Thanks for the ad hom attack. I thought personal flames weren't tolerated.
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: irwincur
You are stupid - both of you. All signs point to Syria. Well, unless Al Jazeera is your news of choice, which I suspect for utter and complete morons like you - it may be.
What evidence leads to Syria?
...
...
...
What motive does Syria have? Maybe they are masochist and want to provide an excuse to the Bush administration to invade them? That's like Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq announcing: "Yes, I am building a nuclear weapon and it will be done in 3 months! When it's done I will nuke Israel! Muahahaha!"
:roll:
USe common sense, it usually prevails.
First of all, Syria is already on our sh*tlist, so unless there is irrefutable evidence that they committed this crime the US won't be able to do anything. Plausible deniability, it will be hard to prove that top level members of the Syrian government were involved. It is very possible that they funded this operation or have operatives within Lebanon right now that are working to strengthen Syrian interests, which may include directions to eliminate public officials that seek to weaken their alliance within Lebanon.
Do you really think Assad cares what the world thinks if he knows these operations can not be directly linked to him? He can control his people through the state controlled media by throwing conspiracy theories that Isreal and the US are to blame. We are not talking about a military strike using Syrian equipment, we are talking about a few individuals that carried out an assassination in a country marked by civil strife. I'm sure the CIA has some inside information, the statement they made towards Syria leads me to conclude that they have the inside scoop on those that were responsible for this.
So it boils down to you admitting there is no evidence, and you are even predicting that there never will be evidence linking Syria to this, yet you do not rescind your rediculous statement: " All signs point to Syria". :roll: If you had any credibility when you started, you just lost it.
Do you know how to read?? Where did I say that "All signs point to Syria".. Please enlighten me
The family of slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri refused to allow members of the government of President Lahoud to attend his massive funeral in Beirut on Wednesday. The family was flanked by Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, and Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir. In the meantime, angry Sunni Arab residents of Sidon came out to protest his assassination, directing their ire at the Syrian government.
That is, the Maronite, Druze and Sunni Muslim leadership has largely decided to blame President Lahoud and his Syrian backers for the assassination. In a sense, it does not any longer matter who precisely was behind the blast. The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.
The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed. (If, as is now being reported, the blast was in part the work of a suicide bomber, that would rule out a mafia-type business dispute). Given the 250,000 tons of missing munitions in Iraq, there are lots of very high-powered explosives on the market in the Middle East. This proliferation of explosives may be among the major ways in which the Iraq war ends up destabilizing the Middle East, since the explosions are unlikely to remain only in Iraq. Already, some Iraq-related violence has spread to Saudi Arabia.
But the Lebanese opposition and most of the outside world have decided that Syria is guilty because it is guilty.
The US and Israel would like to see Syria withdraw its remaining troops from Lebanon. Especially the Maronite Christians (who are a kind of Catholic) largely want the Syrians out (they are probably now only about 20 percent of the population). Ironically, the Syrians came in to Lebanon with a US green light to stop the Palestinians and their allies from taking over Lebanon. At first, the Syrians actually protected the Maronites. But now that the Palestinians have long since been militarily defeated, the same groups and countries that were happy to see a Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976 are now the most ardent advocates of Syrian withdrawal.
The joining together of the Druze, Sunni Arabs (Hariri's group) and the Maronites in opposition to the government and in blaming it for Hariri's death, marks a new phase of Lebanese nationalism in modern history.
The big question, of course, is whether the crisis will draw in the United States and (less likely) Israel. Many in the Arab world are blaming Israel for the blast. While this possibility cannot be simply dismissed, since the Israeli Mossad has played dirty tricks in the past, it seems to me highly unlikely. But then, I personally doubt that Bashar al-Asad ordered the hit, either. The Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like David Wurmser, have been trying to get up a US war against Syria for some time, and the death of Hariri may offer them an opening.
I don't think the CIA is behind this but what do I or anybody else who isn't in the Loop know?Originally posted by: Genx87
You think? Even now a large percentage of Americans are questioning our actions in Iraq, you actually believe that the Dub would be able to garner the support for any actions against Syria? Unless they attack us (our troops) I don't see it happening. The Dub isn't that popular and would be hard pressed to get the support he needed in light of the debacle in Iraq and his misleading the Public into supporting the invasion.
I think you underestimate some peoples resolve in this war. Also I dont believe Bush would require the CIA to orchestrate this assasination just so they can pull their ambassador from Syria. Even if they invaded they wouldnt need to go through this huge ordeal.
Originally posted by: BBond
Juan Cole provides some insight into former PM Hariri's assassination in this post, and alludes to the availability of high density explosives from Iraq as another factor in the instability in the Middle East.
IMO, a very fair and well reasoned assessment by Professor Cole.
The family of slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri refused to allow members of the government of President Lahoud to attend his massive funeral in Beirut on Wednesday. The family was flanked by Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, and Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir. In the meantime, angry Sunni Arab residents of Sidon came out to protest his assassination, directing their ire at the Syrian government.
That is, the Maronite, Druze and Sunni Muslim leadership has largely decided to blame President Lahoud and his Syrian backers for the assassination. In a sense, it does not any longer matter who precisely was behind the blast. The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.
The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed. (If, as is now being reported, the blast was in part the work of a suicide bomber, that would rule out a mafia-type business dispute). Given the 250,000 tons of missing munitions in Iraq, there are lots of very high-powered explosives on the market in the Middle East. This proliferation of explosives may be among the major ways in which the Iraq war ends up destabilizing the Middle East, since the explosions are unlikely to remain only in Iraq. Already, some Iraq-related violence has spread to Saudi Arabia.
But the Lebanese opposition and most of the outside world have decided that Syria is guilty because it is guilty.
The US and Israel would like to see Syria withdraw its remaining troops from Lebanon. Especially the Maronite Christians (who are a kind of Catholic) largely want the Syrians out (they are probably now only about 20 percent of the population). Ironically, the Syrians came in to Lebanon with a US green light to stop the Palestinians and their allies from taking over Lebanon. At first, the Syrians actually protected the Maronites. But now that the Palestinians have long since been militarily defeated, the same groups and countries that were happy to see a Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976 are now the most ardent advocates of Syrian withdrawal.
The joining together of the Druze, Sunni Arabs (Hariri's group) and the Maronites in opposition to the government and in blaming it for Hariri's death, marks a new phase of Lebanese nationalism in modern history.
The big question, of course, is whether the crisis will draw in the United States and (less likely) Israel. Many in the Arab world are blaming Israel for the blast. While this possibility cannot be simply dismissed, since the Israeli Mossad has played dirty tricks in the past, it seems to me highly unlikely. But then, I personally doubt that Bashar al-Asad ordered the hit, either. The Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like David Wurmser, have been trying to get up a US war against Syria for some time, and the death of Hariri may offer them an opening.
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Even the most hardcore Bush haters have to admit that the US needs to restore its image in the world, and starts with our intelligence-gathering facilities.
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Even the most hardcore Bush haters have to admit that the US needs to restore its image in the world, and starts with our intelligence-gathering facilities.
Umm...That's pretty much been what the 'Bush haters' have been saying all along. They feel Bush and his people have been the ones damaging the US's image in the world. So you're directing that comment at the wrong side.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Juan Cole provides some insight into former PM Hariri's assassination in this post, and alludes to the availability of high density explosives from Iraq as another factor in the instability in the Middle East.
IMO, a very fair and well reasoned assessment by Professor Cole.
The family of slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri refused to allow members of the government of President Lahoud to attend his massive funeral in Beirut on Wednesday. The family was flanked by Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, and Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir. In the meantime, angry Sunni Arab residents of Sidon came out to protest his assassination, directing their ire at the Syrian government.
That is, the Maronite, Druze and Sunni Muslim leadership has largely decided to blame President Lahoud and his Syrian backers for the assassination. In a sense, it does not any longer matter who precisely was behind the blast. The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.
The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed. (If, as is now being reported, the blast was in part the work of a suicide bomber, that would rule out a mafia-type business dispute). Given the 250,000 tons of missing munitions in Iraq, there are lots of very high-powered explosives on the market in the Middle East. This proliferation of explosives may be among the major ways in which the Iraq war ends up destabilizing the Middle East, since the explosions are unlikely to remain only in Iraq. Already, some Iraq-related violence has spread to Saudi Arabia.
But the Lebanese opposition and most of the outside world have decided that Syria is guilty because it is guilty.
The US and Israel would like to see Syria withdraw its remaining troops from Lebanon. Especially the Maronite Christians (who are a kind of Catholic) largely want the Syrians out (they are probably now only about 20 percent of the population). Ironically, the Syrians came in to Lebanon with a US green light to stop the Palestinians and their allies from taking over Lebanon. At first, the Syrians actually protected the Maronites. But now that the Palestinians have long since been militarily defeated, the same groups and countries that were happy to see a Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976 are now the most ardent advocates of Syrian withdrawal.
The joining together of the Druze, Sunni Arabs (Hariri's group) and the Maronites in opposition to the government and in blaming it for Hariri's death, marks a new phase of Lebanese nationalism in modern history.
The big question, of course, is whether the crisis will draw in the United States and (less likely) Israel. Many in the Arab world are blaming Israel for the blast. While this possibility cannot be simply dismissed, since the Israeli Mossad has played dirty tricks in the past, it seems to me highly unlikely. But then, I personally doubt that Bashar al-Asad ordered the hit, either. The Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like David Wurmser, have been trying to get up a US war against Syria for some time, and the death of Hariri may offer them an opening.
And the university system wonders why their approval rating is going down from their graduates?
After that reply I've got to wonder if you even bothered to read the link.
Did you?
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
I didn't word this correctly.. What I meant was that even the most hardcore bush haters have to believe that the US would not risk losing its credibility with bogus information..
Originally posted by: Genx87
After that reply I've got to wonder if you even bothered to read the link.
Did you?
I read what you pasted. Are you going to tell me it gets better?
In the meantime, angry Sunni Arab residents of Sidon came out to protest his assassination, directing their ire at the Syrian government.
The political opposition in Lebanon has made up its mind whom to blame. It is not that they are necessarily wrong. On any list of suspects in the killing of Hariri, the Syrians would have to rank high. They had means, motive and opportunity-- which does not, however, establish that they murdered Hariri.
The other angle, of al-Qaeda-like groups hitting out at Saudi-related targets (Hariri had Saudi citizenship), cannot in my view be dismissed.
The US and Israel would like to see Syria withdraw its remaining troops from Lebanon. Especially the Maronite Christians (who are a kind of Catholic) largely want the Syrians out (they are probably now only about 20 percent of the population). Ironically, the Syrians came in to Lebanon with a US green light to stop the Palestinians and their allies from taking over Lebanon.
Many in the Arab world are blaming Israel for the blast. While this possibility cannot be simply dismissed, since the Israeli Mossad has played dirty tricks in the past, it seems to me highly unlikely.
And the university system wonders why their approval rating is going down from their graduates?
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Juan Cole provides some insight into former PM Hariri's assassination in this post, and alludes to the availability of high density explosives from Iraq as another factor in the instability in the Middle East.
IMO, a very fair and well reasoned assessment by Professor Cole.
And the university system wonders why their approval rating is going down from their graduates?
After that reply I've got to wonder if you even bothered to read the link.
Did you?
Please, a well reasoned assessment by Juan Cole is an oxymoron. He's like a broken record - anything and everything bad that happens in the Middle East is the work of neocons and Likudniks.
Hariri was becoming a thorn in the side of Syria - there was no reason for the US nor the Israelis to kill him, when he would have been doing them a favor by pressuring Syria to get out of Lebanon.
If you'd like to see some better analyses of the situation, see here. In addition to the blogger's own commentary, there are plenty of links to those more knowledgeable about Syria and Lebanon than Cole could ever hope to be in his wettest dreams.
Originally posted by: znaps
What if the CIA had Rafik Hariri killed to escalate tensions with Syria in the hope of bringing freedom to that country? Would you put it past some of the current administration members?
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: znaps
What if the CIA had Rafik Hariri killed to escalate tensions with Syria in the hope of bringing freedom to that country? Would you put it past some of the current administration members?
I doubt it, but I'm *entirely* in support of assassinating dictators in ANY country.
Jason