|
OT--No surprise here
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi state television aired a video today showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer who said he trained Iraqi insurgents to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops. The video also showed an Iraqi who said the insurgents practiced beheading animals to train for decapitating hostages. Syrian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the claims. The video comes at a time when the Bush administration has stepped up pressure on Syria to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs by allowing insurgents to cross into the country to fight coalition troops and by harboring former Iraqi regime members. Syria has denied the charges. President Bush also repeated today that Syria must remove its 15,000 troops from neighboring Lebanon but did not threaten any action against Damascus - for now. In the video, the man, identified as Lt. Anas Ahmed al-Essa of the Syrian intelligence service, said his group had been recruited to "cause chaos in Iraq ... to bar America from reaching Syria." "We received all the instructions from Syrian intelligence," al-Essa, 30, said on a video broadcast by state-run Iraqiya TV, which can be seen nationwide. The tape was apparently made in the northern city of Mosul but no date was provided. It was not possible to authenticate the claims. An unidentified Iraqi officer introduced the video, saying all insurgent groups in Iraq were covers for Syrian intelligence. He named a number of well-known groups, including one which has killed and beheaded foreigners. Iraqiya TV is believed to be widely watched by Iraqis - mainly those who cannot afford satellite dishes offering the Gulf-based Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya stations. But the station, which went on the air in May 2003 with help from the Pentagon, is viewed by many Iraqis as an American propaganda tool having a pro-American slant. Top officials in Iraq's interim government have called on Syria to hand over former Iraqi Baathists who fled there after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, which Syria vehemently opposed. In the video, the bearded al-Essa, dressed in a gray jacket and shirt, claimed to be leader of the al-Fateh Army, which has not been heard of before. He was one of 11 men claiming in front of the camera that they were recruited by Syrian intelligence officers. The other 10 were identified as Iraqis. Al-Essa said his need for money was the motive for accepting an offer by a Syrian intelligence colonel he identified as Fady Abdullah to carry out attacks inside Iraq. "I was trained on explosives, killing, spying, kidnapping ... and after one year I went to Iraq with Fady Abdullah," al-Essa said. He claimed he infiltrated into Iraq in 2001, about two years before the U.S. invasion, because Syrian intelligence was convinced that American military action loomed. Another man, Shawan al-Sabaawi, was identified as a former lieutenant colonel in Saddam Hussein's army. He claimed to have received training from Syrian intelligence on how to behead hostages. He said the group started by making car bombs targeting American troops and Iraqi National Guardsmen before beginning a campaign of kidnapping and beheading Iraqis. Al-Essa said the group used animals for training in beheadings. He said it required "at least 10 beheadings" for a member to be promoted to a group leader. "I had to send a report to Syria about how the operations are going," he said. Weapons, explosives and equipment were all provided by Syrian intelligence, al-Essa claimed. He added the group members received $1,500 a month. International pressure on Syria has grown since the Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, who died along with 16 others in a massive explosion in Beirut. The Lebanese opposition blames the killing on the Damascus government and its Syrian backers. Both governments have denied involvement. Syria has 15,000 soldiers in Lebanon and is under growing international pressure to withdraw. |
NOYB wrote:
Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... You still don't see the connection? Poor Doug. |
NOYB wrote:
You still don't see the connection? There isn't one... other than your parrotting of Bush & Cheney's unbacked assertions. Do you not see the evidence of your own post? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. DSK |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi state television aired a video today showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer who said he trained Iraqi insurgents to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops. And most of the 9-11'ers were Saudi. Yet, Bush blew our wad attacking Iraq. Saudi Arabia is Iraq in reverse. The leaders are our allies, but the people are our enemy. Of course, the people also happen to be the enemy of the Saudi Royals. |
NOYB wrote:
Saudi Arabia is Iraq in reverse. The leaders are our allies, but the people are our enemy. Wrong. The Saudi royal family would love to exterminate Israel and wreak bloody vengeance on the satan-spawn Americans, but they're addicted to their decadent lifestyle and accustomed to doing business with the Bush family. By your analogy, one might infer that the Bush family is the ally of the Muslim fundies and the enemy of the people of the U.S. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... DSK Don't worry we'll get to Syria and Iran soon enough. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... DSK Don't worry we'll get to Syria and Iran soon enough. Maybe you'll get point this time, eh, Bert? Wouldn't it be a privilege for you to stop a bullet for your leader? As I told you before I put myself in line. What have you done for your country besides bad mouth it any chance you get? |
Hmmm....may be, but they sure love their gold plated Mercedes...
JR Harry Krause wrote: The Saudi leaders are not our allies; they are fundamentalist Muslims and, as such, hate us worse than Saddam ever did. They tolerate us because we've made them billionaires, and because they're in good with the Bush family. But they have no love for the United States and its decadent ways. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... As I told you before I put myself in line. What have you done for your country besides bad mouth it any chance you get? Wasn't that 20 miles 'behind' the line ? How far did your big gun shoot anyway? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... As I told you before I put myself in line. What have you done for your country besides bad mouth it any chance you get? Wasn't that 20 miles 'behind' the line ? How far did your big gun shoot anyway? Remind me again when you served Don and what branch you served in. I am not talking about your job at McDonalds serving freedom fries. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... Remind me again when you served Don and what branch you served in. I am not talking about your job at McDonalds serving freedom fries. Now Jim...we had a 'gentleman's agreement'. Are you breaking it again? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi state television aired a video today showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer who said he trained Iraqi insurgents to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops. And most of the 9-11'ers were Saudi. Yet, Bush blew our wad attacking Iraq. Saudi Arabia is Iraq in reverse. The leaders are our allies, but the people are our enemy. Of course, the people also happen to be the enemy of the Saudi Royals. The Saudi leaders are not our allies; they are fundamentalist Muslims and, as such, hate us worse than Saddam ever did. No they're not. The Royals ousted the extremists druing a Civil War in the 1920's. In 1979, the extremists (aka--"Ikhwans") temporarily seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca. They've been fighting for 80 years. Sure, the Saudi Royal family is working mostly to maintain its lavish lifestyle. But they've adopted a large number of non-Koranic practices, such as allowing women to attend school and work, and employing non-Muslims. For this reason, they're hated by the modern day Ikhwans (aka--Wahhabiists) like Osama bin Hidin'. They tolerate us because we've made them billionaires, and because they're in good with the Bush family. But they have no love for the United States and its decadent ways. They have no love for the purely Koranic form of law either...since true Koranic law does not allow for a Monarchy led by non-religious leaders. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... Remind me again when you served Don and what branch you served in. I am not talking about your job at McDonalds serving freedom fries. Now Jim...we had a 'gentleman's agreement'. Are you breaking it again? Come on Don. I get ticked off at folks throwing insults to those who served our Country. What is especially bad is when the insults come from those who never wore the uniform, such a you, Krause and a few others here. So stop the insults towards our brave men and women who are serving or have served and I will stop getting on your case about it. Fair enough? |
"JimH" wrote in message So stop the insults towards our brave men and women who are serving or have served and I will stop getting on your case about it. Fair enough? So you are breaking the agreement. No surprise there...except how long it took you to do it. Bettie butts his nose in numerous times, and as he says himself.....'be a man and take your beating'....therefore he can defend himself. Why do you feel you have to nursemaid him? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message Remind me again when you served Don and what branch you served in. I am not talking about your job at McDonalds serving freedom fries. Now Jim...we had a 'gentleman's agreement'. Are you breaking it again? Come on Don. I get ticked off at folks throwing insults to those who served our Country. What is especially bad is when the insults come from those who never wore the uniform, such a you, Krause and a few others here. So stop the insults towards our brave men and women who are serving or have served and I will stop getting on your case about it. Fair enough? So you are breaking the agreement. No surprise there...except how long it took you to do it. Bettie butts his nose in numerous times, and as he says himself.....'be a man and take your beating'....therefore he can defend himself. Why do you feel you have to nursemaid him? Do what you want Don. As I said, when it comes to you and others disrespecting our service men/women the gloves are off. Have a nice day Don....enjoy the freedoms you have thanks to our brave men and women who fought for them. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... As I told you before I put myself in line. What have you done for your country besides bad mouth it any chance you get? Wasn't that 20 miles 'behind' the line ? How far did your big gun shoot anyway? My gun doesn't shoot to far but, my rifle is leathel to 500+ yards. Oh, and remind me ofwhat you did while serving in the Canadian Forces? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... As I told you before I put myself in line. What have you done for your country besides bad mouth it any chance you get? Wasn't that 20 miles 'behind' the line ? How far did your big gun shoot anyway? My gun doesn't shoot to far but, my rifle is leathel to 500+ yards. Not as lethal as your breath, I'd bet. You really are a strange individual. Why would you care what my breath smells like? |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: Feb. 23, 2005, 12:27PM Syrian officer says he trained Iraqi insurgents Associated Press Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing in ways unforeseen even last fall. During the campaign, neither candidate discussed pressuring these two putative allies to create a stable and democratic Arab presence, yet today both are taking the first steps toward representative government. Lebanon's Druze Patriarch Walid Jumblatt pinpointed the genesis of this metamorphosis in the pages of The Washington Post: It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it. In other words, a sea-change is taking place in the Arab world: democracy is becoming reality for the first time in history - and all this progress came about because of the determination of President George W. Bush and over the most vicious objections of the American Left. The most recent dividends of the Bush Doctrine became evident on Saturday, when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak demanded the 1971 (socialist) constitution be amended to allow multiparty elections for the first time. In a nationally televised speech delivered at the University of Menoufiya, Mubarak said, "The president will be elected through direct, secret balloting, opening the opportunity for political parties to run in the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose from with their own will." Upon hearing this, the crowd burst out into a chant of, "Long live Mubarak, mentor of freedom and democracy!" Just a month ago, President Mubarak intended to hold his fifth national plebiscite and labeled such reforms "futile." (The 76-year-old, who has ruled Egypt since 1981, won the previous four elections with more than 90 percent of the vote.) However, President Bush has been unwavering on the issue, saying in his State of the Union Address, "The great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East." This emboldened rallies in Egypt to criticize Mubarak and his son (and heretofore heir apparent), Gamal. Condoleeza Rice boldly cancelled her scheduled visit after Mubarak jailed political opponent Ayman Nour. The next day, Mubarak made a 180-degree policy shift. Though they view his actions as only an opening salvo, Mubarak's political opponents have embraced this constitutional reform as a turning point in their nation's history. Nour called it "an important and courageous move." Hisham Kassem of the Tomorrow Party and editor of the Masr al-Youm newspaper deemed the amendment "the most important thing he has done in 24 years in power." National Progressive Unionist Party member Refat Said stated, "Mubarak has taken one boulder from the road to democracy. It's at least a change in mentality." Rifaat el-Said of the Tagammu Party proved more ebullient: "We have moved a mountain," he said. Even ruling party member Mohammed Kamal admitted, "This is a change in the whole system." Thankfully, Mubarak's amendment will bar the fascist Muslim Brotherhood from standing for election. The winds of democracy are blowing in Syria, as well. President Bush singled out Syria in his State of the Union Address as a state sponsor of terrorism, and recalled the American ambassador to Syria after the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Massive protests calling for Syrian withdrawal ensued. At one such rally in the village of Qana, peasants destroyed a statue of the late President Hafez al-Assad, and just yesterday Lebanese protestors defied a government ban to demand an end to Syrian occupation. Rejecting Syrian backlash, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state David Satterfield echoed President Bush's pro-freedom rhetoric. "It is not...interference for the world to talk of the need for Lebanese to live in freedom," he said over the weekend. Out of pressure from President Bush - and still feeling the impact of neighboring Iraq's elections - Syria has claimed it will either withdraw troops from Lebanon or bring them into conformity with the ceasefire plan it adopted in 1989 but never enacted. Over the weekend, the Mideast's other Ba'athist nation also turned over Saddam Hussein's half-brother, a sought-after Iraqi "insurgent" leader, in order to curry favor with Washington. A confidence vote will be held today on the government of Prime Minister Omar Karami. This could be the beginning of the end of Syria's brutal 30-year occupation of Lebanon. As these historic events unfold, or rather are instigated by the Bush administration, the Left sits on the sidelines cheering for the wrong team. Ted Kennedy bitterly condemned American "occupation" on the eve of the Iraq elections. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid promptly seconded Kennedy's call for Bush to publish an Iraqi exit strategy. Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson stumped for democracy.in Ohio, telling black audiences their votes had been discarded by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the only black man to hold statewide office (and a strong candidate to become Ohio's next governor). After the world viewed the ocean of ink-stained fingers waving over Saddam's former fiefdom, Sen. John Kerry said we should not to "overhype" the event. The man who nearly became president told Tim Russert that the elections that heralded a new era in Arab politics only possessed "a kind of legitimacy - I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." Indeed, one could easily construct a depressing alternate history of the past month by juxtaposing President Bush's strong leadership with Sen. John Kerry's world tour. Kerry took a 13-day tour of the Arab world in early January, meeting with officials in Syria, Egypt, and other nations of the Arab crescent. Rather than pressure Syrian President Bashar Assad to democratize or end its occupation of Lebanon as the Bush administration has, Kerry simply hoped to "improve our relationship" with Assad. (And guess who would have made the concessions?) "I think we found a great deal of areas of mutual interest, some common concerns and some possibilities for initiatives that could be taken in the future to strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and Syria," Kerry babbled. He repeated the same "good relations" routine after meeting the Egyptian foreign minister. Kerry also demoralized the troops in Baghdad by castigating the "enormous miscalculations," "horrendous judgments," and "unbelievable blunders" of their commander in chief. Kerry proved his statesmanship by claiming black votes were being "suppressed" in the 2004 election immediately upon his return to the States. Imagine Kerry standing in the Rose Garden thronged by Teddy and Jesse, and you begin to get a sense of what might have been - and what would never have been. They deemed the first election in the history of Afghanistan unworthy of notice and the Palestinian elections a non-event. The Iraqi election, they insisted, could never take place. Now as the ripple effects of their president's policies move other nations closer to the currents of liberalization, they give to liberty no quarter. However reforms proceed in Egypt - and we pray they will usher in democratic, representative government respectful of the rights of all its citizens - none whatever would have taken place under the leadership of the Democratic Left. It makes any history buff weep to see the party of Jefferson and Jackson observe the next milestones in the history of human freedom in the making - and oppose them with all its misguided might. Update: Since the time this story was filed early this morning, Lebanon's pro-Syrian government has resigned. This is the most hopeful sign yet that independence will soon return to the Land of Cedars. -- BJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sounds to me like it was the right war, at the right time, and in the right country. |
Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time... NOBBY quote: Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it was too dangerous in Lebanon? BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there and saw much of it first-hand. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until now? I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... NOBBY quote: Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it was too dangerous in Lebanon? If I wanted danger, I'd ride a motorcycle around Naples in the middle of season. But I don't drive a motorcycle BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there and saw much of it first-hand. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:03 -0500, DSK wrote:
Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... NOBBY quote: Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it was too dangerous in Lebanon? BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there and saw much of it first-hand. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until now? I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job. DSK What George doesn't get done in the next four years, Jeb will finish! Don't you relish the sure knowledge that the Republicans will be in the White House for the next 8 years? You gotta love it! Even though I'm an independent, as is one of our great northwest friends, I can sure see the advantages in having a president who likes America! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?
NOYB wrote: Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy... ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list. Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand? Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other miserable foreign policy failures? And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? No With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). And? Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations. It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner himself). Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region. It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than they could have done the same thing. But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far, maybe this really is a huge success for them! DSK |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote:
So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? NOYB wrote: Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy... ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list. Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand? Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other miserable foreign policy failures? And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? No With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). And? Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations. It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner himself). Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region. It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than they could have done the same thing. But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far, maybe this really is a huge success for them! DSK Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come to the middle east. I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so." John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote:
Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come to the middle east. I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so." You're wrong (again). I am hopeful that both sides will come to their senses and that peace will arise. You seem to cling to the illusion that only brainless cheerleading for Bush & Cheney is "positive." But the facts are against you, which why you count your ignorance as your good fortune. DSK |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote: So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? NOYB wrote: Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy... ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list. Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand? Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other miserable foreign policy failures? And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? No With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). And? Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations. It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner himself). Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region. It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than they could have done the same thing. But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far, maybe this really is a huge success for them! DSK Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come to the middle east. I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so." John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes You hit the nail on the head John. Hell, just look at the OT news stories they continuously post....they go out of their way to focus on the doom and gloom. Look at the post this morning from a certain member here this morning about the 100 or so dead in Iraq from the suicide bomber....it was like he was getting some sort of pleasure in doing it. The only thing missing was his little smiley face at the end of the article. |
JimH wrote:
You hit the nail on the head John. Hell, just look at the OT news stories they continuously post.... Point to ONE news story I have posted DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? NOYB wrote: Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Because the way to Syria and Iran was through Iraq. Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy... ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list. They were "quasi" cooperating. Handing over Saddam's half-brother two years after the invasion speaks to their complicity to provide sanctuary to Baathists...not to their cooperation. Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand? No. They've been working toward it for awhile. We needed a base of operations and a means to put some military pressure on them. Prior to invading Iraq, all we could do was send diplomats to the region to beg and plea. I don't know what it will take to make you understand that our action in Iraq sent an extremely strong statement to the rest of the Middle East that we mean business. And it sent a message to the citizens of those other countries that we would stand by them when they're ready to stand up and fight for their own democracy. Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other miserable foreign policy failures? Their foreign policy goal was to democratize the Middle East so the hatred of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have a chance to take root. It was being fostered by the suppressive control of the ruling parties. And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? No With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). And? Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations. It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner himself). Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration has done, Ha! and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region. Sure it will. In case you haven't noticed, Syria ain't too popular in the region right now. It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than they could have done the same thing. Huh? But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far, maybe this really is a huge success for them! You guys discounted the significance of ousting the Taliban and creating a democratically elected government in Afghanistan. You discounted the significance of Qaddafi opening his country's weapons programs to inspection. You discounted the significance of ousting Saddam. You discounted the significance of the Iraqi elections. You discounted the significance of the fact that we're in our 4th year without a terrorist attack on our soil. You discounted the fact that Bush has made amends with Europe and received concessions for them to help with the rebuilding of Iraq. You discounted the fact that Mubarak opened up elections for the first time in more than 25 years. You discounted the fact that France is working with us on insisting that Syria withdraw from Lebanon. You discount the fact that tens of thousands of Lebanese protesters are marching in unison to demand that Syria withdraw. You discount the fact that Syria now mysteriously "finds" Saddam's half-brother hiding in their country. You continue to "misunderestimate" Bush. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:03 -0500, DSK wrote: Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... NOBBY quote: Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it was too dangerous in Lebanon? BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there and saw much of it first-hand. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until now? I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job. DSK What George doesn't get done in the next four years, Jeb will finish! I can hear the 2008 campaign slogan now: "Eight more years! Eight more years!" |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:45:49 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come to the middle east. I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so." You're wrong (again). I am hopeful that both sides will come to their senses and that peace will arise. You seem to cling to the illusion that only brainless cheerleading for Bush & Cheney is "positive." But the facts are against you, which why you count your ignorance as your good fortune. DSK No. I'm not wrong. I do find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come out of anything while Bush is in power. I sure hope you catch your tail. Have a good day. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:15:00 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:03 -0500, DSK wrote: Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong country at the wrong time... NOBBY quote: Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005 From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it was too dangerous in Lebanon? BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there and saw much of it first-hand. So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until now? I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job. DSK What George doesn't get done in the next four years, Jeb will finish! I can hear the 2008 campaign slogan now: "Eight more years! Eight more years!" Definitely has a ring to it! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote: So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? NOYB wrote: Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace. And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy... ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list. Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand? Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other miserable foreign policy failures? And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism. Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success? You're kidding, right? No With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating). And? Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations. It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner himself). Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region. It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than they could have done the same thing. But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far, maybe this really is a huge success for them! DSK Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come to the middle east. I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so." John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes You hit the nail on the head John. Hell, just look at the OT news stories they continuously post....they go out of their way to focus on the doom and gloom. Look at the post this morning from a certain member here about the 100 or so dead in Iraq from the suicide bomber....it was like he was getting some sort of pleasure in posting it. The only thing missing was his little smiley face at the end of the article. Sorry, did not proof read before posting. Edit made. |
John H wrote:
No. I'm not wrong. Of course you have to believe that, but why is it that you can never come up with any facts to support your statements? ... I do find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come out of anything while Bush is in power. Why? Because deep down in your heart of hearts, you know what a money-grubbing hypocrit GWB Jr is, and you dooubt any good can ever come of his actions? DSK |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:01:55 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: No. I'm not wrong. Of course you have to believe that, but why is it that you can never come up with any facts to support your statements? ... I do find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good to come out of anything while Bush is in power. Why? Because deep down in your heart of hearts, you know what a money-grubbing hypocrit GWB Jr is, and you dooubt any good can ever come of his actions? DSK Like I say, I hope you catch your tail. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com