There was alot of talk last year as to what exactly the Israeli air force bombed in Syria, as well as the blanket of secrecy around it.
I'm inclined to believe this report is accurate. I wonder what the Syrians gave to North Korea in exchange for their assistance.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor (on a locked thread): Sorry, folks. Interpret that whichever way makes whoever you want to look bad look bad, so everyone can be happy.
[Edit to include: The topic is done. I will likely delete any further threads on this topic without warning. Take it elsewhere.]
--PJ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry, BB, but for the time being Lisa alone prevents this forum from being able to make threads discussing Israel.
Yeah, she's 'that person.'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa is not the sole cause of the thread lockings.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure of it, but she's also the necessary catalyst.
Every israel thread locking I've seen most likely would not have degenerated to locking status without her 'participation.'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not her fault that people can't understand what its like to have bombs blow up on their buses.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You know, if people had discussed the bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility instead of the previous thread, there would have been a chance for an actual discussion.
Right now, I'd say the thread is only minutes away from deletion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Just a few last week we had a nearly civil thread on Islamic extremism so it is possible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm naturally suspicious of US intelligence reports presented by the White House that indicate the presence of WMDs somewhere in the Middle East. I'll be in the car Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm actually almost to the point where I assume that accounts provided by the administration default to being apocryphal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Please don't muck up this thread. I really don't care who has a tendency to lock up threads regarding Israel, just please try to be civil on this one.
Lisa: I am well aware of the thread you were posting in being locked. That does not mean Israel or Palestine cannot be discussed.
I wonder if Israeli intelligence figured out the North Korea Nuclear connection on their own, or if they were tipped off by the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Syria certainly didn't wait long before jumping right to that. It's some fallout from the multiple dubious intel claims that the US has made in the last couple years. I'm curious as to the reaction from other nations and how many of them are treating the US claims here with a raised eyebrow and some skepticism.
Personally I don't know what to believe. They can't actually be planning to attack Syria, not right now, and I don't see what they gain by whipping up anti-Syrian fervor, but on the other hand the Bush Administration hardly has my blind trust. I'd need a third party to see the evidence and affirm it before I buy it. But it really is a shame that we have no credibility in the region now.
If it is true, I think they should have made it public, demanded inspectors, and if Syria said no, then destroyed it. But I'm guessing from Syria's denial that it even exists that it wasn't for peaceful purposes, or they'd be screaming bloody murder about it.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Some other weird things to think about re: this:
Since the facility was destroyed, Syria has bulldozed and rebuilt on the same footprint. (I can't remember where I heard this, probably Thursday's NYT.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Syria is a signatory to the NPT (since 1969), which is supposed to ensure nonproliferation and that IAEA inspectors can visit nuclear sites within the country in exchange for "carrots" like the promise that NPT nations will not interfere in signatory states' efforts to develop nuclear power.
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, so I suppose Israel does not have to abide by the treaty, but the US does. (Which we've been ignoring under Bush, especially with the rhetoric on Iran's nuclear power stations--although I think it is quite possible Iran is going for a nuke, that is another issue)
Instead of telling Israel to bomb it, wouldn't it have been more productive if the US (as an NPT signatory) requested inspectors to visit the site? (The Bush admin resistance to international inspectors led us into an illegal and expensive war last time, so shouldn't our default position be NOT trusting them on this one? I'd like to see more proof that something wrong was happening here)
...
I'd like to also request that people try to remain calm in this thread if it goes much further. I think this forum would have to be in horrible shape if we were unable to ever discuss some of the most important events in the middle east, so let's try to do it carefully.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Watched CNN this morning and the gist was that there is incontrovertible evidence that third party sources have viewed proving the existence of the reactor.
As for whether inspectors should have been sent in, if Syria was indeed weeks or just a few months from completion I'm not sure inspectors would have been a prompt enough option.
I'm leaning towards the idea that the Israeli and American intelligence community probably shared info and it was decided to let Israel take care of it. But that's pure conjecture on my part.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd have to have some pretty strong evidence that could not be fabricated by our intelligence services to get to believing that this is definitely true. I can't watch the video on CNN's site right now. Is there a print version of it somewhere?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've been looking at this and trying to decide, regardless of whether or not the evidence is valid, why this was released now. I mean, the evidence is fairly old. What agenda(s) is(are) being assisted by the release of this information now, and what agenda(s) is(are) being hampered?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The analysis I saw on CNN said that this is potentially an attempt to disrupt talks with North Korea.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
According to the Bush administration, they released the intel so that in the upcoming 6 party talks with North Korea, Pyongyang would have to be more honest about it's nuclear related activities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the evidence is real, I guess it could give them an excuse to take a more hardline stance with North Korea, but I'm not convinced that that gets us anywhere.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There is an election coming up. They could be looking at trying to play up the threats again.
edit: I wouldn't put it past them to actively try to screw up America's standing even more if it looks like a Democrat is going to win the White House come November.
[ April 25, 2008, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This administration has lied so many times about so many things that they have totally lost their credibility.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The analysis I saw on CNN said that this is potentially an attempt to disrupt talks with North Korea.
Thanks, Dick Cheney. Always helping out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To believe it's definitely true, Mr. Squicky, or to believe that it's not falsified?
A sincere question, and two very different distinctions.
From what I have heard so far, the building appeared to be (just by looking at it) very similar to North Korea's nuclear facility. I can't say I'll fault Israel if they went with an aggressive response based on short-of-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence given the circumstances.
Furthermore, if it is an attempt to disrupt the talks but it's founded in truth, then frankly I think it needs to happen. Negotiations with North Korea are almost meaningless if they're proliferating on their own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Either one, Rakeesh. This administration telling me about WMDs or related programs but holding onto that information until a politically convenient time for them means that, until I get good evidence that they are actually telling the truth, I will be dubious as to whether they are telling the truth or that it is actually true.
What you've been shown is, as far as I can tell, coming from the Bush administration and is commented on by people posing as objective analysts that it has been revealed the Pentagon is paying or otherwise influencing. I'm going to need more than that to believe it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:If the evidence is real, I guess it could give them an excuse to take a more hardline stance with North Korea, but I'm not convinced that that gets us anywhere.
Look, I can understand being opposed to taking a more hard-line stance towards North Korea in these discussions. But if this evidence is true, then surely that counts as a strike against the current policy, wouldn't you agree?
I won't say I believe the current claims are true, but if it comes down to US-Israeli word vs. NK-Syrian word, well, that's an easy call.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I won't say I believe the current claims are true, but if it comes down to US-Israeli word vs. NK-Syrian word, well, that's an easy call.
It is? Which way?
edit: I'm not saying that I'd believe NK/Syria over the U.S./Israel, but that doesn't mean that when the U.S./Israel claims something and NK/Syria denies it, that I think you can conclude that this is true or credible just based on that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
so.... actually its not, they're both compulsive liars (US-NK).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're asking a question to which you already know the answer, Mr. Squicky-at least, when you ask me that question. US-Israeli word, obviously, are the people I am going to believe.
It takes a giant step away from reality to deem to North Korean government more trustworthy than the American government.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is also a massive step away from reality to think the American government is trustworthy either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:edit: I'm not saying that I'd believe NK/Syria over the U.S./Israel, but that doesn't mean that when the U.S./Israel claims something and NK/Syria denies it, that I think you can conclude that this is true or credible just based on that.
Neither am I, you know. I said that 'if it came down to'-a dubious and highly unlikely possibility. However, we know something was built there. Either one or the other party is lying, or both are. At which point I would ask myself what the facility was that wasn't a nuclear facility, but was something NK-Syria would lie about, and conclude that whatever it was, I'm happier with it gone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're asking a question to which you already know the answer, Mr. Squicky-at least, when you ask me that question. US-Israeli word, obviously, are the people I am going to believe.
It takes a giant step away from reality to deem to North Korean government more trustworthy than the American government
I think that's terribly naive.
As I said in my edit, I'm not saying that I think that North Korea is less likely to lie to me than the Bush administration. I don't think that they are more trustworthy, but just because they are not trustworthy and saying something, that doesn't give me evidence that the opposite is true. If it came down to the U.S. saying one thing and North Korea saying another, well, they're both liars. I wouldn't bet on either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's hardly naive, Mr. Squicky. No need to get insulting. I wasn't replying to your edit, which wasn't in place when I posted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You are saying that you will believe the US when they tell you this, because the people who are disagreeing with them are untrustworthy. I think it is extremely naive to believe that Bush administration is worthy of that trust, given all the times they've lied and deceived us on very similar issues. Taking the Bush administration's word has been a very poor bet. Thinking that this time they're really telling the truth, well, I don't have a way to describe that that is any better than naive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
insanity: believing that doing the same action, again and again, will give a different result.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn,
quote:If the evidence is real, I guess it could give them an excuse to take a more hardline stance with North Korea, but I'm not convinced that that gets us anywhere.
Look, I can understand being opposed to taking a more hard-line stance towards North Korea in these discussions. But if this evidence is true, then surely that counts as a strike against the current policy, wouldn't you agree?
I won't say I believe the current claims are true, but if it comes down to US-Israeli word vs. NK-Syrian word, well, that's an easy call.
I'd only oppose a more hardline stance because it never gets us anywhere. We've always gotten further with carrots than sticks with NK, but that's because frankly our sticks don't do much to them. Now, if we could get China on board, and China would agree to take a more hardline enforcement stance while we offered them carrots, I think that might work. China has significantly more to threaten them with than we do. Until then, I don't really see the point. Which is part of what makes me think that manufacturing evidence against Syria to implicate North Korea is rather useless, but I also realize that those aren't the only possible outcomes of such an accusation.
I agree that if they are in fact proliferating, then yeah, the status qup ain't doing the trick, but this is one we can't do alone, we need assistance from NK's neighbors. I guess maybe that's the real benefit of something like this. It's not in taking a hardline stance against North Korea, it's in the use of this information to prod Russia and China into making more commitments to help us. More nuclear neighbors, and for that matter a dangerous neighbor with no problem with selling them to anyone has to make them both nervous.
Before the Iran intel debacle, I'd have agreed with you but, the Bush Administration has made SO MANY dubious claims against Middle Eastern countries that turned out to be either blatently false, or thin, or uncorraborated, why wouldn't I think that this was just one more way they are trying to drum up support? Yellow cake in Nigeria? WMDs in Iraq? Iran doing all sorts of things they really aren't? The navy fiasco thing that was made up? This fits snugly into a long line of mistakes and lies. That's the problem with a credibility gap; it makes North Korea looks more trustworthy. But frankly, no, I don't think NK is more trustworthy, I think they're both untrustworthy, so a pox on both their houses, I don't believe either of them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
edited: double post
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You are saying that you will believe the US when they tell you this, because the people who are disagreeing with them are untrustworthy.
That's actually not what I said, but perhaps I was unclear. I said that if it came down to that. It won't just come down to that. There'll be other considerations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't believe it will come to that either. But, as far as I can tell, you were talking about the hypothetical case where it did come down to that. You said:
quote: if it comes down to US-Israeli word vs. NK-Syrian word, well, that's an easy call.
I took you to be saying that, in that situation - where it came down just to the US's word against North Korea's - you would believe the Bush administration. In that situation, I believe you would just be taking one liar's word over that of another and would be acting very naively.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Well, you know, better the devil you know than another devil you don't? Heck, I'd be tempted to believe Bush on this simply because he's OUR liar. And in all fairness, if I ran a middle-eastern country and I had a secret nuclear facility, I wouldn't hesitate to pull out the "Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, and he's lying about this too!" It's pretty sad that he has a valid point.
I would also be interested to learn what Syria gave North Korea in exchange for their assistance (maybe a promise to ship NK their plutonium?).
What also makes me worry is this little bit, "But they said they have only low confidence about concluding that it was meant for developing weapons. That's in part because the site had no reprocessing facility, needed for making bombs."
The CNN article really made us sound... not uninformed, but only half-informed. But then, we didn't bomb them. I wonder if Israel has more information on the nuclear program in question?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
If you go back and look at the database of the 935 lies the Bush administration made before the war in Iraq, you'll see some shamefully false statements, expressing supreme confidence Iraq possessed WMD and supported al Qaeda. They are liars. Don't take them at their word, because they will lie to you.
When Bush says the economy is doing great on a day when 90% of the Americans polled think we're in a recession, that's not just stupid optimism, that is a lie too.
new development: UN censures US and Israel over Syria nuclear row --includes the quote: Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear proliferation and head of the Washington-based Ploughshares Fund, said: "We should learn first from the past and be very cautious about any intelligence from the US about other country's weapons."
Joseph Cirincione is coming to my class in a couple weeks to talk, and this will be an interesting issue to talk with him about.
Hmm, also Joe Wilson will be in town this weekend, and I should go to that too.. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Another quote from Cirincione: So what is really going on here? Cirincione told the BBC that "This appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda." The preexisting political agenda may be promoting a war with Syria and/or Iran, or torpedoing negotiations between the US and North Korea. Finally, Cirincione adds ominously "If this sounds like the run-up to the war with Iraq, then it should."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: Well, you know, better the devil you know than another devil you don't? Heck, I'd be tempted to believe Bush on this simply because he's OUR liar. And in all fairness, if I ran a middle-eastern country and I had a secret nuclear facility, I wouldn't hesitate to pull out the "Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, and he's lying about this too!" It's pretty sad that he has a valid point.
I would also be interested to learn what Syria gave North Korea in exchange for their assistance (maybe a promise to ship NK their plutonium?).
What also makes me worry is this little bit, "But they said they have only low confidence about concluding that it was meant for developing weapons. That's in part because the site had no reprocessing facility, needed for making bombs."
The CNN article really made us sound... not uninformed, but only half-informed. But then, we didn't bomb them. I wonder if Israel has more information on the nuclear program in question?
If you know they are lying then why do you believe them even if we know them to be liars? There is a fundamental flaw in your logic that applies both ways.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When Bush says the economy is doing great on a day when 90% of the Americans polled think we're in a recession, that's not just stupid optimism, that is a lie too.
Actually listening to NPR - that bastion of conservatism - on the way to work yesterday, I heard a report about how for all the talk of a recession economy, some of the latest indicators were surprisingly good.*
*A bunch of technical stuff, and I didn't hear the whole thing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
On a different thread there is an argument that people were stupid to believe that Iraq had WMD because it is so obvious they didn't.
But when that was being debated here, the comments were identical to what was said above--Sure our president may lie, but we all know that Hussein lies all the time. If Hussein said there's no WMD, you can bet there are.
Now I hear, If NK or Syria say there are no WMD, you can bet there are.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The Israeli bombing sounds like it was a pretty sensible move. This is what we should've done when we were worried about Iraq's weapons: find out where they might be, then blow them up with minimal collateral damage and without wrecking the whole country.
Even if they're wrong about the Syrian reactor, the chance they were right makes airstrikes a good option because the humanitarian cost of airstrikes is much lower than that of invasion. The US used to know this (eg Bosnia).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:When Bush says the economy is doing great on a day when 90% of the Americans polled think we're in a recession, that's not just stupid optimism, that is a lie too.
Actually listening to NPR - that bastion of conservatism - on the way to work yesterday, I heard a report about how for all the talk of a recession economy, some of the latest indicators were surprisingly good.*
*A bunch of technical stuff, and I didn't hear the whole thing.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. It looks like you are trying to dispute what was said, but what you said doesn't actually disagree with it. Are you trying to disagree with it or is there some other purpose to bringing up what you did?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Over 2/3rds of the commentators that NPR interviews are from rightwing extremist organizations such as AmericanEnterpriseInstitute, AmericanPetroleumInstitute, CatoInstitute, Annenberg/FactCheck, Focus on the Family, HooverInstitute, Pepperdine School of Law, etc ad nauseum.
The whole point of being liberal is listening to opposing opinions: Just as "we" can't always be right, "they" cannotalways be wrong.*
* Admittedly it ain't from a lack of trying.
[ April 26, 2008, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If you know they are lying then why do you believe them even if we know them to be liars? There is a fundamental flaw in your logic that applies both ways.
I'm really not very good at this whole forum posting thing, but I hope to get better. Let's see if I can more clearly get to where I was intending to go...
The title of the article is "White House: Syria reactor not for 'peaceful purposes'" Okay, cool, remember that, it plays nicely into the next quote: "But they said they have only low confidence about concluding that it was meant for developing weapons. That's in part because the site had no reprocessing facility, needed for making bombs." So, it's not for peaceful purposes, but it's also not for bombs... interesting...
Maybe my memory of the build up to the war in Iraq is a little fuzzy, but I don't think they ever contradicted themselves so clearly in a single press release. As far as I can tell, both of those comments where made Thursday. They stood their ground on Iraq having WMD's for some time, but this is already sounding uncertain. I think likening it to the Iraqi War build-up is a bit premature. Really, they did it so much better the first time around, I can't see them expecting such weak evidence to carry weight this time through. But maybe that's exactly what they want me to think...
Another important question: Did the facility even exist? We know something was bombed there (well, maybe?). They have quotes from ambiguous experts all disagreeing with the administration on when the facility would have been operational, but none of them are denying the facility's existence. A reasonably subtle form of agreement...
Out of curiosity, what does Syria claim Israel bombed at the location in question about one year ago? A hospital? A training facility? A factory? I'm dead tired right now and have a splitting headache. I'll try to find it when I wake up later today.
Edit: Turned out to be much easier than I thought. They claim it was a "vacant military building." Oh, Israel and America, what a tangled web you weave. Bombing a vacant military building, keeping it top secret for a year in order to lie about it later and stir up trouble... I guess starting wars really is an art form, I just wish we didn't have to be so secretive about it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It looks like the person who talked about the low confidence was someone who spoke to a reporter on the side, not part of the White House statement. That's probably more an indicator of how much the White House has fallen in the estimation of intelligence officials (who want to make certain things are properly qualified) than of the White House weakening their own statements.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
So at the end of a report on Friday night's NewsHour, one of the guests declares that this would be the 11th nuclear facility that has been bombed in the middle east. Anyone know of a reference that confirms that statement?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow, 11 nuclear facilities bombed? The only other one I remember is the Iraqi Osirak reactor the Israelis bombed in 1981. And we bombed it again in Gulf War I.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't believe either of them.
Ahh, but what if each said the other was lying? Then would you believe them both? </silliness>
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: the humanitarian cost of airstrikes is much lower than that of invasion. The US used to know this (eg Bosnia).
I'm not sure the Bosnians would agree. Certainly we caused fewer direct civilian deaths, but it's plausible that a more sufficient force could have prevented many of the Serbian atrocities.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
[
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: the humanitarian cost of airstrikes is much lower than that of invasion. The US used to know this (eg Bosnia).
Did you mean Kosovo? NATO had ground troops in Bosnia but bombed Serbia to stop atrocities in Kosovo before any NATO ground troops were deployed there.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QB] There is an election coming up. They could be looking at trying to play up the threats again.
That could be it, but this seems way too early for a move like this to be of much value for McCain. I'd think that they'd wait until October before trying something like this.
Here is ArmsControlWonk's post on the subject, with some decent (and some idiotic) commentary posted by readers.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Here is ArmsControlWonk's post on the subject, with some decent (and some idiotic) commentary posted by readers.
Hey, cool link! I'm subscribing to the wonk.
Interesting video and photos. It'll be interesting to see how this story keeps developings.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's a great site, isn't it?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
(I'm taking a class on arms control/terrorism, and we're supposed to find supplemental readings..)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, those look like they'll be great! Thanks!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:That could be it, but this seems way too early for a move like this to be of much value for McCain. I'd think that they'd wait until October before trying something like this.
Agreed. Voters have mayfly memories. It'd have to be pretty big for it to still change the election six months from now. A blip on the news that most people won't remember by May doesn't count.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)