Posted on 09/22/2007 7:30:07 PM PDT by Libloather
Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid
Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter
September 23, 2007
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, according to Israeli sources. They located the nuclear material at a compound near Dayr az-Zwar in the north.
Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President George W Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.
Diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials.
Syrian officials flew to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, last week, reinforcing the view that the two nations were coordinating their response.
Bush doesn’t have the media blacking out, rationalizing, minimizing, or putting a friendly spin on EVERYTHING he does like Krinton did. If Bush is seen walking his dog, it’s reported as an evil deed in an AP news bulletin. As for Klinton’s misdeeds, how many people even know what the Cox report is, much less read it?
Klinton was bombing countries to distract from his fidelity problems and nothing of substance happened to him. Bush is awful for conducting military action directly against terrorists who have killed Americans and a leader (Saddam) who facilitated worldwide terrorism while killing millions of his own people.
You do make a good point that I fully agree with. But Bush does disregard the media, so there is hope.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean.
thats enough reason to assinate both Leaders of these scumbag govts.
Gee Bush was Right.
bump
Didn’t Col. Hunt say that there is a lot of homosexuality in the Mideast? Man no wonder those Muslim men all look possessed? Especially the angry guy!
“Well, which is better, a secular dictator, or an islamic fundamentalist state? “
Your Saddam fellow was an Islamic terrorist.
” Iraq is going to be an islamic state. “
The invasion of Iraq will cost tens of thousands of U.S. casulties. The U.S. will never find Saddam. Zarqari has popular support among Iraqis and will never be caught. The elections will never succeed. Blah, Blah, Blah....
“So we burn money and pretend we are making a difference until we leave.”
To quote President Bush, “Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January.” Doesn’t sound like ‘pretend’ to me. The only pretenders are you defeatists.
“Your Saddam fellow was an Islamic terrorist.”
Good one. Yeah, he’s my guy.
To quote president Bush:
“Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.”
I don’t see us vectoring in on any of these, except the “not looking like our forefathers victory” part.
You call me a defeatist. Failing to prosecute military operations in Iraq in a manner that results in unambiguous victory - not the kind GWB envisions - but an unambiguous military victory, is the sure path to defeatism.
Subordinating military operations to Iraqi whims is defeatism.
You are the defeatist. Because this “war lite” strategy will end as soon as the American people get sick of paying for it. That is the practical reality of war - the American people eventually get sick of paying for the freedom of the ungrateful. Iraqis aren’t worth it. The war on terror, yes, if we were truly fighting one in Iraq (and Syria, and Iran). Democracy for Iraq? No......that is up to them to secure, not us.
“Good one. Yeah, he’s my guy.”
You said that already. ie, ‘Now if we had Saddam, or some other dictator to do our bidding, I’d be much happier.’ There is no such thing as a secular Islamic terrorist.
“Failing to prosecute military operations in Iraq in a manner that results in unambiguous victory - not the kind GWB envisions - but an unambiguous military victory, is the sure path to defeatism.”
Here you are appearntly declaring General Petraeus’s strategy as a ‘defeatist’ one. The General believes it will work. And, thus far, it is yeilding great results. You fall into the same trap as the dems here. You are either insinuating Petraeus is a liar or is stupid.
“Subordinating military operations to Iraqi whims is defeatism.”
Conducting joint operations with the IA against AQI, Mahadi Army, and other various terror networks indicates otherwise.
“Democracy for Iraq? No......that is up to them to secure, not us.”
This is ficticious. And it is a direct contradiction to the legislation authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom and the multinational legislation relating to Iraq. Also, your attempt to label Iraqis as a whole as ungrateful is in vain, as they sacrifice lives to help us fight a common foe.
You debate like a spoiled child that wants a cookie.
We can’t even agree to disagree, because there are valid points for fighting the war in Iraq - you just can’t articulate any of them.
The best one to me is that terrorists are focusing their energies in Iraq, and not in Europe or the US. However, I think that one is diminishing every day, as with Saudi financing, terror grows all over the world, not just in the vicinity of Iraq.
“You debate like a spoiled child that wants a cookie.”
Unable to adress my points, you appear to prefer name calling. You should be able to do better than that.
“We can’t even agree to disagree, because there are valid points for fighting the war in Iraq - you just can’t articulate any of them.”
This doesn’t even make any sense. You had labeled Petraeus’s strategy as defeatist. But then again, that doesn’t make any sense either. Now you appear to change the arguement. Unable to articluate why Petraeus’s strategy is ‘defeatist’, you inject the Saudis into the conversation as, what I believe is, a red herring. You are now appearently insinuating that the government of Saudi Arabia is a state-sponsor of terrorism, which directly contradicts the stated position of the U.S. government.
Oreo, or Chocolate Chip?
I deliberately did not address Petraeus, or our troops or any of the apple-pie issues. You did and completely off context. THAT is the very definition of Red Herring.
“You are now appearently insinuating that the government of Saudi Arabia is a state-sponsor of terrorism, which directly contradicts the stated position of the U.S. government.”
Please tell me you didn’t just make this argument. So because the State Deptarment doesn’t want it to be, means that it isn’t so? Saudi’s are major funders of terror. Yes. It’s an unassailable fact. It may not be stated policy of the Saudi government, but it is no less a fact.
Look - stay on point, or go eat your cookies.
“Oreo, or Chocolate Chip?”
I see it is much easier to hurl such childish nonsense than to explain why you believe Petraeus’s strategy will fail. I’m used to groups where you would be booted for these personal attacks.
“I deliberately did not address Petraeus”
You want to discuss why you believe America’s efforts in Iraq will fail, yet you won’t discuss Petaeus’s strategy, which you appearently disregard as an ‘apple pie issue’.
“You did and completely off context. THAT is the very definition of Red Herring.”
No, citing the success of the current strategy is not a red herring.
“So because the State Deptarment doesn’t want it to be, means that it isn’t so? Saudi’s are major funders of terror. Yes. It’s an unassailable fact. “
Yeah, it is an ‘unassailable fact’, because you say so. Even your red herrings are foolish. I’ll trust the well documented citings of the state department over your word. They have considerably more resources at their disposal. And I see nothing in any of their publications that resort to the childish nonsense that you espouse.
“or go eat your cookies”
This nonsense is unworthy of my time.
I’ll discuss anything about Iraq, but you need to not get your feelings hurt so easily.
Petraeus: Even he has his doubts. The problem is not with his strategy, it’s after we inevitably leave and it’s no longer his call. At that point, I believe Iraq will descend into an Islamic theocracy. If you want to discuss that rationally, great. I hardly think he’s “lying” as you churlishly suggest.
Apple Pie: You bringing up Petraeus was the apple-pie issue. You could have equally said “defeatist”, “liberal-surrender monkey”, or “traitor” which Iraq-can-do-no-wrong believers usually mete out when they are out-debated. Just like you did when you were out-debated with reasoned, factual points by me.
Red Herrings: You said that I must believe Petraeus was “either lying or stupid” thereby attempting to draw me away from the argument that was flaying your uninformed ramblings so effectively. Fortunately, with laser-like focus I stayed on target.
State Dept.: You said “I’ll trust the well documented citings of the state department over your word” Then you need to make an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ( http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ) to ward off the mind-rays that are emanating from the Dept. of State. They have a profound effect on the weak-minded - not that you are weak-minded, I’m just guessing that you are.
“This nonsense is unworthy of my time.”
That’s because you’ve got no game. You can’t hang, you’ve shot your wad, you are the last wheezing loser limping across the finish line.
Now if you want to address my points in previous posts with arguments that contain words other than “Legislation” or “State Department”, then I’ll be here.
“That’s because you’ve got no game. You can’t hang, you’ve shot your wad, you are the last wheezing loser limping across the finish line.”
Sorry, I’m above all of these childish personal attacks. Goodbye.
“Sorry, I’m above all of these childish personal attacks. Goodbye.”
Actually, you were pretty good at childish personal attacks. I was just returning in kind, with a bit more of a humorous twist, granted, completely at your expense.
If I give you a cookie, can we still be friends?
“Sorry I gave up even a few moments in my life typing this...”
I agree with you. Life is fleeting - like Iraqi Democracy, and one should not waste time pursuing such things that are not likely to bear fruit over the long term - like Iraqi Democracy.
They HAVE eliminated their nukes - they sold ‘em off to Syria (and Iran?).
They did, they gave them to the Hizbullah.
Each reactor has its own unique operating conditions, and that leads to the differentiatin. Even between two identical reactors, the nuclear material that comes out of them will be different (like a fingerprint).
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.