Stupidest Ceasefire and UN resolution yet [Archive]

kinein

08-15-2006, 09:00 PM

It's been a semi quiet scene in the Middle East the last 36 hours. Despite that has anyone looked at all the facts? The UN has yet to deploy more soldiers, UNIFIL as it is has deployed along the border. But they can only observe and right now France is already demanding the UN define their rules of engagement. So it seems that France is already worried about what it is going into. Poor bastards, haven't even commited any forces as they are waiting to see what the Malaysians and other Muslim countries will commit. NOTE : I cannot recall when the Muslims actually sent a sizeable force to actively ensure the peace. 15,000 is sizeable but not strong enough if it is forced to fight Hezbollah and Israel at the same time.

Another issue is that the Lebanese government already is redefining the resolution on their own saying that Hezbollah does not have to disarm. Also it has stated that Hezbollah does not have to pull out it's weapons, mortars, and empty out their bunkers back beyond the Litani river.

The kicker is the Lebanese military has stated it will not deploy to the south unless Hezbollah disarms and withdraws completely past the Litani.

Hezbollah has stated it will only ALLOW the Lebanese military to deploy into southern Lebanon if it does not look for the bunkers, nor does it search the bunkers nor does it interfere with anyone that belongs to Hezbollah.

** DOES ANYONE NOT THINK THIS IS THE STUPIDEST UN CALL FOR A CEASEFIRE EVER ?! ** Obviously Kofi Annan , France, Malaysia, the Middle East in general and much of the EU looks completely STUPID. What point to deploy and rebuild when they are just going thru the same motions the UN has repeated ever since the first war where the Arabs invaded Israel !?

I hope people have been paying attention to Iran and Syria. If anyone noticed Iran Syria and the Lebanese government have been praising Hezbollah. I saw images of the Iranian president making a huge speech before thousands as Hezbollah flags waved in the wind all around him and the stage. When are we going to nuke them and get it over with ?

Did anyone bother to listen to his interview with Mike Wallace?

Has anyone seen the pictures from his Holocaust Cartoon contest?

-_-

THIS IS STUPID! NOTHING GOOD WILL COME OF THIS. But at least for the time being the US is not commiting soldiers to this stupidity. I understand the US has a responsibility as the world's sole superpower but the US has a responsibility first and foremost to it's people. That means not to get involved in stupidity led by the losingest country in history and the UN, the biggest joke besides the ACLU.

Johannes

08-16-2006, 09:38 AM

More or less the same speech was given by both Assad and Ahminedhajad, and it's not entirely inaccurate to say that Hezbollah comes out the winner. More to the point, to the whole Arab world they look like they fought Israel and won for the second time, and that's a very bad thing for Israel. All this has done is weaken the one "good" nation in the region.

kinein

08-16-2006, 09:59 AM

Woohoo :) Glad to see your alive and well Johannes! I think it's amusing the UN and Kofi Annan haven't gone ahead and also gotten Iran and Syria to stop funding, supporting and training Hezbollah. If they really want to stop the violence they're going to stop where it's all coming from. But I don't see Kofi or the UN having the courage to do so.

In the latest rumors straight from the US Secretary of State, Lebanon's military is supposed to be the head of the spear while the UN force will be it's support. I don't see how that is going to work at all. The tip does not want to tangle with Hezbollah, and so even if the support is "decent" the tip will still break. This is of course just a possibility, but it appears Hezbollah is already dictating the terms of the ceasefire within Lebanon.

The most horrifying update from the UN has been that it will take roughly a year to deploy the full 15,000 as mentioned in the UN resolution. Mainly because the muslim nations don't want to actually have to pony up the main manpower and the others want the UN to say they can shoot back and kill Hezbollah to enforce the ceasefire,disarming of hezbollah, and to defend themselves.
Either way I think everyone knows that if Hezbollah isn't removed militarily well past the Litani river that there is a billion to 1 chance that the ceasefire will go under. All it takes is for Hezbollah to move a new type of missle or move more people into position to attack Israel.

Israel isn't going to sit and watch a even larger group of UN OBSERVERS do nothing.

With the public on the side of Israel screaming for blood in light of statements from Nasrallah, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria. You are going to see a more brutal conflict emerge to save face and to end the threat permanently. I agree that because Israel heeded this ceasefire the Muslim fanatics around the world can cheer that they won. Sad thing is they think surviving = winning and this in turn will boost morale and increase recruitment. This is a conflict where no quarter can be given for the enemy because it is also a fight for public opinion via the media globally.

Johannes

08-17-2006, 08:43 AM

And now Syria is deploying their own version of Hezbollah against the Shabaa farms and Golan Heights. Israel blew this one, and the consequences may be dire.

shoboy

08-17-2006, 04:17 PM

This is all the start of what very well may be world war 3. Only this time, it will be against a bunch of religious nutjobs who cant wait to die so long as they take you with them.......................

But "TRUE" islam is a religion of peace...........well "TRUE" islam needs to get off of it's a** and start taking the nutjobs down a few notches. But we are not seeing that now are we..............?

kinein

08-17-2006, 11:30 PM

You know I've heard that talk for a long time. I honestly do believe some practice their own "nerfed" version of Islam. But... Islam in general and the number of Islamic countries that support fanatical/radical Islam is appalling. Be it their school systems to actual training camps such as in Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, and many Arab countries. All they have to do is turn a blind eye to evil and let it continue as they have done for centuries.

Thud

08-18-2006, 12:16 AM

kinein

08-18-2006, 01:12 AM

Update :

France restates it's role in the whole situation after leading the charge for a paper "ceasefire" it now has stated it will commit a "SYMBOLIC" token force of 400 soldiers. The frenchies have done it again -_- Their move has been called a "disappointment", I think it's worse then that.

Italy goes from 50 to 3500 !

Also I am happy to announce that the US will be staying out of this issue. One primary concern is that Hezbollah will attempt to kill any US soldier's that are in country if they were to deploy there. Remember that Hezbollah reserves the right to attack the Israelis and since the US is a Zionist pawn we would recieve the same treatment.

Johannes

08-18-2006, 08:27 AM

Actually, you've got it backwards. Those few that practice any religion non-violently are practicing the 'true' religion while most practice the 'nerfed' version in which you can blow people up provided your God is the biggest and someone (ie - your leader) tells you it's OK. The reason most people practice the 'nerfed' version of religion is because it's easier than thinking for themselves.

That's really quite questionable. First of all, no one really practices "true" religion since that is more or less a theoretical historical construct. Secondly, historical Islam is very violent since it is very much a synthesis of trival Arab culture with monotheism. Sadly, monotheism is rather inherently violent until the faith "matures" (for lack of a better word) beyond it. So while peaceful Islam is what people like to talk about the reality is that it is a very recent creation that may not be able to survive.

BloodySloth

08-18-2006, 10:53 AM

May not be able to survive? Are you joking? Islam is the second largest religion in the world and still rapidly growing.

The truth is the islam everyone hears about on the news is NOT the majority by any means. Only 20% of all muslims are arab, and even in that 20% not all of them are militaristic loonies.

Johannes

08-18-2006, 11:09 AM

Apparently I wasn't clear. I was referring to the modern versions of Islam that doesn't call for Islamic domination. It is the minority of Muslims. Traditional Islam is quite rigid and has no problem with the subjugation of non-Muslims, rather it considers it to be the proper order of things.

kinein

08-18-2006, 02:18 PM

Traditional Islam is already strict and savage, not to mention brutal on women. But guess what?! time to return this thread back to the topic.

CEASEFIRE - UN RESOLUTION :: Thoughts updates?

* perhaps we should make a specific thread on Islam.

Johannes

08-18-2006, 02:50 PM

The UN resolution is even more ridiculous. Indonesia and Malaysia have offerred to send troops, rather ironice since neither of them will acknowledge Israel. France wants guarantees of safety for their soldiers, and is only willing to send a few hundred.

kinein

08-18-2006, 05:19 PM

I'm noticing that the current story is the UN begging the EU to live thru with it's call for a ceasefire by actually providing more then a "symbolic" force. The "400" soldiers from France..? 200 are actually already part of the UNIFIL force. So France is actually contributing 200.

Yes, the frenchies are only contributing 200 even tho they led the charge for a ceasefire. Seems some of their smarter ones actually brought up the difficulties in getting involved with defending Israel.

What they know is that if they get involved they put themselves against Hezbollah,Syria & Iran. Iran is already trying to rearm Hezbollah as stated by US weapon monitors in Lebanon.

Oh the kicker is the 400 Frenchies total are all COMBAT ENGINEERS. You know those guys that build up bases, roads, clear trees... YEAH THOSE.

The UN has been a joke for a long time. Now it won't be lonely as the EU gets to sit on the shortbus with the UN.

ROFL. WHAT A JOKE. GO FRANCE.

Thud

08-21-2006, 02:54 AM

...So while peaceful Islam is what people like to talk about the reality is that it is a very recent creation that may not be able to survive.

That's quite interesting! Personally, I think the 9th or 10th centuries CE disqualify the notion that it is "a very recent creation" but hey, maybe that's just me.

I'm sure that scholars such as Johannes are familiar with the Golden Age of Spain but for others, here's a link (and yes, it's Wikipedia but after scanning through it, it didn't seem to contradict anything else I've read...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

Johannes

08-21-2006, 06:03 AM

The Golden Age of Spain is a very nice myth. Sadly, it wasn't so golden. Unless of course you were a Muslim. Otherwise it still wasn't very nice, just moderately nicer in some ways than many Christian kingdoms at the time.

However, I do appreciate your point Thud and I will clarify. Even in the 9th and 10th centuries Islam was a faith with violence at its core. However, at that time it was certainly not alone in that. Some apologists even claim that the reason why Islam is so violent is generally in reaction to the violence of the Reconquista and Islam's military failure. They posit that therefore Islam became recidivistic and violent since they felt that their enlightenment failed.

It's a nice idea, but one not borne out by history. Again, we must consider that first and foremost Islam is a blending of monotheism with pagan Arab culture. The latter is a tribal system with all of its inherent violence, and monotheism is inherently violent. Islam was always spread with violence, and Islamic doctrines do not permit changes to the state of things - including land once it has been possesses by Muslims. This sense of manifest destiny is highly problemattic for the modern world, because according to traditional Islamic though all lands once claimed by Muslims are ever after Muslim lands. For them to be under the dominance of unbelievers is an affront to Allah, Muhammad and Islam. Even the current Prime Minister of Spain is unlikely to simply convert and demand his nation convert as well.

The unfortunate nature of monotheism is intolerant. It is fortunate that by and large both Judaism and Christianity have for lack of a better word "matured" or "evolved" to the points at which they are both at, and left violence as both a strategy and tactic by the wayside. Sadly, this is not yet the case for Islam. The reason why this is unlikely to be the case for Islam is because of several Islamic doctrines, along them the perfection of the text and the perfection of the Prophet. If the book is perfect, then passages ordering violence against unbelievers must therefore still be in force.

Chip

08-21-2006, 01:44 PM

I actually watch an interview with the church leader taht some (if not all) the UK plane attempted bombers came from a one guy said something that really tood out to me. He said Christianity is a religion that turns the other cheek, we don't believe that.

PissedJedi

08-21-2006, 02:38 PM

Its funny today my dad and I decided to just for the hell of it read up on the whole history of the region. And all this crap started Back just around World war 1. And guess what country was the one who really riled up the jewish population... it wasn't any Arabic nation.

Seriously the region was powerful.. till the Ottoman Empire fell apart.
Who knows.. what would have happened if that Empire had not fallen apart?

Chip

08-21-2006, 02:55 PM

It goes back alot farther than that. Why do you think many muslims in taht area still sound out against the crusades.

Thud

08-22-2006, 01:14 AM

The Golden Age of Spain is a very nice myth. Sadly, it wasn't so golden. Unless of course you were a Muslim. Otherwise it still wasn't very nice, just moderately nicer in some ways than many Christian kingdoms at the time.

If, by not so golden, you mean that it wasn't a time of children dancing through fields weaving garlands of flowers - OK. I think that it's important to remember though that the 9th/10th centuries CE were "nasty, brutish, and short" for the general population, no matter what their faith. Whatever the case, Jewish culture did flourish at at a time when the leaders of the country were Muslim. That's no myth.

The unfortunate nature of monotheism is intolerant. It is fortunate that by and large both Judaism and Christianity have for lack of a better word "matured" or "evolved" to the points at which they are both at, and left violence as both a strategy and tactic by the wayside. Sadly, this is not yet the case for Islam.

Evolved past violence? Now, getting back to that myth point you were mentioning earlier on...

Johannes

08-22-2006, 05:50 AM

Thud, that flourishing was very relative. For example, Moses Maimonides (Rambam) is usually held up as an example of someone who flourish. However, he himself writes about how dificult life was under Islam and how unfair the laws were to non-Muslims. It was still nasty, brutish and short but made the pretense to do things in a more civilized way. Muslims were still the masters and all others could be deprived of property and life at their leisure. Also bear in mind that Jews were no threat to Muslims. They had no nations and no armies, therefore Muslims had no need to cause them any trouble. However, the daily humiliations given to non-Muslims were no less on them than on other dhimmi.

As for evolving past violence, that is accurate. Neither "mainstream" Judaism nor "mainstream" Christianity endorses "sacred violence" any longer as either an appropriate strategy or tactic.

Johannes

08-22-2006, 10:56 AM

For your entertainment:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/hezbollah_sinks_australian_warship/

Thud

08-26-2006, 02:04 AM

stingray

08-26-2006, 03:40 AM

You know one thing that truly puzzles me - and I'm not being intentionally polemical here (although I realize that it may be viewed that way by some) - is that Jews worldwide have suffered more over the past 100 years at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust and pogroms, for example) than of Muslims and yet there is such distrust of the latter and implicit trust of the former. Why is that?

I don't have an answer to that, all I know is that Israel just bought another two diesel-electric submarines with nuclear capability from GERMANY!! And that's not all, Germany is footing part of the bill. While Germany has a history of building submarines, who let them start building them again I wonder? I dearly hope they keep an eye on who enters modern arts curiculi on German universities. We all know what happened last time someone did.

You figure it out, I don't have a clue.

Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060823/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraeliran_060823095602

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060825/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelgermany_060825115533

Johannes

08-27-2006, 07:05 AM

You know one thing that truly puzzles me - and I'm not being intentionally polemical here (although I realize that it may be viewed that way by some) - is that Jews worldwide have suffered more over the past 100 years at the hands of Christians (the Holocaust and pogroms, for example) than of Muslims and yet there is such distrust of the latter and implicit trust of the former. Why is that?
Things change. At present, there are no major Christian leaders calling "death to the Jews" but there are a number of Muslim leaders who do so. Muslim anti-Semitism is quite widespread and increasing daily. Effectively Jews and Christians have a common enemy in Islamists, and after things like Vatican II there have been some very serious reconciliation from Christians. A lot of hatred copmes out of the Muslim world that no one in the Muslim world does anything to refute. If anything they make excuses for it or agree with it.

As for the submarines from Germany, they are not nuclear capable. They're diesel subs that are to be fitted with conventional weapons and will be delivered in 2010. Theoretically Israel may be able to radically modify some cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads, but no one even knows for certain if that can be done or if Israel has the capability. Germany does a lot of business with Israel.

kinein

09-10-2006, 08:33 AM

I have one thing to say... Christians in general have realized the error and the mistakes made by catholics in the relatioinship with the jewish nation. True christians realize that that Jews are God's chosen people and we respect that. But our main focus is those that are not jewish as they have already a 1 way street they can choose toward heaven in our belief.

If anything the rush in christianity is to save as many as possible before it's too late.... We honestly believe that time is running out when it comes to modern day politics and the new testament. For the non jews we hurt and cry out hoping we can bring them to accepting lord god, christ. All it really comes down to is the acceptance that god sent his son to die for our sins. The end. If we can find those that are willing to say hmm.. perhaps there is an afterlife and "I am not a jew" then perhaps I should accept this person called jesus so that if there is a hell I won't be screwed. That is it. There are plenty of great people that do not believe in christ. If they just decide to believe in christ and continue to live there lives they can possibly be saved... The end result in christianity is ... if you believe you may be saved.. That is all one can ask for when it comes to the unknown where science is not permitted...

<3 avault

stingray

09-11-2006, 03:40 PM

As for the submarines from Germany, they are not nuclear capable. They're diesel subs that are to be fitted with conventional weapons and will be delivered in 2010. Theoretically Israel may be able to radically modify some cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads, but no one even knows for certain if that can be done or if Israel has the capability. Germany does a lot of business with Israel.

The "Dolphin" subs are said to have the capability to be the platforms to launch missiles from that can carry nuclear warheads. That makes the "Dolphins" nuclear capable. The role of those subs is that of a deterrent, what kind of a deterrent would a submarine be to a mostly land-based enemy if it weren't nuclear capable?

The Iranians have the means to produce nuclear material to eventually build nuclear bombs.

Funny how certain facts only apply to some groups of people. ;)

As Lewis Black (my favourite Jew) said, "there's a point where we have to agree on what reality is."

Johannes

09-11-2006, 04:09 PM

The "Dolphin" subs are said to have the capability to be the platforms to launch missiles from that can carry nuclear warheads. That makes the "Dolphins" nuclear capable. The role of those subs is that of a deterrent, what kind of a deterrent would a submarine be to a mostly land-based enemy if it weren't nuclear capable?
Said by whom? Germany, their manufacturer, says that they are conventional weapons platforms. I also asked that of a German O-7 I spoke to at NWC this past year and he confirmed that. A submarine is an excellent deterrent since a cruise missile can really ruin your day even without a nuclear warhead. A 500 kilo conventional warhead does a heck of a lot of damage and you're not going to see it coming. They're also superior interdiction platforms, albeit even more effective in blue than brown water.

The Iranians have the means to produce nuclear material to eventually build nuclear bombs.
Which is a very bad thing since they are led by men with a very dangerous view of the world.

Funny how certain facts only apply to some groups of people. ;)
Nothing funny here. Iran has stated that their intent is to use a nuclear weapon against Israel. No one else has made similar claims. The closest would be a Pakistani general who spoke of a nuclear war as "jolly good." Actually, that may have been an Indian general and I confused the two since Pakistan does not have a no first-strike policy.

As Lewis Black (my favourite Jew) said, "there's a point where we have to agree on what reality is."
Well, that would depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is. :roflmao: Do you not know many Jews? Why is Lewis Black your "favourite Jew?"

Mr Bigglesworth

09-11-2006, 04:13 PM

kyleh

09-11-2006, 04:34 PM

Some christians don't follow the old testament really at all, although I don't know that any christian sects actually denounce it. Some sects give more weight to the new or old testament as well, it's really all over the map.

Johannes

09-11-2006, 07:55 PM

Christians explicitly do not follow the Hebrew Bible believing that it was fulfilled in Jesus. Otherwise they would also keep Kosher and obey other Jewish ritual laws.

stingray

09-12-2006, 01:53 AM

Said by whom? Germany, their manufacturer, says that they are conventional weapons platforms. I also asked that of a German O-7 I spoke to at NWC this past year and he confirmed that. A submarine is an excellent deterrent since a cruise missile can really ruin your day even without a nuclear warhead. A 500 kilo conventional warhead does a heck of a lot of damage and you're not going to see it coming. They're also superior interdiction platforms, albeit even more effective in blue than brown water.

I read about the Dolphin's nuclear capability on several online sources (news media and technical). Of course Israel is not going to officially acknowledge the nuclear capability, since they aren't even acknowledging that they are in possession of nuclear warheads. ;) In the end even Israel has to be consistent in its logic.

Well, that would depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is. :roflmao: Do you not know many Jews? Why is Lewis Black your "favourite Jew?"

No, I personally don't know many jewish people, they usually keep to themselves, which is unfortunate. Lewis Black is one of my favourite comedians who is outspoken and who talks about current issues rather than fart jokes and he has my kind of sense of humor.

Johannes

09-12-2006, 07:12 AM

I read about the Dolphin's nuclear capability on several online sources (news media and technical). Of course Israel is not going to officially acknowledge the nuclear capability, since they aren't even acknowledging that they are in possession of nuclear warheads. ;) In the end even Israel has to be consistent in its logic.

Again, it is the Germans who make the submarines who are very clear that they are strictly conventional weapons platforms. Most of the articles about the Dolphins being nuclear platforms have been flat out wrong. This happened the last time Israel bought submarines as well. First they were called nuclear submarines, then they were called nuclear weapons platforms. Same subs, same manufacturer, same situation.

They're not nuclear submarines or nuclear platforms. The Scotsman got it wrong again, which they usually do when it pertains to Israel.

No, I personally don't know many jewish people, they usually keep to themselves, which is unfortunate. Lewis Black is one of my favourite comedians who is outspoken and who talks about current issues rather than fart jokes and he has my kind of sense of humor.

So somehow it is the fault of Jews "keeping to themsleves" that you don't know any? That's quite silly. But it is true that in many places Jews do keep to themselves. The lessons of history and present reality tend to teach that. Lewis Black is quite funny.

Johannes

09-12-2006, 07:27 AM

Both Israel and the US have to deal with gits like this:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302896,00.html

He's a leader in Fatah who (other than not knowing his facts) claims that another 9/11 is on the way. I'm sure he wants to dance in the streets again just like the Arabs did on 9/11.

In case any of you didn't see it yet, the US Embassy in Damascus was attacked last night. Thankfully the attack failed.

stingray

09-12-2006, 12:46 PM

So somehow it is the fault of Jews "keeping to themsleves" that you don't know any? That's quite silly. But it is true that in many places Jews do keep to themselves. The lessons of history and present reality tend to teach that. Lewis Black is quite funny.
I was just kidding about the "keeping to themselves" part, I'm not trying to meet anybody belonging to any faith in particular. :D Those jewish people I've had the pleasure to converse with online where rather friendly.

I'm no military expert, I was just reiterating what I read elsewhere. It is not unreasonable to assume that a submarine equipped to launch torpedoes and missiles can carry different types of ordinance, including missiles with non-convential warheads. The propulsion system of the sub does not really factor into this issue. Missiles are self-contained weapons so a diesel-electric or nuclear-powered sub can both fire convential and non-convential missiles if the onboard gear is equipped to do so. AFAIK, the "Dolphins" are too small to be strategic submarines, I think they are even shorter than those used in WWII.

Here's one of the sites I checked out about the new submarines, I can't judge how much of what is written is assumed by the author.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html

Whatever they are, I hope they'll do the job they are designed to do.

Johannes

09-12-2006, 04:19 PM

There are a few important words there, right before he talks about nuclear cruise missiles. Those words are "According to some reports." Nuclear cruise missiles and conventional cruise missiles aren't the same thing. Yes, they're quite similar in many respects but require different guidance and software packages and those are not such small differences as they might seem.

The Dolphins are pretty much patrol submarines, which is what Israel needs them to do.

Grendel

09-14-2006, 12:32 PM

In case any of you didn't see it yet, the US Embassy in Damascus was attacked last night. Thankfully the attack failed.
Yep, that one was prevented by Syrian police.

Johannes

09-14-2006, 02:13 PM

Yep, that one was prevented by Syrian police.

Not prevented, stopped by.

There have been some interesting analysis that suggest the attack was more directed against Syria than the uS.

T.N.D.

09-14-2006, 02:24 PM

I heard one analysis thats said that Syria was behind the attack.

Johannes

09-14-2006, 02:51 PM

I heard one analysis thats said that Syria was behind the attack.

That has been suggested by a number of people. It's certainly possible, and many of the suggested scenarios make a lot of sense. All the more so since it lets the Syrians look like they're taking American security seriously. Think about how effective the Syrian police were during the manufactured "cartoon rage" riots.

Grendel

09-14-2006, 03:54 PM

That has been suggested by a number of people. It's certainly possible, and many of the suggested scenarios make a lot of sense. All the more so since it lets the Syrians look like they're taking American security seriously.
Oh yea, and the US government blew up the twin towers and the pentagon too... right.

Think about how effective the Syrian police were during the manufactured "cartoon rage" riots.
Killing a few terrorists is vastly different than controling a large-scale riot. I'm sure you are intelligent enough that I don't need to go into detail there.

Johannes

09-15-2006, 06:54 AM

Oh yea, and the US government blew up the twin towers and the pentagon too... right.

Hmmm, someone is both testy for no apparent reason as well as making little sense. Even thought this is blindingly obvious, those are in no way analogous scenarios. Syria could have seen the scenario as a potential for gain, particularly given the demands from the US government that Syria stop aiding and abetting terrorists and start fighting them. Suddenly they can claim that they too have a terrorism problem and that they're fighting them. Not only are they fighting them, but they're helping the US.

Now bear in mind that I merely said that these scenarios make some sense. I did not say that they are correct. Also bear in mind that your analogy made absolutely no sense and in no way is either reasonable or functional.

Killing a few terrorists is vastly different than controling a large-scale riot. I'm sure you are intelligent enough that I don't need to go into detail there.

In Syria? Are you at all familiar with how the Syrians operate? They're quite good at putting down anything that they don't like. Protests, riots, entire cities, etc. I'm sure you're intelligent and hopefully well-read enough to recognize that a facist government like Syria's doesn't put a whole lot of value on the lives of anyone who threatens their carefully constructed social order. The Syrians have no problem keeping internal order in their country, since they do so with an iron fist.

Grendel

09-15-2006, 10:28 AM

I just threw that theory out there as an example of a completely idiotic idea that some people actually support (Hugo Chavez for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13C-Powt6Zg&eurl).

Now Jund al-Sham, the group that Syria accused of carrying out the attacks, have made a number of operations in that country and across the Middle East (ex. in Quatar in 2005). They are an extremely radical group that view most of the governments in that area as misguided. Their goal to replace those institutions with their version of an Islamic theocracy. It is generally accepted that the group is an offshoot of Asbat al-Ansar, which is based in Lebanon.

Syria has in fact, had trouble keeping order in its country on a couple of occasions, most notably the Kurdish riots in 2002. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/18/wkurd18.xml&sSheet=/news
There is the backstory, it ended up taking the government 8 days, and tanks to get the area back under control. However, I do admit that the apparent lack of control in the riots this year is somewhat suspect.

Johannes

09-15-2006, 10:51 AM

Hugo Chavex is brilliant in the way he has brought the country completely under his control by creating and encouraging hysterical fear of a US invasion. Ironically he and others claim that is what George Bush is trying to do in the US. The current conference of non-aligned states is basically an anti-US fest right now.

The group (actually groups, different ministers have said different things) that Syria are radical Islamists like Hamas and Hezbollah. They don't like the Alawites (nor does anyone else) but consider them to be a much more tolerable bunch since they overtly support their fellow islamists. The issue may be the Sunni/Shi'a divide, since they don't want to see hezbollah supported by Syria TOO overtly since they hate the Shi'a a great deal.

The Kurdish riots were the exception rather than the rule, and in that case there was concern over Turkish intervention so Syria acted far more tentatively than normal. Generally, Syria responds swiftly, brutally and effectively.

Thud

09-16-2006, 03:02 AM

Hugo Chavex is brilliant in the way he has brought the country completely under his control by creating and encouraging hysterical fear (emphasis mine - Thud) of a US invasion. Ironically he and others claim that is what George Bush is trying to do in the US...

Hmmm, well from 1960 - 1990 , the US has been militarily (in either a direct or an advisory capacity) involved in:

Cuba 1961
Cuba 1962
Panama 1964
Guatamela 1966 - 1967
Chile 1963 (backing a coup of a democratically elected leader)
El Salvador 1981 - 1992
Nicaragua - 1981 - 1990 (including mining the harbors)
Honduras 1983 - 1989
Grenada 1983 -1984
Bolivia 1986
Panama 1989 - 1990

(Note - all these can be verified by congressional record, btw)

Fear - yes. Hysterical - mmmm, I don't think so...

Johannes

09-16-2006, 09:17 PM

Nope, it's absolutely hysterical fear. The US has made absolutely no hostile moves includes anything that could be considered pre-positioning and Chavez still claims that a US invasion is imminent and has helped reduce the jobless problem in his country by boosting the military. He's maintaining his position by ensuring that his people see him as the only one who can save them from a full-scale US invasion.

Johannes

09-20-2006, 10:34 AM

Chavez also just called President Bush "the devil" at the UN.

Autocratic

09-20-2006, 02:02 PM

Chavez also just called President Bush "the devil" at the UN.

While holding a Chomsky book. Priceless.

Thrak

09-20-2006, 04:24 PM

Chavez also stated that he wants to start making nuclear weapons. With the ties he has been making in Iran/Syria, and their backing by Russia/China it shouldn't take much for him to get it going.

I remember seeing on one of the spanish news channels that Chavez had US military documents, showing a full scale invasion of Venezuela. Who knows if they were authentic, but it will definitely rally the people behind him.

Johannes

09-20-2006, 05:46 PM

While holding a Chomsky book. Priceless.

I didn't mention that part, it made it just too good.

Thrak, the documents are likely not authentic or if they are they are likely recently declassified SIOP documents from 50 years ago. The US has military plans to cover almost every contingency, venezuela is nothing special.

kyleh

09-20-2006, 05:49 PM

If we don't have detailed plans for a full scale invasion of Santa Claus' house filed away somewhere in the Pentagon, then frankly I'm a little bit disappointed with our military. As far as I'm concerned making plans for contingencies is what they should do when they don't have more pressing matters, right? They get paid the same either way it seems. :)

Autocratic

09-20-2006, 09:00 PM

I didn't mention that part, it made it just too good.

Thrak, the documents are likely not authentic or if they are they are likely recently declassified SIOP documents from 50 years ago. The US has military plans to cover almost every contingency, venezuela is nothing special.

Radical isolationist liberals always get really uppity when it comes out that we had plans to attack country X, but I always just figured it presumed that we had plans to attack just about anything and everyone just in case. When something like the plans to attack Iraq get leaked a little early, that's more of a big deal.

Even so, I like to play realpolitik a little bit in my own relationships. I have plans to destroy most of my acquaintances. Just in case.

If anyone from within the government is reading this, I don't actually have plans like that.