Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut

43 minutes ago

By Nadim Ladki

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded
central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big
surprise.

Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose
governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to
deal with them is now.

NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big
surprise.

Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose
governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to
deal with them is now.


The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and
overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last
week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush
Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up
to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready.

So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror"
has largely been ineffective?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big
surprise.

Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose
governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to
deal with them is now.


The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and
overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq.

We would we have staged from for an attack on Iran?



And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa.


Last week? Horsepoop. You obviously don't read much. Here's a billed
introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (yep...that's the current
minority leader) and Congressman Rick Santorum, and passed by Congress on
May 1, 2003:

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s982.html

Here's an excerpt:
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

Wow! You mean to tell me that all this happened almost two years ago? But
I thought you just said that Syria was being friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush administration? Then why the need to introduce an
"Accountability Bill" in regards to Syria?

Don't you feel stupid now, Dougie?





Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own
stable of terrorists at the ready.

We're cozying up to Pakistan because: a) Musharraf is also at war with the
radical fundamentalists in his country, and b) the country has nukes, which
could end up in the hands of those fundamentalists.

And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa.


NOYB wrote:
Last week? Horsepoop.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.

And unfortunately, that's the truth.

... You obviously don't read much.

Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock
in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political
tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa.


NOYB wrote:
Last week? Horsepoop.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.


So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their
cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


And unfortunately, that's the truth.

... You obviously don't read much.

Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock
in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political
tub-thumping

Hehehe. So my citing the 2003 "Syria Accountability Act" is editing and
spinning, eh? You're becoming a lost cause.

If you read the bill, it's quite clear that the idea of holding Syria's feet
to the fire is nothing new.

BTW--Why did you snip the following?

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that
same year.

It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq.
Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by
Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed
by a Democratic president.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.



NOYB wrote:
So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their
cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic and amoral?


This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that
same year.

It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq.
Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by
Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed
by a Democratic president.


And yet, Bush didn't do a darn thing about it for a couple of years...
let's see now, Iraq had *nothing* to do with Sept 11th, and *no*
connection with Al Queda or anti-American terrorism, and yet with a bill
ready & waiting to justify disrupting Syria's ties to those terrorist
organizations, Bush & Cheney chose to waste American lives and
bazillions of dollars invading Iraq.

DSK

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:04 -0500, DSK wrote:

And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa.


NOYB wrote:
Last week? Horsepoop.

Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their
own purposes.

And unfortunately, that's the truth.

... You obviously don't read much.

Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock
in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political
tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can.

DSK

In other words, Doug, you really think Rather ought to keep his job, correct?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:31:25 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big
surprise.

Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose
governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to
deal with them is now.


The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and
overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last
week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush
Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up
to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready.

So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror"
has largely been ineffective?

DSK

Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over.

You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years
ago.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over.


Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then.

You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years
ago.


Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do
more business with Saddam.

DSK

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:50:17 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over.


Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then.

You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years
ago.


Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do
more business with Saddam.

DSK

Humble opinions are something we all have.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."