Posted on 09/25/2007 1:56:42 PM PDT by nancyvideo
They were likely doing what the DNC accused Reagan of doing just before his election. Liars, traitors, and thieves see liars, traitors, and thieves all around them, even in a convent.
It's a short list of possibilities:
1. Zawahiri or Osama Bin Laden captured in Syria by Israeli SpecOps...*that* would stun the world (not saying it happened, but it would qualify as a stunner)
2. NK nuke captured intact in Syria would stun the world if that happened
3. Very-Large-Scale financial scheme operating in Syria (e.g. counterfeit currencies, anti-Western-bank hackers, forged mortgage notes/bonds, etc.), something so large as to explain large-scale financial panic...
But I would rate something "stunning" being low on the list. Frankly, it's a lowbrow region.
I'd guess that Israel simply raided and destroyed North Korean No Dong missiles in Syria.
Israel captured or destroyed something illicit, though. Something to which Syria doesn't want to admit was on its soil, and to which North Korea feels compeled to whine about while Iran keeps quiet, too.
ball may be dead (not sure i buy that with the story that came out sunday regarding the Syrian airforce milling around the Golan with one of them going low and getting shot down(?) or crashing) - and if the ball is dead and we tee off again (1 week, 1month, 6 months) down the road - how much more can the Iranians/Syrians take and not act overtly without losing credibility
it may not be this incident that triggers the shoot out, but if i were the Syrians/Iranians i wouldn’t wait to long to “boil” over, b/c Israel and the U.S. may just go ahead and finish the job
That’s why you’re the newbie.
Many thanks for the ping! Interesting times .......
I read all the way through for that conclusion? Fooled me once.
This is just speculation. What if there were Russian advisors and technicians at the missile site aiding the Syrians in the construction, assembly, and training. And, if those Russians are now dead as a result of an Israeli air strike. (Maybe it’s not about what was there, but who was there?)
It may have been best for everyone involved not to raise any hay. The Russians don’t want the loss of prestige (as if they have any), nor do they want the embarrassment or calls at home for retaliation. The Russians may have asked the Syrians to temper their response, after all, the soon the Russians get back into the arms business in Syria, the soon they get back to making money. This is also an embarassment for Syria, but they don’t want to go so far as to call to much attention to what was destroyed. Obviously, the American’s don’t want to answer to accusations that they furnished intelligence to the Israeli’s. The Israeli’s get to send a message -”walk softly and carry a big stick.” And, this way it’s a more audacious display than Israel could have ever hoped for!!!
So Syria raises a stink, but not that big of one.
It could also be that Iran sees Syria as a greater threat than Israel and are keeping mum for now after Israel gave the Syrians a bitch slap.
Could be.
not sure i deserved that . . . i’ve actually been around for a couple years
what i’m trying to say is that i doubt Bush is going to leave office without dealing deciseively with Iran, which means we’re on the clock. If Iran/Syria don’t “boil” over at one of our provocations (i.e. IAF raid in Syria) soon, they may not get the chance as the U.S./Israel is just one day going to “stomp them flat” as jeffers put it
Russia’s Moves in Syria
30 June 2006
In early June [2006], the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Moscow’s decision to establish naval bases in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia. The Russian Defense Ministry officially denied the report, even though more than one source confirmed it.
As part of the plan, the port of Tartus would be transformed into a naval base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet when it is away from the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. The Russian plan involves the installation of an air defense system with S-300PMU-2 Favorit ballistic missiles. The missiles have a range of 200 kilometers (124 miles), allow a larger warhead and are equipped with a better guidance system than the previous version. The air defense system would be operated by Russia for the defense of the Tartus base and would provide potential protection for a large part of Syria. Through these initiatives, it is clear that Russia wants to strengthen its position in the Middle East.
During the first five years of Putin’s presidency, Moscow and Damascus did not share close relations; since the beginning of 2005, however, that situation changed. In the last two years, Russia has built a closer relationship with Syria. The country is an important cash-buyer of Russian arms and an interesting partner for Russia’s energy industries.
The increase of Syrian strategic dependence on Russia will strengthen Moscow’s political role in the region, even if Russian arms sales to Syria risk damaging the good relations built with Israel in recent years. Of course, stronger Russian influence in Syria could be used by Putin in a dual way. For example, if Russia needs to improve relations with Israel and the United States, it could possibly compel Syria to take a softer approach toward these countries. On the flip side, if Russia needs to increase pressure on these countries, it can use Syria as its arm for this purpose.
When connecting these latest initiatives in Syria to Russia’s good ties with Iran, it is clear that Moscow is planning on playing a stronger role in the political and diplomatic dynamics of the Middle East.
Another reason why Moscow wishes to preserve the Bashar government’s stability is to guarantee Russian economic contracts in the country. For example, in December 2005, Russia and Syria signed an important agreement worth US$370 million in the gas sector.
Moreover, from Russia’s point of view, Bashar’s good relationship with pro-Russian Chechen groups is an important guarantee for Russian homeland security. A Sunni fundamentalist regime in Damascus is seen as a threat for Moscow because it will probably give financial and logistical support to terrorist groups operating in the Chechen conflict.
[ There could have been a contingent Russians at that site. ]
Russians ferret WMDs out of Iraq to Syria knowing we won't call them on it, as it's hard enough to build support for the Iraq war let alone dragging Russia into it.
Did Saddam's WMD go to Syria Part II
Russia gains unsafe influence in the area, supplies Syria with radar that Israel learns to hack for the air strike against the jointly developed NBC.
Russians no longer fielding calls to buy more of their radar which has left Syria naked.
This is the only scenario I think could 'stun' Netanyahu and leave *everybody* silent, as this is just too big.
You’re right, I won’t rule the ball dead either. However, I can say with near impugnity that it’s either dead and back to us, or else it’s not dead and they’re taking their time in returning it.
We’d pretty much covered “taking their time” in previous discussion, so “dead ball” got top billing this round of discussion.
The key question...nibbling in towards the unknown core of the problem at hand from several directions, is what will “stun the world”?
Because whatever it is that will stun the world, silenced
Israel
Syria
Iran
North Korea
and the US.
1. A complete, or multiple complete MIRV capable Russian or Chinese ICBM’s, with warheads and active PALs would stun me.
2. Saddam’s WMD would stun me, because I always thought he shipped those to Iran, like he did in early 1991.
3. An alien spacecraft would stun me.
I don’t see the US signing off on an IAF attack on item 1.
Item 2 wouldn’t explain Korean silence.
Item 3 explains Kim’s hair-do and general demeanor, but little else.
A Nodong missile wouldn’t stun me.
Chemical and biological weapons wouldn’t stun me, or the Israelis, as Iran and Syria have had very active chem and bio weapons programs for decades now.
The sum entirety of North Korea’s nuclear technology might stun some, but wouldn’t really explain Iran’s silence.
Syria got caught with something they can’t admit. Something Iran can’t admit, something North Korea won’t admit.
Israel caught them with something Israel won’t admit, something the US knows about but refuses to admit as well.
My best guess says one or more untested North Korean prototype high energy devices, nascent and possibly functional nuclear weapons, found their way to Syria, and are now wafting about the planet in molecular form.
I think Stratfor dances clear around the same conclusion, without ever actually stating it outright.
That wouldn’t stun me.
Admission of that would stun North Korea, Iran, and Syria.
The presence of such a threat so close to tiny Israel would stun Netanyahu.
Discussion of that would likely stun progress between the US and North Korea on disarmement negotiations.
So, even though I can’t say for sure the NK nukes went to Syria (to be split with Iran) I think we do have a good feel for the magnitude of whatever IAF blew up on 9/6.
We only have to solve three equations, we have to stun Bebe, while at least getting the whole world to sit up and pay attention, we have to silence five countries, and we have to present enough of a threat for Olmert and Bush to agree to blow something up, deep inside enemy territory.
At Osirak, that was a near functional plutonium reactor.
Here, something the Norks didn’t want anymore, and something you can fit on a ship, then break down and truck across the desert.
Falling short of pinpoint ID with 100% confidence, well short.
Still more than comfortable with the general magnitude and timbre of whatever IAF targeted and destroyed.
Assuming we do have the general magnitude correct, the tennis model may lose utility.
If the target of the 9/6 raid was an...anomaly...a one time dump of excess NK baggage, then “a program of provocation and gradual escalation, leading to casus belli for the US”, doesn’t really fit anymore.
Neither does looking for whose court the “ball” is in. The only way Syria and Iran can exact retribution for the destruction of something they cannot admit they ever had, is to come back at us clandestinely, (assassinating Lebanese officials?), from an oblique angle, (more Brit hostages?), or go full out max, launch everything, or...look innocent and deny everything.
A major Syrian military offensive, open and in full view of everyone, can’t happen unless the Syrians are willing to do one of two things:
1. Explain why.
or
2. Tell the whole world to screw off.
Border skirmishes, coupla HP aircraft down?
Meh, it happens, often.
Successful raid on a significant Israeli military objective?
Rock and a hard place for Syria.
Three weeks of indecision and general inactivity, at least at significant levels, back that guess up.
How much confidence do you have in “...radars went dark”?
Supposedly that ship also stopped at Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) and Lebanon (Hezbollha).
Concerning Syrias new 'radars going dark', if Israel had that capability, they would only use it for an event of extreme national security.
Hahahaha!
Only #1 on your list would stune me. :~ p
I can understand the silence from the Syrians, because they were caught with their pants down. Not quite sure why the Israelis are keeping mum.
In the past, the Syrians have retaliated in days or weeks or even months. So, they will retaliate (probably with help from Iran, so we can’t rule out something happening in Iraq of other parts of the world). There’s something coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.