When will we ever learn???

[JEDIYoda]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_on_re_mi_ea/syria_embassy_attack

The rapid response by Syrian guards won rare praise from the United States, which accuses Assad's government of supporting terrorism in its backing of Hezbollah guerrillas and Palestinian militants. The U.S. withdrew its ambassador from Damascus last year to protest Syria's alleged role in the assassination of a prominent politician in Lebanon.

"I do think that the Syrians reacted to this attack in a way that helped to secure our people, and we very much appreciate that," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow also thanked Syrian officials and called for Damascus to "become an ally and make the choice of fighting against terrorists."

But Syria responded with a sharp criticism of the United States, blaming its policies in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories for increasing Islamic militancy.

"It is regrettable that U.S. policies in the Middle East have fueled extremism, terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment," the Syrian Embassy in Washington said in a statement. "The U.S. should ... start looking at the root causes of terrorism and broker a comprehensive peace in the Middle East."

It curtly said that Syria "performed its duties" under the Geneva Conventions to protect the embassy.

I am pro US all the way but I think we have foot in mouth disease...
Why didn`t we just thank them and leave well enough alone!!
For once I believe the syrians were absolutely correct in rebutting our statement--
White House spokesman Tony Snow also thanked Syrian officials and called for Damascus to "become an ally and make the choice of fighting against terrorists." -- how sttopid!!!

Syria`s response --"It is regrettable that U.S. policies in the Middle East have fueled extremism, terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment," the Syrian Embassy in Washington said in a statement. "The U.S. should ... start looking at the root causes of terrorism and broker a comprehensive peace in the Middle East."

It curtly said that Syria "performed its duties" under the Geneva Conventions to protect the embassy! -- Very well said!!

 

[Aisengard]

Who are you and what have you done with JEDIYoda?

 

[dahunan]

I cannot remember her name (because I was scarred by how she was treated) but some female politician asked on 9/12/01 "We need to find out WHY these people would do this and and figure out the root cause of why they are so angry with us" -- every bush lamb there was roasted her saying she was a chickenshit traitor who wanted to appease the terrorists and wanted to negotiate with them etc..

Why doesn't matter when there are huge profits to be made by bombing people

*It should be obvious why I hate all politicians.. they are all spineless liars and cheats..90+% of them voted to kill Iraqi citizens and then talk ****** about bush like they never voted for it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Who are you and what have you done with JEDIYoda?

That was one of my first thoughts too

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Who are you and what have you done with JEDIYoda?

Good one!! But you know there are times to be dogmatic and times that a simple Thank You should suffice!!
After all Syria didn`t have to get involved or they could have taken there time in responding!!
Although I am pro-Israel I believe in this case a thank You is giving credit where credit is due!!
Although I disagree with what Syria said I think that Tony Snow`s response was inappropriate!!

Did I tell you that we have captured JEDIYoda and he will be assimulatd as soon as we can get him to shut up...lolol

 

[CPA]

Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: CPA
Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

QFT.

For you liberals out there that dont know this and just like to blame everything on Bush, Terrorism started before Bush, and is a problem to all Western countries. A little fact most of you like to ignore.

Also, dont you think Syria has incentive for our embassys not be attacked? Dont you think that tourism in their country would be highly affected and make US relations worse, which would have a tremendous economic impact of their country.

As much as these arab countries may hate us, they still love us for our money. You can even use US dollars in Iran, and can sometimes even be preferred.

 

[conehead433]

According to Dubya, who couldn't possibly ever be wrong, the Syrians are in bed with members of the axis of evil. If they did something to help us they are just trying to gain our trust before sticking it in our backs.

 

[Zebo]

Why do we still have people in the embassy in Syria? Ambassador is gone after the Syrian assisnation of Rafiq Hariri in Lebanon over a year ago. The other state department diplomats have never been able to leave the compound. They come by air from Jordan land on the roof and never leave. Are we hoping for a Daniel in the Lion's Den miracle? Or does Bush just want to give the Jihadists a target as an excuse to launch war?

 

[spidey07]

Wait?

Is this the same syria that accepted and transported the WMDs from Sadam?

yeah, like they can be trusted. I'm not surprised by their reaction. They're playing the "look! we're good guys!" card.

-edit-
Syria's response is just disgusting. Shows yet again why we are at war with these people.

 

[daniel49]

And to what does Assyria blame for other recent events?

source
....terrorism tells the Syrian people something that no dictator wishes to show: that the regime does not have as tight a grip on the country as it would like its citizens to believe.

What the attack shows, in fact, is that the Syrian regime's own long war with Islamic extremists is heating up again. In 1982, the regime of Assad's late father, Hafez, obliterated sections of the Syrian city of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people, to quell an uprising by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. The Assad dynasty's iron rule has kept the lid on discontent for most of the time since. But during the last few years, new attacks seem to herald the return of violent extremists. Just three months ago, in one of the Syrian capital's most prominent public squares, four gunmen were killed trying to attack the building housing Syrian state television. In 2004, the government blamed terrorists for setting off a car bomb in West Damascus near several ministries and embassies.

Another way to look at it is that the Syrian regime may be reaping what it sows. Among Arab leaders, Assad is alone in his outspoken support for Islamic militant groups like Hizballah in Lebanon, and the Palestinan factions, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. U.S. officials believe that the Assad regime has secretly aided the three-year-old Sunni insurgency in Iraq, providing passage for jihad volunteers and funds, and safe haven for insurgency leaders. At the start of the war in 2003, Arab jihadists who poured into Damascus en route to Baghdad were allowed to openly line up outside the Iraqi embassy just down the road from the American embassy.

Assad, whose regime is officially secular despite its close alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, often casts himself as the champion of radical Islamic movements. Last month, in a speech openly ridiculing moderate Arab leaders, he hailed Hizballah's war in Lebanon as a stinging defeat for Israel that undercut American plans for the region. But it is beginning to look like at least some of the Islamists consider his regime the enemy, too.

 

[Zebo]

Syira is 70% sunni and ruled by Shi'a..Sorta the opposite of what Saddam had going with a minority Sunni controlling the majority Shi'a. Assad is always in danger of overthrow and should be our ally instead of preaching for his demise which will only give rise to yet another islamist emirate.

in light of that "U.S. officials believe that the Assad regime has secretly aided the three-year-old Sunni insurgency in Iraq," = FUD

Ikhwan or similar sunni groups are people suppressed so ruthlessly by al-Assad's for decades and all of a sudden they are going to lie down with them? I don't think so.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Who are you and what have you done with JEDIYoda?

Good one!! But you know there are times to be dogmatic and times that a simple Thank You should suffice!!
After all Syria didn`t have to get involved or they could have taken there time in responding!!
Although I am pro-Israel I believe in this case a thank You is giving credit where credit is due!!
Although I disagree with what Syria said I think that Tony Snow`s response was inappropriate!!

Did I tell you that we have captured JEDIYoda and he will be assimulatd as soon as we can get him to shut up...lolol

The Syrians they are talking about are the guards to the embassy. They are not saying that the Syrian military or police showed up on the scene to help, although they may have.
I am sure that for the guards that replied this was a life or death situation. Not like they could just put down their guns and walk away, hopefully.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I am pro US all the way but I think we have foot in mouth disease...

My history proffessor along time ago, who was very Pro-America and a Veteran, talked about our foot-in-mount disease a lot. Throughout our history we have always had this problem. Anytime my proffessor got to a case of "foot in mouth" he'd always say from the international prospective "And there they go again!'

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: daniel49
And to what does Assyria blame for other recent events?

source
....terrorism tells the Syrian people something that no dictator wishes to show: that the regime does not have as tight a grip on the country as it would like its citizens to believe.

What the attack shows, in fact, is that the Syrian regime's own long war with Islamic extremists is heating up again. In 1982, the regime of Assad's late father, Hafez, obliterated sections of the Syrian city of Hama, killing an estimated 20,000 people, to quell an uprising by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. The Assad dynasty's iron rule has kept the lid on discontent for most of the time since. But during the last few years, new attacks seem to herald the return of violent extremists. Just three months ago, in one of the Syrian capital's most prominent public squares, four gunmen were killed trying to attack the building housing Syrian state television. In 2004, the government blamed terrorists for setting off a car bomb in West Damascus near several ministries and embassies.

Another way to look at it is that the Syrian regime may be reaping what it sows. Among Arab leaders, Assad is alone in his outspoken support for Islamic militant groups like Hizballah in Lebanon, and the Palestinan factions, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. U.S. officials believe that the Assad regime has secretly aided the three-year-old Sunni insurgency in Iraq, providing passage for jihad volunteers and funds, and safe haven for insurgency leaders. At the start of the war in 2003, Arab jihadists who poured into Damascus en route to Baghdad were allowed to openly line up outside the Iraqi embassy just down the road from the American embassy.

Assad, whose regime is officially secular despite its close alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, often casts himself as the champion of radical Islamic movements. Last month, in a speech openly ridiculing moderate Arab leaders, he hailed Hizballah's war in Lebanon as a stinging defeat for Israel that undercut American plans for the region. But it is beginning to look like at least some of the Islamists consider his regime the enemy, too.

Wow give this man a

Syria is learning the lesson Saudi Arabia learned when it paid to help spread radical Islam. Both Syria and the Saudi's pushed terror as a way to deflect people unhappiness at their living conditions on other countries. IE. "It is Israeli and the Americans fault that things in the middle east are the way they are"
This worked for years while the west was looking the otherway. But things changed after 9-11. Once we started to fight back and made it harder for the terrorist to stike outward the terrorist started to strike at targets they could hit.
Once terrorists start launching attacks in their own country how long until the government reliezes "oh ****** they could attack us next"? It is at that point that they become more serious about fighting terror.
For Syria this is BAD news since terror is the only weapon they have against Israel. They have to some how balance stopping attacks on their own soil, while at the same time pushing terror against Israel.

 

[ProfJohn]

Why this attack is very bad news for Syria.

1. Syria supports terror and everyone in the world knows this.
2. Saddam supported terror and ended up in a jail cell.
3. Syria has to know that the US could invade and take over Syria, or remove Assad from power, any time we wanted too.
4. An attack against Americans in Syria might be tied to the Syrian government (as you anti-Bush people might say "Bush doesn't have to prove anything, all he has to do is convince the US people that Syria is involved")

Therefore,
The US could call this attack an act of war and use that as an excuse to Invade and remove Assad from power.
Or
We could use this terror attack as an excuse to bomb terror sites in Syria, as we bombed sites in Afganistan, Iraq and the Suddan. How much evidence do you think we have that shows Syria involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance?

I think a lot of average Americans would see bombing terror sites in Syria as a good response to this attack.
I am sure there are people within the White House looking at exactly what I said and making up lists of pros and cons and whether it would be a good or bad idea.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why this attack is very bad news for Syria.

1. Syria supports terror and everyone in the world knows this.
2. Saddam supported terror and ended up in a jail cell.
3. Syria has to know that the US could invade and take over Syria, or remove Assad from power, any time we wanted too.
4. An attack against Americans in Syria might be tied to the Syrian government (as you anti-Bush people might say "Bush doesn't have to prove anything, all he has to do is convince the US people that Syria is involved")

Therefore,
The US could call this attack an act of war and use that as an excuse to Invade and remove Assad from power.
Or
We could use this terror attack as an excuse to bomb terror sites in Syria, as we bombed sites in Afganistan, Iraq and the Suddan. How much evidence do you think we have that shows Syria involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance?

I think a lot of average Americans would see bombing terror sites in Syria as a good response to this attack.
I am sure there are people within the White House looking at exactly what I said and making up lists of pros and cons and whether it would be a good or bad idea.

You usually don't bomb countries who foiled a terrorist attack on your embassy (The Bush admin went as far as to thank them, I think it's idiotic for you to believe we're going to bomb them now)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why this attack is very bad news for Syria.

1. Syria supports terror and everyone in the world knows this.
2. Saddam supported terror and ended up in a jail cell.
3. Syria has to know that the US could invade and take over Syria, or remove Assad from power, any time we wanted too.
4. An attack against Americans in Syria might be tied to the Syrian government (as you anti-Bush people might say "Bush doesn't have to prove anything, all he has to do is convince the US people that Syria is involved")

Therefore,
The US could call this attack an act of war and use that as an excuse to Invade and remove Assad from power.
Or
We could use this terror attack as an excuse to bomb terror sites in Syria, as we bombed sites in Afganistan, Iraq and the Suddan. How much evidence do you think we have that shows Syria involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance?

I think a lot of average Americans would see bombing terror sites in Syria as a good response to this attack.
I am sure there are people within the White House looking at exactly what I said and making up lists of pros and cons and whether it would be a good or bad idea.

You usually don't bomb countries who foiled a terrorist attack on your embassy (The Bush admin went as far as to thank them, I think it's idiotic for you to believe we're going to bomb them now)

They did not "foil" anything, the attack took place. The headline reads "Syrians fight off attack on U.S. Embassy "
If they had foiled the attack it would have read "Syrians stop plot to blow up U.S. Embassy"

BTW got to love this tidbit

The three attackers tried to throw their grenades over the embassy's white 15-foot-high walls, but none made it over. One blast peppered the wall with pockmarks.

Can't even throw a grenade over a 15 foot tall wall... maybe if they make grenades shaped like Soccer balls they could have kicked them over.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why this attack is very bad news for Syria.

1. Syria supports terror and everyone in the world knows this.
2. Saddam supported terror and ended up in a jail cell.
3. Syria has to know that the US could invade and take over Syria, or remove Assad from power, any time we wanted too.
4. An attack against Americans in Syria might be tied to the Syrian government (as you anti-Bush people might say "Bush doesn't have to prove anything, all he has to do is convince the US people that Syria is involved")

Therefore,
The US could call this attack an act of war and use that as an excuse to Invade and remove Assad from power.
Or
We could use this terror attack as an excuse to bomb terror sites in Syria, as we bombed sites in Afganistan, Iraq and the Suddan. How much evidence do you think we have that shows Syria involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance?

I think a lot of average Americans would see bombing terror sites in Syria as a good response to this attack.
I am sure there are people within the White House looking at exactly what I said and making up lists of pros and cons and whether it would be a good or bad idea.

You usually don't bomb countries who foiled a terrorist attack on your embassy (The Bush admin went as far as to thank them, I think it's idiotic for you to believe we're going to bomb them now)

They did not "foil" anything, the attack took place. The headline reads "Syrians fight off attack on U.S. Embassy "
If they had foiled the attack it would have read "Syrians stop plot to blow up U.S. Embassy"

BTW got to love this tidbit

The three attackers tried to throw their grenades over the embassy's white 15-foot-high walls, but none made it over. One blast peppered the wall with pockmarks.

Can't even throw a grenade over a 15 foot tall wall... maybe if they make grenades shaped like Soccer balls they could have kicked them over.

Things could have been much worst if they didn't fight the attackers off...I don't see how Syria did anything wrong, AT ALL, in this situation. Please clarify what they did to deserve to be bombed for their actions in defending the embassy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: CPA
Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

QFT.

For you liberals out there that dont know this and just like to blame everything on Bush, Terrorism started before Bush, and is a problem to all Western countries. A little fact most of you like to ignore.

Also, dont you think Syria has incentive for our embassys not be attacked? Dont you think that tourism in their country would be highly affected and make US relations worse, which would have a tremendous economic impact of their country.

As much as these arab countries may hate us, they still love us for our money. You can even use US dollars in Iran, and can sometimes even be preferred.

Yup.. Terrorism started in the colonies with Francis Marion... unless you count the Indian way of dealing with 'Stand up' Army tactics.. then that might be back around 1605 or a bit after that..

Tourism in Syria.. Dang that though never entered my mind.. Unless they recently put in a DisneyLand or some such.. what else might draw one to Syria..

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Things could have been much worst if they didn't fight the attackers off...I don't see how Syria did anything wrong, AT ALL, in this situation. Please clarify what they did to deserve to be bombed for their actions in defending the embassy.

I agree that Syria did nothing wrong in fighting off these attacks. I never said we should bomb them for defending the embassy.
The point of my post was to point out why Syria does not want terror attacks against the US to occur on their soil.
Syria has to be fearful that if given a good reason the US could very well bomb them, or at least bomb terror training sites in Syria.
If, big if, there is a link between this terror attack and the Syrian government Bush could use that link as justification for launching military strikes.

Look at this quote "ISN SECURITY WATCH (24/01/06) - Iraqi insurgents are being trained in the use of shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles by Syrians, according to US intelligence sources."

Is it hard to believe that there are at least some people in Washington who would love an excuse to hit back at Syria?
Syria is also a big ally of Iran, what if we dropped a few dozen bombs as a way of sending a message to Iran that we are serious about the nuke issue.
We also know Syria had something to do with the recent Hezbollah=Israel war, by helping ship weapons to Hezbollah.
What if Israel wanted to strike at some Syrian sites associated with the shipment of missiles as a way of warning Syria to back-off and the US government said "no" Now after this terror attack what if the answer becomes "yes"?

All of this becomes bad news for Syria. Of course none of it may actually happen.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: CPA
Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

This would be the ultimate goal of Islam: To rule the entire world under Islamic Law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ntdz

Things could have been much worst if they didn't fight the attackers off...I don't see how Syria did anything wrong, AT ALL, in this situation. Please clarify what they did to deserve to be bombed for their actions in defending the embassy.

I agree that Syria did nothing wrong in fighting off these attacks. I never said we should bomb them for defending the embassy.
The point of my post was to point out why Syria does not want terror attacks against the US to occur on their soil.
Syria has to be fearful that if given a good reason the US could very well bomb them, or at least bomb terror training sites in Syria.
If, big if, there is a link between this terror attack and the Syrian government Bush could use that link as justification for launching military strikes.

Look at this quote "ISN SECURITY WATCH (24/01/06) - Iraqi insurgents are being trained in the use of shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles by Syrians, according to US intelligence sources."

Is it hard to believe that there are at least some people in Washington who would love an excuse to hit back at Syria?
Syria is also a big ally of Iran, what if we dropped a few dozen bombs as a way of sending a message to Iran that we are serious about the nuke issue.
We also know Syria had something to do with the recent Hezbollah=Israel war, by helping ship weapons to Hezbollah.
What if Israel wanted to strike at some Syrian sites associated with the shipment of missiles as a way of warning Syria to back-off and the US government said "no" Now after this terror attack what if the answer becomes "yes"?

All of this becomes bad news for Syria. Of course none of it may actually happen.

Hit back? Wouldn't any attack from use be more like the first strike.
The only message bomb syria would give to Iran is bush is to scarred to attack Iran.
Didn't israel already make a fool out of itself once. I don't think another bombing campagina would go over to well.

You simply hate muslism and are looking for any reason to bomb a few.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: CPA
Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

This would be the ultimate goal of Islam: To rule the entire world under Islamic Law.

As it is the goal of Christianity.

 

[martinez]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: CPA
Root cause? Oh, you mean the fact that the West hasn't exterminated all Christians and forced strict Islamic law on it's citizens.

This would be the ultimate goal of Islam: To rule the entire world under Islamic Law.

The intermediate goal to fight back against being crapped on.

If you want to blame some group of people for wanting to dominate the globe, it might be wise to step outside the glasshouse before throwing the stone.

I liken this kind of thing to being bitten on the ankle by an ant, and deciding it's time for the whole nest to be destroyed.

While I think Islamic extremists need to be put to the sword, I'm not comfortable at all with the manner in which that is being accomplished(or not). Heaven forbid Syria behave like a sovereign state, and how dare they meddle in the affairs of states outside their borders. To do so without the backing of the western mass media is clearly retarded.

All we have managed to do in the last 5 years is make people more aware of the reasons for the enmity, and desensitized all rational people to moderate propoganda, by stepping up the message.

This administration doesn't lie more(atleast not much) than its' predecessors, but the dogmatic approach to the message, when the message is clearly not sinking in, maybe the thing that destroys the thin veil of believability surrounding our abundant wealth and power.