babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Syria, Iran, N. Korea: Who's Next?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Syria, Iran, N. Korea: Who's Next?
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 31 March 2003 12:02 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
JERUSALEM —While American and British forces are battling for victory against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the next targets are already flickering across the diplomatic radar.

Israeli strategists are hoping that one of the first will be Iran, and they are urging the United States to take measures to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions and its sponsorship of militants hostile to Israel.

This weekend U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of sponsoring hundreds of exiled Iraqi Islamists who have been travelling over the Iranian border to fight against Saddam in Iraq.

"The Badr Corps is trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard," Rumsfeld said. "And we will hold the Iranian government responsible for their actions and will view Badr Corps activity inside Iraq as unhelpful."

The Pentagon is also drawing up a blacklist of foreign companies that invested in Iran's energy sector, with a view to cutting them off from post-war reconstruction contracts for Iraq.

In another signal of a possible widening war, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday demanded Syria decide whether it wants to risk supporting Iraq, Associated Press reports.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 09 April 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
US Official: Iraq a Lesson to Others
quote:
A top U.S. State Department official said Wednesday that the war on Iraq should be a lesson for other regimes pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but insisted that the United States is seeking the peaceful elimination of those weapons programs.

John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, spoke to reporters after meetings with Vatican officials on proposals for humanitarian assistance and postwar reconstruction in Iraq.

He was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq.

"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest," Bolton said.
(...)
"This is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to forswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process," Bolton said.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 09 April 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

A top U.S. State Department official said Wednesday that the war on Iraq should be a lesson for other regimes pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but insisted that the United States is seeking the peaceful elimination of those weapons programs.

I would think the war on Iraq would be lesson for other regimes to purse weapons of mass destruction, how else could they protect themselves?


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 09 April 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rumsfeld said at his press conference today that Syria has ignored US warnings and has continued to send military aid to Iraq, he also claimed "senior officials" of the Iraqi regime had fled to Syria.

Too bad Hafez al-Assad is dead. He'd be much easier to vilify than current president Bashir al-Assad. Still, I suspect we'll be getting stories about his perfidy soon.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 10 April 2003 12:26 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rumsfeld Warns Syria Over Iraq
quote:
United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has once again attacked Syria, this time accusing it of helping Saddam Hussein's key supporters escape Iraq.

He said the US has "scraps of intelligence" Damascus is helping some Iraqis move to Syria, from where a number are moving on to other places.

On Wednesday, Mr Rumsfeld also repeated earlier charges that Syria had facilitated the movement of military equipment and people into Iraq to help fight US and British forces.

Syria, along with Iran, has recently been warned by the US Government not to get involved in the current Iraq conflict.

These latest comments could be seen as further US efforts to keep other Middle East countries in check and shape the region when the war in Iraq ends.

Mr Rumsfeld said: "We are getting scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been co-operative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria."



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 13 April 2003 11:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Syria could be next, warns Washington
quote:
The United States has pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbollah group in the next phase of its 'war on terror' in a move which could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus.

The move is part of Washington's efforts to persuade Israel to support a new peace settlement with the Palestinians. Washington has promised Israel that it will take 'all effective action' to cut off Syria's support for Hizbollah - implying a military strike if necessary, sources in the Bush administration have told The Observer .



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 April 2003 02:06 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He'd be much easier to vilify than current president Bashir al-Assad

I don't know, it seems that al-Assad will be a willing participant in his villification.

I hope that this results in reforms of Iran, North Korea and Syria's governments. As well as Kuwait's, Saudi Arabia and other undemocratidc regimes.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 14 April 2003 02:14 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Notice how Liberal Democracies dont attack one another. the Declaration of War betwen any Liberal Democracy has never happened so far as I can recollect.

In any case i do not think we will be going to war with anyone else any time soon. Powell , if anything, has gotten more powerful and he has had the history of seeking UN legitimacy.

China though seems to be getting itchy for a conflict. They seem to support N. Korea's bellicose verbiage. Perhaps it is time we eliminated all Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. But I dont think we will be doing it.
Believe it or not but i am glad for it. War is a very nasty thing. destructionof people, property, and prosperity mean a long and instable recovery.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 April 2003 02:28 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
China though seems to be getting itchy for a conflict. They seem to support N. Korea's bellicose verbiage.

I disagree about China's desire for conflict. I think their wrongheaded support of N.Korea is simply because they are very afraid of having another Gov't friendly with the U.S. on their border. Especially if that might mean a United U.S. ally Korea with a U.S. military base on their border.

China wants Taiwan back and bad. They also don't wan't any Buddhist friendly going around saying they don't legitimately own Tibet.

No one wants to pick a fight with China however. I heard that they have guns that can shoot satellites out of the sky.

I'll always relish the story about how in the Korean war when CHinese troups crossed the border the U.S. threatened China with invasion. I think Mao Tse tung responded that if China were invaded they would not resist. They would simply have one hundred thousand soldiers surrender each day to invadind forces. And then they would have to feed them and cloth them. No one ever threatened him again.

Iran's pretty tough as well. North Korea is desparate, I'd say they will topple or reform next. Syria needs the same reform that most middle east countries need.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 April 2003 02:40 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Syria needs the same reform that most middle east countries need.

The way you write that it makes you sound like you approve of the United States violating Syria's national sovereignty.

Where the hell does the US get off forcibly re-ordering the world to its liking?

And I will not have you, Markbo, replying with any soothing rejoinders about how so much nicer the US is. I want some brass tacks answers and I want them now.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 14 April 2003 02:58 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's been established that no justification for invasion has to be made before invading a nation, only post hoc justification.

Syria is there for the taking, and why not? The troops are there, it would be economical.

Two for the price of one. What Republican could resist?


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 April 2003 03:24 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The way you write that it makes you sound like you approve of the United States violating Syria's national sovereignty.

I do not approve of U.S. military intervention in Syria. However, No government that does not allow freedom for its people is legitimate in my view. National sovereignty is something that can only be achieved through legitimate government.

You seem to really want to argue for the right of a dictatorship to oppress its people. I think our foreign policy should do everything it can to promote freedom.

quote:
Where the hell does the US get off forcibly re-ordering the world to its liking?

Its not right, but the fact that the countries they oppose are oppressive dictatorships gives them a bit of moral superiority.

quote:
And I will not have you, Markbo, replying with any soothing rejoinders about how so much nicer the US is. I want some brass tacks answers and I want them now.

The U.S. is infinitely nicer, even with all of its problems. Now what were those questions you wanted answers to.

quote:
It's been established that no justification for invasion has to be made before invading a nation, only post hoc justification.

Lets hope that this is not true yet. I think history will judge Bush and his administration will have much to answer for if WMD are not found.

quote:
Syria is there for the taking, and why not? The troops are there, it would be economical.

Two for the price of one. What Republican could resist?


The best way to fight U.S. hedgemony is to allow freedom and democracy for your people. I wish Syria, N.Korea and Iran Use this defense to achieve Victory over the U.S.

You should be supporting this as well.



[/QUOTE]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 April 2003 05:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would think the war on Iraq would be lesson for other regimes to purse weapons of mass destruction, how else could they protect themselves?

Geez, no kidding.

I love how the US, the only country in the world who has used nuclear weapons, and who has the biggest stockpile of WMD of all types in the world, thinks they can go around telling everyone that getting WMD isn't in their best interests.

I'm all for every country in the world getting rid of their WMD - starting with the US, since it will take them the longest to dispose of theirs. Until they do, they are nothing but flaming hypocrites and I don't blame other countries one bit for trying to develop their own WMD in defence against such an aggressive, hostile country.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 14 April 2003 06:18 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Wolfy et al don't seem to grasp is that if you were to have free democratic elections in the Middle East the governments elected would be Islamic fundamentalist and anti-American. Recall the military coup in Algeria a few years ago that occured in order to prevent a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist government from taking power, or Turkey which is democratic except for the fact that Islamic parties are banned. You can't just invade a country and expect its political culture to suddenly switch to being like Denmark.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be free democratic elections in the Middle East. I'm saying that if there were you'd see the Muslim Brotherhood come to power in Egypt, King Hussein replaced by Islamic fundamentalists in Jordan, the Saudi princes replaced by leaders who sound much more like Bin Laden etc


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 April 2003 09:53 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, IMO, allowing for that possibility is the only way to achieve democratic progress in the Muslim world. It is exactly that they can't get elected that makes fanatic groups strong--because they are the only credible opposition.

Look at the elected Islamic parties in Pakistan's NWF province! Since coming to power they have had to do with the realities of government. And this is good.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 April 2003 11:11 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The best way to fight U.S. hedgemony is to allow freedom and democracy for your people.

He means like Iran, Chile, Argentina, Equador, Brazil, Peru, etc ...

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 April 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tom, all of the "liberal democracies" are either nuclear powers or toothless satellites, so military conflict amongst them is basically impossible.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 April 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You seem to really want to argue for the right of a dictatorship to oppress its people. I think our foreign policy should do everything it can to promote freedom.

Fine. Great. Hallelujah.

But you're slipping again, Markbo. That "we" thing when you don't live in the United States.

And while I'm at it, let me reiterate that "we" should have a foreign policy that is NOT predicated on forcibly changing their governments.

You can hold a gun to a person's head and make them do what you want, or you can use reason and logic.

The latter way takes longer, but the analogy is this: Invading a country to change its government for the people of that country is not necessarily an unalloyed Good Thing (TM).

Because people often resent being forced to do things regardless of who tells them it's for their own good.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 April 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He means like Iran, Chile, Argentina, Equador, Brazil, Peru, etc ...

Whatever do you mean?

quote:

Tom, all of the "liberal democracies" are either nuclear powers or toothless satellites, so military conflict amongst them is basically impossible.

What you term impossible in actuallity is unnecessary

quote:
But you're slipping again, Markbo. That "we" thing when you don't live in the United States.

Its always confusing having being a citizen of both countries and having two passports. i'll try to be more clear.

quote:
You can hold a gun to a person's head and make them do what you want, or you can use reason and logic.

Reason and logic cannot force someone else to be reasonable. Otherwise Saddam would have cooperated with the U.N. years ago.

quote:
The latter way takes longer,

You have to acknowledge that not only does the latter take longer, but sometimes its simply inneffective.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 April 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What you term impossible in actuallity is unnecessary

Look, I came here for an argument. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, it's not just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Och, I've had enough of this. I'm going to complain.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 April 2003 07:38 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No you're not.

By the way, is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour?

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 April 2003 07:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Whatever do you mean?

What markbo? CNN never told you about democratic governments overthrown by the US to install dictators?

I'm surprised. Not.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 April 2003 12:23 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush Vetoes Syria War Plan
quote:
The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.

In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.

Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".

However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.
(...)The Bush administration is nevertheless determined to use its military ascendancy in the region to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus and resolve what Washington sees as longstanding problems, including the threat to Israel posed by Damascus-backed Islamic extremists, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Syria's chemical weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess,nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others.

One US administration official conceded: "They've not taken any actions that we can see so far that would justify military action."


[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 April 2003 12:33 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bush Vetoes Syria War Plan

*phew!* (wipes sweat off brow)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 April 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Instead, the administration expects that the loss of income from smuggling arms and oil to and from Iraq will make Damascus vulnerable to economic pressure. Congress is examining the Syrian accountability act, which would impose tough sanctions on Damascus.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 April 2003 12:48 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see Dubya's been learning from good ole Richard Milhous Nixon. "Make the economy scream", indeed.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 April 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I think it's unlikely the US military will take an immediate "left turn" into Syria, it's clear that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the other uber-hawks in the administration are trying to soften up the political and diplomatic terrain for an eventual move against Syria just as they spent the first year or so of the Admin trying to soften up the terrain for a move against Iraq.

Bush may not be in favour at the moment, the question is can he be convinced?

In the short term, the hawks have convinced Bush to allow diplomatic action against Syria and a tightening of the economic screws, in the forms of the proposed "Syria Accountability Act" which proposes sanctions against Syria and actions such as this:

quote:
American forces have shut down a pipeline used to transport oil between Iraq and Syria, said the U.S. Secretary of Defense on Tuesday.

Donald Rumsfeld told the daily briefing at the Pentagon he couldn't confirm the supply between the two countries was totally contained, but said he hoped it had been.

Syria allegedly receives up to 200,000 barrels of oil a day through the pipeline.


Perhaps by 2004 after months of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, increasing demands for "accountability" by Syria over WMD, allegations of collusion with Saddam, Bush will be prepared for military action just in time for election year?

[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 April 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Syria Backs MidEast WMD-Free Zone
quote:
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara has said his government is willing to sign a treaty making the entire Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

In an interview with Australian SBS television broadcast on Wednesday, Shara vigorously denied U.S. allegations that Syria had chemical weapons or had allowed Iraq to hide banned weapons on its soil during the Iraq war.

"The Syrian government is ready to sign a treaty under U.N. supervision to make the whole Middle East a zone free from all mass destruction weapons, nuclear, chemical and biological," he told SBS in Damascus.

Since the fall of the government of President Saddam Hussein after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Washington has begun to turn its rhetorical guns on Damascus, accusing Syria of harboring Saddam's allies and of developing chemical weapons.

Arab diplomats at the United Nations said U.S. ally Israel was the only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction and added they would seek a U.N. Security Council resolution declaring the region free of such deadly arms.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman in Damascus said Syria was ready to propose such a resolution.

Israel is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads not subject to any international monitoring regime.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 16 April 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
wonder if the U.S. would sign on to that treaty?
or any treaty.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 17 April 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The stage is set for Syria.

quote:

American special forces in western Iraq have been told that they can enter Syria to grab the former President, and in all likelihood kill him, if they have “credible Intelligence” of his whereabouts. Their commanders would justify the action under the doctrine of “hot pursuit”, the disputed theory that soldiers who are in the act of hunting a terrorist suspect are allowed under international law to enter a foreign country without permission.


America would enter Syria to snatch Saddam

Given how much "collateral damage" was involved in the last two attempts, the attempt could cause considerable conflict.


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 17 April 2003 09:18 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
everybody get's a turn, just be patient. there are plans afoot for all of "those" people
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
we're a long way from out of the woods, and its getting more than a little dark.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 04 May 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CIA: Syria Harboring More Than 15 Million Arabs

LANGLEY, VA—In an alarming report released Monday by the Central Intelligence Agency, Syria may be harboring upwards of 15 million known Arabs within its borders.

"Reliable intelligence collected by our agency indicates that Syria has conspired to lend physical and economic support to a massive number of people belonging to this group," CIA director George J. Tenet said. "The shocking truth is, there are nearly as many Arabs in Syria as there are people in New York and Los Angeles combined. In fact, Syrians openly refer to their nation as the Syrian Arab Republic, despite knowing full well America's opinion on these matters."

Explaining the CIA's methods of gathering data on the rogue ethnicity's presence in Syria, Tenet said it relied on a combination of satellite imagery, computer-system infiltration, reports from Syrian covert operatives, intercepted radio and television transmissions, and The World Almanac And Book Of Facts 2003.

"It's practically an open secret these days," Tenet said. "Syrian television brazenly shows Arabs in military uniforms carrying guns, or delivering political speeches to other members of the group. Walk into any house of worship in the country, and you'll see people reading the Koran and bowing their heads in prayer toward Mecca. It's almost like they're daring the United States to get involved."

"Disturbingly, more than 90 percent of these Arabs have been linked to the practice of 'Islam'—a defiantly non-Western system of faith whose core principles are embraced by none other than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein," Tenet added. "If this is true, and we do consider this information to be correct in all particulars, then this is troubling at best."

President Bush, Tenet said, has been aware of Syria's ties to known Arab political and religious figures since the earliest planning stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tenet assured reporters that all possible diplomatic avenues of resolving the situation were being aggressively pursued.

"We have informed [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad of the presence of Arabs in his country and have offered any aid necessary to bring this situation under control," Tenet said. "I am confident that a resolution to this crisis can be achieved without resorting to military action."

This is not the first time Syria has been linked to Arabs. Israel found the Golan Heights heavily populated by Arabs when it annexed the region from Syria during 1967's Arab-Israeli War. Arabs have historically held many influential posts in the Syrian government, and the CIA claims to have data indicating that wealthy Arab businessmen control the greater part of Syria's economy.
The CIA report prompted concern from many Americans.

"I'm not surprised," said Wayne Early, an Atlanta-area mortgage broker. "I suspect they're all over that part of the world. First, the government linked them to Sept. 11, then Afghanistan, and then Iraq. It makes you wonder who's next."

"The more I learn about Arabs, the less I like them," said Carol Schecter of Norfolk, VA. "Beirut, Teheran, Baghdad... everyplace there's trouble, they're there, and now we've found them in Syria. I just hope they don't hurt the regular Syrians."

Tenet assured citizens that he is committed to resolving the crisis.

"We don't want to cause any undue panic, but now that the Arabs are there, we're going to have to deal with them," Tenet said. "Unfortunately, they're not just going to go away by themselves."


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 04 May 2003 01:13 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is shocking news Mycroft. We may all have to admit here that Markbo has been right all along.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
tyoung
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3885

posted 05 May 2003 01:03 AM      Profile for tyoung        Edit/Delete Post
It's all perfectly clear-- Powell says there is no list of countries they are "getting ready" to attack:

quote:
"Such a suggestion, that there was a list of nations that we were getting ready to attack, was a mis-characterization," Powell told a news conference before meeting Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The mis-characterization must be that they already are ready to attack these countries, not getting ready; they're just waiting for the right weather window, and for the media to jack up the hysteria to the point where polling tells them that the yank public is ready to say "let's roll" again.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca