Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?

Are you rethinking any of this yet?

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:33:02 -0400, DSK wrote:

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?

Are you rethinking any of this yet?

DSK

He's probably got more important things on his mind right now, like boarding up
his house.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

PocoLoco wrote:
He's probably got more important things on his mind right now, like boarding up
his house.


Are you saying he doesn't have internet access wherever he's evacuated
to? Tsk tsk.

And if Bush *did* cause the hurricanes (as some imply), then he's got
even more reason to make it a priority to re-think his positions on
these things.

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:13:23 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
He's probably got more important things on his mind right now, like boarding up
his house.


Are you saying he doesn't have internet access wherever he's evacuated
to? Tsk tsk.

And if Bush *did* cause the hurricanes (as some imply), then he's got
even more reason to make it a priority to re-think his positions on
these things.

DSK

He probably doesn't carry his keyboard and monitor around to answer your
questions while he's nailing and screwing sheets of plywood to his windows!

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?

They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?

Are you rethinking any of this yet?

Here's mo

http://reformsyria.org/Archives/docu...ing%20Iraq.pdf

Former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has confirmed that Saddam

Hussein sent convoys to Syria full of "Iraqi equipment" that could not be
identified,

and that they could possibly have had weapons of mass destruction. He
confirmed

that senior Iraqi scientific and military officials who would have access to
technical

documentation and knowledge of the programs fled to Syria immediately before
and

during the war. [8] According to intelligence gathering, the major transfer
of WMD

goods from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon occurred between January and March of
2003.

However, the first shipments occurred even before then. In December of 2002,
Israel

claimed that Syria was hiding Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, chemical
and

biological components and munitions. [9] The shipments were reportedly
negotiated

between Bashar Assad's younger brother, Maher, and Saddam Hussein. Following

their meeting, Syria agreed to harbor WMDs and officials should inspections
begin

again. [10]



Israeli intelligence says that between January 10th and March 10th, the
transfer of

Iraqi chemical (and possibly biological) weapons to Syria and Lebanon's
Bekaa Valley

was completed. They were placed in giant tankers and taken to Syria, and
then to

the Bekaa Valley under the protection of Syrian special forces and air-force

intelligence units. Syrian army engineers then took over supervising the
tankers at

the poppy fields and used special drilling equipment to dig holes
approximately 20-

26 feet across and 82-115 feet deep. The weapons were buried under the poppy

fields grown for heroin and under the rows of cotton plants in two of the
most fertile

regions of Lebanon. This is done because the local population is farmers
(less dense

population) and the poppy and cotton fields will grow over the holes
extremely

quickly. This is at the valley stretching between Jabal Akroum, the town of
al-

Qbayyat and the Syrian border.



Weapons were also hidden at the land between the towns of al-Hirmil and
al-Labwah

between the Orontes River and the Syrian border. Israeli satellite photos
showed it

occurred at night and the crews wore protective suits. The local farmers
were

reportedly bribed into not saying anything, but we can also not rule out
threats.

Intelligence sources indicate that satellite photos prove the whole transfer
here took

place. [11]

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
PocoLoco wrote:
He's probably got more important things on his mind right now, like
boarding up
his house.

Electric shutters are a God-send!




Are you saying he doesn't have internet access wherever he's evacuated to?
Tsk tsk.


I will. But I haven't evacuated yet. Tied up the boat, gassed up and
packed up the SUV, and will split tomorrow morning if the models are all
still the same when I wake up.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


NOYB wrote:
They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."


So, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria? I guess because Syria has no oil?

If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least
unveil them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie
whackos believe this news you quote)?

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


NOYB wrote:
They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the
U.S.-led war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the
contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed.
Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned
by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But
all they knew was that the convoys were heading west to Syria."


So, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria? I guess because Syria has no
oil?

The convoy was spotted as we were invading Iraq. Iraq is a much more vital
cog in the wheel for our plan in the Middle East. And, yes, oil is *part*
(and only part) of the reason.





If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least unveil
them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie whackos
believe this news you quote)?


Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq.

Regardless, the latest revelation of Syrian ties to the assassination of
Hariri will now force Russia to sit on the sidelines as a case for regime
change is made before the UN against Assad.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least unveil
them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie whackos
believe this news you quote)?



NOYB wrote:
Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq.


Oh, are the Russians our pals now? Maybe because of the nuclear material
they're selling to Iran, we should keep a "hands off" approach?

And besides, I've personally watch US missiles on a scope as they
slammed into Syrian and Jordanian anti-air sites, killing Russian
technicians. Perhaps a bit of a risky power play, but they took the risk
of backing the loser.

Frankly if the Iraqi WMDs existed in the post Gulf War era (which the
best US intel now doubts strongly) and if they went to Syria (which
nobody except a handful of fascist half-wits believe) then your
"reasons" are little more than lame excuses. Those WMDs (if they exist)
constitute a SERIOUS threat, perhaps an even greater one if laying
around in Syria where there are all kinds of uncontrolled half-baked
fundie hellraisers instead of Iraq, where a very strong & well
disciplined force controlled by a very secular gov't kept the terrorists
out.



Regardless, the latest revelation of Syrian ties to the assassination of
Hariri will now force Russia to sit on the sidelines as a case for regime
change is made before the UN against Assad.


I thought the UN was ineffective? I thought the UN was corrupt?

Can't you "neo-conservatives" make up your minds?

BTW I am glad to hear that you pulled thru the hurricane OK.

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

I thought the UN was ineffective? I thought the UN was corrupt?

it is. it is

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:11:46 -0400, DSK wrote:


Frankly if the Iraqi WMDs existed in the post Gulf War era (which the best
US intel now doubts strongly) and if they went to Syria (which nobody
except a handful of fascist half-wits believe) then your "reasons" are
little more than lame excuses. Those WMDs (if they exist) constitute a
SERIOUS threat, perhaps an even greater one if laying around in Syria
where there are all kinds of uncontrolled half-baked fundie hellraisers
instead of Iraq, where a very strong & well disciplined force controlled
by a very secular gov't kept the terrorists out.


Yeah, it's a little difficult selling the world as a "safer place" with
all those WMDs unaccounted for, if they existed. Something else to note,
the nitwit in charge has marginalized the two *secular* states in the
area, Syria and Iraq. This has proved a boon for the area's fundie state,
Iran. We've eliminated one of their sworn enemies, Iraq, and added to
Iran's sphere of influence, the Iraqi Shias. If Iraq doesn't hold
together, and it's still an even money bet, we have destabilized the
entire area. There will likely be a Kurdish state, something Turkey very
much wants to avoid, and the big player in the area, will not be the US,
it will be Iran. Pure genius, this President we are saddled with.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least
unveil them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie
whackos believe this news you quote)?



NOYB wrote:
Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with
Iraq.


Oh, are the Russians our pals now?

No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.

Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?


No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.

Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry said
Wednesday, according to Russian news reports.

"Russia opposes sanctions against Syria," Mikhail Kamynin said while
accompanying Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on a trip to Israel, according
to the Interfax, Itar-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies. "Russia will be
doing everything necessary to prevent attempts to impose sanctions against
Syria."



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...be_Russia.html

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

Oh, are the Russians our pals now?


NOYB wrote:
No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin
really really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?





Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?



No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.


Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.

Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria

Yep.

One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.
He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S.
exerted a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.

We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too;
although somebody will first have to convince President Bush that
torture is for bad guys.

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Oh, are the Russians our pals now?


NOYB wrote:
No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin really
really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?

Diplomatic blackmail. Bush had Putin dead to rights on a number of issues:
violating the Iraqi sanctions by shipping them arms, helping Saddam smuggle
out WMD, and running interference for Iraq at the UN.









Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?



No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.


Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil. The
Russians aren't that foolhardy.


Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria

Yep.

One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.


He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S. exerted
a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.

Hogwash. Any country which supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah, is in
no way a potential ally to the US.



We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too; although
somebody will first have to convince President Bush that torture is for
bad guys.

President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys. All of those bad
guys in US military prisons.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin really
really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?


NOYB wrote:
Diplomatic blackmail. Bush had Putin dead to rights on a number of issues:
violating the Iraqi sanctions by shipping them arms, helping Saddam smuggle
out WMD, and running interference for Iraq at the UN.


And that was why you thought Putin's endorsement was good for Push??


Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.


We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?

... The
Russians aren't that foolhardy.


No, they're very smart. That's why they would be perfectly willing to
sell nukes to some terrorists and possibly even help them deliver it via
shipping container. Plus they need the money.

But hey, aren't we all glad that President Bush's crackerjack Homeland
Security Team is 100% on-the-ball, right?


One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.



He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


Baloney. I suppose this comes out of the same spew that provides all the
ranting about Iran's insurgency is all foreigners.




He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S. exerted
a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.


Hogwash. Any country which supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah, is in
no way a potential ally to the US.


Yep.

BTW Hezbollah is supported more by Iran than by Syria. And they have a
large political wing which gives them a stake in realistic solutions. If
we get Syria to pull back (which would take some smarts & some time)
then that gives Hezbollah an even bigger reason to play nice.

But I suppose you must rant & rave about how they are evil violent
fundamentalists (while ignoring the fact that you're a fundamentalist
advocate of violence yourself) & we should kill them all, somehow.




We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too; although
somebody will first have to convince President Bush that torture is for
bad guys.


President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys.

Then why did he promise to veto a bill defining torture as against US
policy? Or are you saying that President Bush is one of the bad guys?

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin really
really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?


NOYB wrote:
Diplomatic blackmail. Bush had Putin dead to rights on a number of
issues: violating the Iraqi sanctions by shipping them arms, helping
Saddam smuggle out WMD, and running interference for Iraq at the UN.


And that was why you thought Putin's endorsement was good for Push??


It helped reassure the last-minute uninformed/undecideds who couldn't make
up their minds who to vote for.

Those folks seem to care an awful bunch about what other nations like Russia
think about us.



Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.


We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.



... The Russians aren't that foolhardy.


No, they're very smart. That's why they would be perfectly willing to sell
nukes to some terrorists and possibly even help them deliver it via
shipping container. Plus they need the money.

But hey, aren't we all glad that President Bush's crackerjack Homeland
Security Team is 100% on-the-ball, right?


One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.



He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


Baloney. I suppose this comes out of the same spew that provides all the
ranting about Iran's insurgency is all foreigners.


The true native Iraqi "insurgents" are no longer very effective at killing
American and Iraq military and police forces. Though they may outnumber the
foreign fighters, their actions account for very few of the more recent
(within 6 months) American and Iraqi casualties.

"American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of
the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at
civilians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/in...21baghdad.html




He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S.
exerted a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.


Hogwash. Any country which supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah, is
in no way a potential ally to the US.


Yep.

BTW Hezbollah is supported more by Iran than by Syria. And they have a
large political wing which gives them a stake in realistic solutions.

Iran uses Syria (and much of formerly Syrian-controlled Lebanon) as a
Hezbollah supply route. In this way, Syria is just as much to blame.

If we get Syria to pull back (which would take some smarts & some time)
then that gives Hezbollah an even bigger reason to play nice.

Syria already pulled their troops out of Lebanon...but much of its
intelligence agency and Hezbollah-support network remains behind. It was
those elements that killed Hariri. Bush and our European allies tried to do
just as you proposed...but the assassination threw a monkey wrench into the
plan. That's why there's so much outrage among the US, UK, and France over
the assassination.




But I suppose you must rant & rave about how they are evil violent
fundamentalists (while ignoring the fact that you're a fundamentalist
advocate of violence yourself) & we should kill them all, somehow.


But I belong to the militarily stronger fundamentalist group.




We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too; although
somebody will first have to convince President Bush that torture is for
bad guys.


President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys.

Then why did he promise to veto a bill defining torture as against US
policy? Or are you saying that President Bush is one of the bad guys?

No. I'm saying that he knows to use torture only on the really bad guys.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?


NOYB wrote:
From the isotopic signature.


Tell you what... I don't think so, and I bet the Russians don't either.



He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


Baloney. I suppose this comes out of the same spew that provides all the
ranting about Iran's insurgency is all foreigners.



The true native Iraqi "insurgents" are no longer very effective at killing
American and Iraq military and police forces.

Really? They've done a heck of a lot of it, but I suppose if you compare
them to the NVA then yeah, they're not as effective.

Are we going to stay in Iraq until the casualty count hit 50K +? I
sincerely hope NOT!




... Though they may outnumber the
foreign fighters, their actions account for very few of the more recent
(within 6 months) American and Iraqi casualties.


Says who?

Suicide bombers and insurgents aren't the same thing.

"American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of
the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at
civilians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/in...21baghdad.html


blah blah blah
You're talking about apples and trying to convince everyone it means
oranges.

You'd have better luck quoting this source: "The insurgency in Iraq is
on it's last legs" - Vice President Dick Cheney


... Hezbollah is supported more by Iran than by Syria. And they have a
large political wing which gives them a stake in realistic solutions.


Iran uses Syria (and much of formerly Syrian-controlled Lebanon) as a
Hezbollah supply route. In this way, Syria is just as much to blame.


I'd agree. We should be concentrating on chopping them off at the knees,
not destabilizing the whole region.





If we get Syria to pull back (which would take some smarts & some time)
then that gives Hezbollah an even bigger reason to play nice.


Syria already pulled their troops out of Lebanon...but much of its
intelligence agency and Hezbollah-support network remains behind.

Umm, for the third time: Hezbollah is neither Syrian nor Iranian. They
are primarily Palestinian but with pan-Arab roots (or pretenses to that,
anyway). Their main enemy is Israel, and their main antagonist is the
whole Western concept of secularism.

If you want to pick a fight, identifying the enemy makes a good first
step, nyet?



.... It was
those elements that killed Hariri. Bush and our European allies tried to do
just as you proposed...but the assassination threw a monkey wrench into the
plan.

Not really. The assassination was a tragedy for Lebanon but also
strengthened the hand of the pro-Western moderates. That's true inside
Syria as well, and we would be smart to encourage that development.






But I suppose you must rant & rave about how they are evil violent
fundamentalists (while ignoring the fact that you're a fundamentalist
advocate of violence yourself) & we should kill them all, somehow.



But I belong to the militarily stronger fundamentalist group.


That's what General Westmoreland said in 1967.



President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys.

Then why did he promise to veto a bill defining torture as against US
policy? Or are you saying that President Bush is one of the bad guys?


No. I'm saying that he knows to use torture only on the really bad guys.



So, using brutal & evil methods is really good IYHO?

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

NOYB wrote:

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.


Bull****!! Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and
origin) can be determined. BUT, "origin" in this case means what base
materials it came from NOT what country!! If you don't have an example,
you'd still not know even after obtaining the isotopic signature.
Signature is used for things like, say Chernobyl. They have the
original material, the reactor fuel, so, when they find a radionuclide
compostition, they can then compare the signature with the original.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?


NOYB wrote:
From the isotopic signature.


Tell you what... I don't think so, and I bet the Russians don't either.



He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


Baloney. I suppose this comes out of the same spew that provides all the
ranting about Iran's insurgency is all foreigners.



The true native Iraqi "insurgents" are no longer very effective at
killing American and Iraq military and police forces.

Really? They've done a heck of a lot of it, but I suppose if you compare
them to the NVA then yeah, they're not as effective.

Are we going to stay in Iraq until the casualty count hit 50K +? I
sincerely hope NOT!

At the current rate, that would take about 62 years.
I simply don't see the analogy to Vietnam.






... Though they may outnumber the foreign fighters, their actions
account for very few of the more recent (within 6 months) American and
Iraqi casualties.


Says who?

Suicide bombers and insurgents aren't the same thing.

"American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of
the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at
civilians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/in...21baghdad.html


blah blah blah
You're talking about apples and trying to convince everyone it means
oranges.



You'd have better luck quoting this source: "The insurgency in Iraq is on
it's last legs" - Vice President Dick Cheney

It is. Don't confuse domestic insurgents with foreign-born terrorists.

But even if you do, then consider the fact that the foreign-born terrorists
that we're facing now are much younger (boys even!), and not as
well-trained.


Question: How is the state of the insurgency different today than
when you arrived to start your mission?



COL. BROWN: There's a significant difference from when we got here last
October. Last October, we faced a foreign fighter that was very
well-trained.



And as we got to February and March, we saw a completely different foreign
fighter. We've captured Libyans. We've captured Saudi, Yemenis, Algerians






And very interesting that younger foreign fighter that we're seeing now --
very poorly trained. We would call them more like RPGs for hire. And we
believe it's the -- we know that the leadership is severely disrupted.
Again, from -- about 25 percent of the attacks were very complex prior to
elections, as I described. Now we're down to five percent are complex. And
we're at the lowest number of attacks by far over the last three months.
And that is -- clearly the foreign network is disrupted. The leadership is
severely disrupted. We captured Abu Talha, the number-two al Qaeda leader
in the north of Iraq. And right after that we got Abu Bara, Madhi Musa
(sp), Abu Zab (sp), the next six leaders that would step up and take over.
Nobody's taken over now. It's not a very popular position because if they
step up, they get captured or killed. And so they're really disrupted,
totally different.


The other thing -- the other huge change is the population. And in a
counterinsurgency, of course, the terrorists don't have to -- the people
don't have to love them; they just have to remain neutral and not turn them
in. And when we got here, the people were intimidated, and they were
neutral. Now they are turning them in. We'd like to call it, you know, the
terrorists swim in a sea of anonymity, and that sea has been taken away from
them.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2...0914-3903.html





... Hezbollah is supported more by Iran than by Syria. And they have a
large political wing which gives them a stake in realistic solutions.


Iran uses Syria (and much of formerly Syrian-controlled Lebanon) as a
Hezbollah supply route. In this way, Syria is just as much to blame.


I'd agree. We should be concentrating on chopping them off at the knees,
not destabilizing the whole region.





If we get Syria to pull back (which would take some smarts & some time)
then that gives Hezbollah an even bigger reason to play nice.


Syria already pulled their troops out of Lebanon...but much of its
intelligence agency and Hezbollah-support network remains behind.




Umm, for the third time: Hezbollah is neither Syrian nor Iranian.

No kidding. That's why I said "Hezbollah-support network".


They are primarily Palestinian but with pan-Arab roots (or pretenses to
that, anyway). Their main enemy is Israel, and their main antagonist is the
whole Western concept of secularism.




If you want to pick a fight, identifying the enemy makes a good first
step, nyet?


The enemy is any country providing assistance to the terrorist groups (like
al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad)



.... It was those elements that killed Hariri. Bush and our European
allies tried to do just as you proposed...but the assassination threw a
monkey wrench into the plan.

Not really. The assassination was a tragedy for Lebanon but also
strengthened the hand of the pro-Western moderates. That's true inside
Syria as well, and we would be smart to encourage that development.

That may have been the net outcome...especially now that it's been shown
that
Syria played a role in the assassination. But that certainly wasn't what
Assad
thought would happen.








But I suppose you must rant & rave about how they are evil violent
fundamentalists (while ignoring the fact that you're a fundamentalist
advocate of violence yourself) & we should kill them all, somehow.



But I belong to the militarily stronger fundamentalist group.


That's what General Westmoreland said in 1967.


He was right. But support wavered at home because of a strong anti-war
movement that eroded the morale and fighting capabilities of the military.

That's why it's so important to at least present to the enemy the image of a
united front here at home...even if we disagree behind closed doors.






President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys.

Then why did he promise to veto a bill defining torture as against US
policy? Or are you saying that President Bush is one of the bad guys?


No. I'm saying that he knows to use torture only on the really bad guys.

So, using brutal & evil methods is really good IYHO?

Only on evil and brutal people who would do the same to you if the situation
was reversed.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

NOYB wrote:

Only on evil and brutal people who would do the same to you if the situation
was reversed.

So are you saying that the people of Iraq are right in killing U.S.
soldiers? After all, they've done nothing to us, we invaded their
country under false pretenses and bombed their houses and
infrastructure, and killed their families.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.


Bull****!! Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and
origin) can be determined.

Hehehe. You snipped that part directly from Wikipedia...right down to the
placement of the parentheses:

"Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and origin) can be
determined by mass spectroscopy or by gamma spectrometry "

Did you read futher? About the isotope ratios?

"Ratios of 152Eu/155Eu, 154Eu/155Eu, and 238Pu/239Pu are also different for
fusion and fission nuclear weapons, which allows identification of hot
particles of unknown origin. "

If you're going to plagiarize a website, at least be smart enough to
understand what you're plagiarizing.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.


Bull****!! Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and
origin) can be determined.

Hehehe. You snipped that part directly from Wikipedia...right down to the
placement of the parentheses:

"Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and origin) can be
determined by mass spectroscopy or by gamma spectrometry "

Did you read futher? About the isotope ratios?

"Ratios of 152Eu/155Eu, 154Eu/155Eu, and 238Pu/239Pu are also different
for
fusion and fission nuclear weapons, which allows identification of hot
particles of unknown origin. "

If you're going to plagiarize a website, at least be smart enough to
understand what you're plagiarizing.

Kevin is barely smart enough to post to a NG.

ANd he wonders why he is the "King"

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

I love it when Kevin cut and paste's an article and the article disproves
his premise, but he is not able to understand it.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US
soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.


Bull****!! Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and
origin) can be determined.

Hehehe. You snipped that part directly from Wikipedia...right down to
the
placement of the parentheses:

"Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and origin) can be
determined by mass spectroscopy or by gamma spectrometry "

Did you read futher? About the isotope ratios?

"Ratios of 152Eu/155Eu, 154Eu/155Eu, and 238Pu/239Pu are also different
for
fusion and fission nuclear weapons, which allows identification of hot
particles of unknown origin. "

If you're going to plagiarize a website, at least be smart enough to
understand what you're plagiarizing.

Kevin is barely smart enough to post to a NG.

ANd he wonders why he is the "King"

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

Yes.........he does a lot of "asssimilating" about what he is posting

LMAO

"Smith Smithers" wrote in message
...
I love it when Kevin cut and paste's an article and the article disproves
his premise, but he is not able to understand it.


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US
soil.

How?

From the isotopic signature.


Bull****!! Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and
origin) can be determined.

Hehehe. You snipped that part directly from Wikipedia...right down to
the
placement of the parentheses:

"Their radionuclide composition (and thus their age and origin) can be
determined by mass spectroscopy or by gamma spectrometry "

Did you read futher? About the isotope ratios?

"Ratios of 152Eu/155Eu, 154Eu/155Eu, and 238Pu/239Pu are also
different
for
fusion and fission nuclear weapons, which allows identification of hot
particles of unknown origin. "

If you're going to plagiarize a website, at least be smart enough to
understand what you're plagiarizing.

Kevin is barely smart enough to post to a NG.

ANd he wonders why he is the "King"

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

Only on evil and brutal people who would do the same to you if the
situation
was reversed.

So are you saying that the people of Iraq are right in killing U.S.
soldiers?

Pssst. Here's a newsflash: 90% of the bombings over there are being done
by foreigners...not Iraqis.

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

You'd have better luck quoting this source: "The insurgency in Iraq is on
it's last legs" - Vice President Dick Cheney


NOYB wrote:
It is. Don't confuse domestic insurgents with foreign-born terrorists.


I'm not confusing anything. I'm not the one who has something to gain by
obfuscating & sowing confusion.



Umm, for the third time: Hezbollah is neither Syrian nor Iranian.


No kidding. That's why I said "Hezbollah-support network".


And- big news flash here- their support network is NOT the whole country
& 100% of it's population.

We can get rid of support for fundamentalist Muslim terrorism by
strengthening those moderate and pro-Western and secular elements within
those countries.

We won't get anywhere by bashing around like a bull in a china shop,
sowing hatred for America, destroying moderates & radical fundies alike,
and pretending that there's no difference.

That's the equivalent of saying 'the only good rag-head is a dead
rag-head' which might go over real well with the Bush-Cheney power base,
but will lead to dramatic failure & increased terrorism for the future.

If you want to pick a fight, identifying the enemy makes a good first
step, nyet?



The enemy is any country providing assistance to the terrorist groups (like
al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad)


Wrong. You simply don't understand the concept of gathering allies, do you?



.... It was those elements that killed Hariri. Bush and our European
allies tried to do just as you proposed...but the assassination threw a
monkey wrench into the plan.

Not really. The assassination was a tragedy for Lebanon but also
strengthened the hand of the pro-Western moderates. That's true inside
Syria as well, and we would be smart to encourage that development.


That may have been the net outcome...especially now that it's been shown
that
Syria played a role in the assassination. But that certainly wasn't what
Assad
thought would happen.


How do you know? From what I have read, Assad is not dumb and he's not
in favor of turning Syria into a fundamentalist Islamic state. It looks
to me (and to many people who study the situation more closely than I)
that Assad is trying to modernize & Westernize Syria and is opposed by
right wingers & fundamentalists in his own gov't & army.


But hey, let's throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's smash the
whole place and kill a lot of Syrians indiscriminantly. It won't bring
about stability, and it damn sure won't bring about a stable pro-Western
moderate secular gov't, but it will allow the funneling of more billion$
into Halliburton's pockets and it'll play well to the dumb-ass
right-wingers here at home.


But I suppose you must rant & rave about how they are evil violent
fundamentalists (while ignoring the fact that you're a fundamentalist
advocate of violence yourself) & we should kill them all, somehow.



But I belong to the militarily stronger fundamentalist group.


That's what General Westmoreland said in 1967.



He was right. But support wavered at home because of a strong anti-war
movement that eroded the morale and fighting capabilities of the military.


I see. You believe that we lost the war in Viet Nam because of the
hippies waving signs on college campusses?

Actually, the war protest did not "erode the morale & fighting
capabilities of the military" at all. Not one iota. The problem was a
total lack of strategic ability to *defeat* the enemy, coupled with an
inability to install a stable & productive gov't in South Viet Nam.

But hey, it's simpler to just hate the leftie pinko fag traitors, isn't
it? The less thinking, the better, right?



So, using brutal & evil methods is really good IYHO?


Only on evil and brutal people who would do the same to you if the situation
was reversed.


I get it. You support the use of brutal & evil methods because you hate
the people our gov't wants to use them on. In other words, you're on the
same moral level as the terrorists, and you want the U.S. to be an evil
corrupt militaristic state.

Well, I don't. And frankly, I hope your side fails in its attempt.

DSK

Hey NOYB... about this Syria stuff
 

NOYB wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

So are you saying that the people of Iraq are right in killing U.S.
soldiers?

Pssst. Here's a newsflash: 90% of the bombings over there are being done
by foreigners...not Iraqis.

You might also want to advise yahoo that experts have been predicting
WWIII would be between islamic fundamentalists and the west, and that
they've been saying that for more than two decades. We could be at
beginnings of this unavoidable war, with the real threat coming from
Korean engineered nukes launched from...Iran. They hate us, and have
ever since Carter screwed the pooch.

Bottom line...the world respects strength, not namby-pamby yapping dog
Dems.

--
Skipper