Author
|
Topic: report: Israel bombed nuke shipment to Syria
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 17 September 2007 01:41 AM
aha! so that is what that "violation of Syrian airspace" was really about: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.eceIT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way. At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames. Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea. The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.” [ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 17 September 2007 02:04 AM
Mossad is an intelligence agency dedicated to furthering Israel's strategic goals in the region. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they kill. That is their job. That is who they are. quote: But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?
Was it a shipment of pork pies headed for Portsmouth, and mistakenly shipped to Lebanon? [ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 September 2007 06:20 AM
quote: Its just as likely disinformation as not. These are the same people who brought you "Saddam's Weapon's of Mass Destruction moved to Syria," and other rot.
I agree with Cueball that there is little concrete about this story as yet, and that it might well be disinformation. The sources so far are right-wing only, and their track record is very poor when it comes to the truth. On the other hand, it is intrinsically difficult to discover what happened at a remote site in Syria, or what the Israeli military may have done there. I won't trust the Syrian version of this, either, absent independent confirmation by news reporters on the ground.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 18 September 2007 06:42 AM
I posted that source in the Iran war thread as another version of the article in Turkish Weekly that states Israel is training for long range flights to Iran through Turkey.Her's another article in TWO about Israel dismissing Iranian missle threats: Turkish Weekly Opinion
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HUAC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14425
|
posted 18 September 2007 06:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Was it a shipment of pork pies headed for Portsmouth, and mistakenly shipped to Lebanon? [ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HUAC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14425
|
posted 18 September 2007 06:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Was it a shipment of pork pies headed for Portsmouth, and mistakenly shipped to Lebanon? [ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HUAC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14425
|
posted 18 September 2007 07:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Was it a shipment of pork pies headed for Portsmouth, and mistakenly shipped to Lebanon? [ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]
Sorry,phone rang. No, it was a nuclear attack submarine the Syrians had ordered from Afghanistan, apparently. Fed-Ex screwed up and dropped it off at some damned oasis in the middle of nowhere. They thought it was camel saddles.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 18 September 2007 10:40 PM
In more Syria and nuclear news: quote: Syria voted co-chairman of UN watchdog By HERB KEINON Two weeks after Israel's alleged bombing raid in Syria, which some foreign reports said targeted North Korean nuclear material, the UN's nuclear watchdog elected Syria as deputy chairman of its General Conference on Monday. The 51st session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) opened in Vienna on Monday and will run through Friday. The Syrian news agency SANA proudly reported the election on Tuesday, adding that Syria was also successful in including "the Israeli nuclear arsenal as an item on the agenda of the conference." The agenda for the meeting includes the item "Israeli nuclear capabilities and threat." While Iran will be a focus of the discussions, there is no item on the agenda referring to the Islamic Republic by name.
Israel's Foreign Ministry had "no public comment" on Syria's election.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 18 September 2007 11:26 PM
Here's an interesting blog about the Google Earth connection.The author suggest that what makes the story doubtful is that Google Earth is not getting hi quality images from Syria: quote: If U.S. intelligence agencies had suspected nuclear activities near al-Mayadin, Cole's reporting suggests that we'd see high-res pictures in Google Earth. But that does not appear to be the case. I can think of several possible explanations:
Tuesday Map: How not to find Syrian nukes with Google Earth
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 13 October 2007 11:36 PM
a different version of events: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sloginWASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports. The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature. [ 13 October 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227
|
posted 14 October 2007 11:09 AM
What is surprising is the lack of any information from the United States and Israel to justify the now confirmed military operation. What is also surprising is the lack of immediate world condemnation.Did Israel conduct a military strike against another sovereign nation? No doubt now with admissions. Was there an immediate threat? No doubt now with admissions. In other words, this was an illegal action under International law. Is there even wriggle room to explain? The NY Times reports (and there is no contradiction) that the defenders say it was a nuclear facility in the early stages of construction. You tell me how "eyes in the sky" can determine the final purpose of a project. Let's remeber the attack on a pharmaceutical plant that was somehow a weapons manufacturing place.I would challenege anyone to say what a place will manufacture based upon initial structure. The Times also notes that Syria has signed the nuclear non-proliferation pact and has a right to build plants for power. "Even if" it was a nuke plant then, it may have ben well within international standards. So bogus, so bogus....and the right continues to complain that the State of Israel is targetted for its abuses of international law. If North Korea is a "rogue state" it is incompetent. If Iran is, then think again what law applies and where the issue leads. If Syria is a surrogate and receiving state, why the veil? I do not need to "choose sides" here. What matters is the absence of reality on the "spin"; but more importantly the truly secreted agenda of "where from here". The real heroes are the scientists who said atomic energy was simply a path to bad consequences. Yes, I was one who hid under his school desk in the 50s. [ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227
|
posted 14 October 2007 03:08 PM
OK, Rattus, I'll remember the "state of war" when someone accuses surrogates of Syria of kidnapping soldiers or directing missiles into Israel. Is every action taken that targets Israel justified until it abandons the Farms or the Golan Heights? Was the devastation of civilian pospualtions in Lebanon justified due to a "state of war". Are raids and assassinations in Gaza and the West Bank acceptable due toa "state of war"? Are the atrocities caused by Americans and their mercencenaries OK because of a "state of war"? After Afghanistan attacked the United States (?) was NATO justified in in all of its actions due to a "state of war"? Are American sorties killing civilians with aerial attacks ok because of a "state of war"? Each interaction is very sick. I guess any action taken by North Korea against others can be excused as there still is a "state of war"? Bombing any and every construction site in Israel, Syria etc. is a-ok, I suppose. Occupying land and displacing people for security reasons is fine. Never make peace is the only answer - then you can justify anything.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rattus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8659
|
posted 14 October 2007 04:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by munroe: OK, Rattus, I'll remember the "state of war" when someone accuses surrogates of Syria of kidnapping soldiers or directing missiles into Israel.
And I would point out that if proxies are "kidnapping" soldiers as part of that war then the kidnappees are entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions. If your postulation that they are acting as proxies for Syria is correct, Syria is responsible for the violations of such. And in fact, kidnapping and holding soldiers for ransom or exchange IS a violation of international law. quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Fair enough. Israel has broken the cease-fire.
Correct. One of many violations by both sides, including the ones Munroe alludes to carried out by proxies. There has been no violation of international law through the action taken in bombing the alleged nuclear site unless one can show something more, like an attack on civilians. You can certainly argue that violating the cease fire is morally wrong.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234
|
posted 14 October 2007 06:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: A precision air strike , no civilian casualties on a facility that may very well have been eventually used to create a bomb that could have destroyed my country.
Sounds like Neo- con paranoia too me. Anyone can use that excuse to destroy anything on just suspicion if that's the case. Very flawed thinking that's for sure.
Shit you can say with impunity the US or any country for that matter should be wiped off the map because they may very well have been or gonna be sometime or even ,eventually use there country to create a bomb that could have destroyed my country sometime in the future. Talk about baloney...hear that Russia , China , Iran better get them before they get you. I think Israel and the US are going to get a big surprise in the not to distant future..they are virtually begging for it. I just hope when it comes (the big surprise)we don't have these pathetic US butt kissing politicians at the helm to drag us all down with them. Don't hold your breath tho.
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 14 October 2007 06:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: I dont know, if I were living in Israel be I Israeli Arab or Jew id be heaviing a mighty sigh of relief. A precision air strike , no civilian casualties on a facility that may very well have been eventually used to create a bomb that could have destroyed my country. Hell Id live with it no prob.
There is abslutely no publically available information to confirm the story, except the words of a few intelligence officials, working for organization who commonly known to engaged in massive public disinformation campaigns for political purposes. Furthermore, control of the production of fissile material does not reside with the IAF, the Knesset, or Mossad. [ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 14 October 2007 06:55 PM
I have waited many weeks for some solid proof, other than the repetition of reports originating from mostly unamed sources derived from "secret" intelligence reports, and nothing has been forthcoming. There is simply no supporting evidence, not even as much as Colin Powell's airial photographs of milk trucks in Iraq, during the Iraq WMD scare.For one thing, even the reports forwarded to us indicate that the project was many years away from completion, therefore, there was no real risk in an immediate sense. More than enought time to forward a complaint to the UN, present evidence, and establish some kind of basis for the allegations being made, and develop a case based on some kind of concrete evidence, and a demand for inspections by nuclear regulatory bodies recognized by the international community. Ergo, it is obviously bullshit.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|