He was making an analogy.….. and it is an analogy that has some relevance to the debate going on back and forth between AIG and Simo Hurtta.
basically, Abraham was saying that if one is to follow the RULE of LAW… the burden of proof is on the Israelis to show that their accusations are true. The burden is not first on the Syrians to defend themselves.
That is how modern law works. Hence, you can’t ask someone to prove they are not a ‘child molester’..without a shred of evidence first being presented to bring some reasonable cause for the accusation. Or, as the famous expression goes…similarly, to ask some one… “so how long you have you been beating your wife?….” when there has been no prior proof that a person is a wife beater in the first place.

The IAEA has the responsibility, for good reason obviously, of being the impartial mediator to ask Syria for evidence of its non-nuclear status…. only AFTER there has been some formal process of evidence presented to the international community that shows a likelihood of Syria’s guilt.
It would be hubris and arrogance for Israel to just make its claims… hurl accusations, present no unambiguous evidence, and then just call it “yesterday’s new” , yesterday’s war, case closed.
THEY are the one’s making the claim….and by any form of civilized law they have to justify it…to the international community…if they consider themselves to be part of that community.

Finally, on the conclusion of AIG that: “The Syrian coverup is an admission of guilt.
Really, I think it is a fallacy to just assume this.
I follow your logic. But, interestingly, Saddam Hussein also didn’t expose his hand of cards willingly. He also was accused of hiding and…resisting open cooperative submission. In a much more serious way than anything going on with Syria.
and main point is that Saddam, after all….didn’t have the WMD.

So, is it possible that other motivations are present when Arab leaders resist exposure to the international community??? Is it possible that other – explanations are at work here..???

Could it be…simply, PRIDE????? I happen to think that is a huge part of it.
PRIDE!
AIG….also uses to make his point….the fact that other Arab leaders and countries didn’t rush to defend Syria or to criticize Israel’s raid and assault on the site.
AIG concludes that therefore…..this non-response must be a confirmation that these other countries and leaders know that Syria is up to no good…or is guilty.

I reject this conclusion also. Again, I think we miss something very obvious about dynamics in the ME… and with the leaders. They hate to say or do anything in regards to Israel that in any way recognizes or draws attention to Israeli power, especially military power.
Of course this is logically ridiculous. Because everybody knows how much military might Israel has.
But politically, and I am referring in large part to internal political rhetoric and behavior,…. Arab leaders know how to respond in the face of their furious public. The arab peoples hate, absolutely hate to hear about Israeli strength. And so any mention of it….even an acknowledgment of how Israel’s military can just do what it wants with relative immunity is practically taboo to give any lip service to.
the Arab leaders would much prefer to just ignore such incidents. They act like if they pretend it isn’t happening then it helps negate the reality.
The Syrian leadership acts the same way…. even when it has happened right on their own land.
PRIDE.
the Syrians would view….even attempting to defend themselves (…even in the face of unfounded accusations) as almost SHAMEFUL, and to submit incurs a giant loss of face as well as an admission of weakness or fear, and finally, therefore a kind of terrible humiliation (which is kind of worse than death to the arab mentality). It may be a idiotic mentality worthy of ridicule, but at least, we should not misinterpret what it is and what is going on.

Why haven’t the Israelies come to understand this?
They don’t get is about Hezballah. They don’t get it about the Palestinians. The don’t get it about the whole Arab world around them and including the Persians.

But the other conclusion that needs to be made is this: that such incredible defiance and resistance occurring in many instances in the middle east conflicts cannot be used to corroborate guilt or to assume it.
that isn’t how it works.
it is simply PRIDE. Even to the point of Martyrdom.

October 29th, 2007, 10:47 am

 

Zenobia said:

oh yeah,
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY….. thats it.

October 29th, 2007, 11:05 am

 

Yossi, Jerusalem said:

It can easily be proved the Syrian building, the pump house and everything about the Syrian behaviour doesn’t show it was a nuclear reactor. We just have to construct an alternative plausible explanation. Here is one:

The Syrians had at least one fatal accident at their main chemical warfare missile facility. They wanted an alternative site that is far from cultivated fields and houses and is near a good water source. They chose an abandoned military warehouse on the Euphrates. Inside the big warehouse they constructed a large concrete cylinder and a system that lifted the missile, put it inside the cylinder and after the work was done pulled it up and out.

The big concrete cylinder was supposed to contain the explosion in case of accident and a large pump was supposed to flood it quickly with river water to neutralize the nerve gas escaping.

The regional bully comes and blows the facility accusing Syria they cheated on the NPT. Syria can’t say “it was only a nerve gas missile facility” because this is also considered WMD and non-nice countries are not supposed to have means to deter regional bullies, only the bully can.

This alternative theory answers everything we know about this case, in fact it explains more facts and better than the reactor theory.

You can chose…

November 14th, 2007, 7:20 am

 

Post a comment