The Middle East part 2

[theavonlady 2]

However, losing their land is what the Palestinians have been fighting against for more than 80 years, so they are not too happy with the path of this new barrier.

Interesting. What happened 80 years ago?

[theavonlady 2]

Arafat is far from being the worst possible leader. On the contrary he acknowledges Israels right to exist etc which is far more than many of the more radical leaders do.

Like Arafat's pal and right hand man, Farouk Kaddoumi?

Kaddoumi: PLO charter was never changed

Quote[/b] ]Kaddoumi said that, contrary to what many people believe, the PLO charter was never changed so as to recognize Israel's right to exist. "The Palestinian national charter has not been amended until now," he explained. "It was said that some articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed. I'm one of those who didn't agree to any changes."

Asked about US and Israeli demands to halt terror attacks as a condition for resuming the peace process, Kaddoumi replied: "They can go to hell!"

This sort of stuff is old news around here.

[miles teg 1]

Hmm... interesting. Slight change in the topic but I guess still pertaining to the Middle East.   Wacky Ghaddaffi still has his female bodyguards it looks like.  That has to make the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia mad as hell.  LOL!

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SpongeBob 0]

Uhg, what's the ugly brown thing he has on, did he shoot a sofa?, doesn't he know its spring, he'd look so much better in a pastel color  

[bucket man 2]

Apparently there has been several explosions in Damascos and rebublican guard have killed several attackers targeting embassys of UK and some UN building was on fire.

Al Qaeda making a new attack?

Sorry but no links right now.

[turms 0]

BBC has it covered

Quote[/b] ]The security forces, who have cordoned off the area, say the explosions may have been caused by car bombs but there is no independent confirmation.

Syrian television reported security forces had clashed with "terrorists".

The state television said the group started firing indiscriminately, leading to a confrontation with security forces.

Syrian officials say at least one of the attackers was killed and another captured.

[theavonlady 2]

Something's fishy. Empty UN building. Wild random shooting. No motives yet know.

[Balschoiw 0]

Not that fishy at all if you look at it from greater distance.

There have been plans or fulfilled terror acts in Saudi Arabia, Jordania and Syria now. All of them are neighbours to Iraq.

A destabilization of these 3 countries would affect Iraq directly. That´s why I think that these 3 incidents are directly related to the war in Iraq.

[theavonlady 2]

Not that fishy at all if you look at it from greater distance.

I'm leaning backwards in my chair and trying.

Quote[/b] ]There have been plans or fulfilled terror acts in Saudi Arabia, Jordania and Syria now. All of them are neighbours to Iraq. A destabilization of these 3 countries would affect Iraq directly. That´s why I think that these 3 incidents are directly related to the war in Iraq.

The Saudi and Jordanian attacks have specifc relevant targets. Both SA and Jordan govt's are not supportive of the instability in Iraq.

The target in Syria is an empty building. The shooting was apparently random. Syria is accused of being supportive of attacks against colaition forces.

Look closer.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] The shooting was apparently random.

No.

Quote[/b] ]Syria is accused of being supportive of attacks against colaition forces.

Proof ?

You really have to sit back Avon. We discussed this issue yesterday evening with 4 guys who know more about the situation down there than we alltogether do here at the forums.

The BND watches the situation very carefully atm.

If terrorists can achieve to destabilize neighbouring countries to Iraq and cause some civil uprise (SA and Jordania are both very close to this as both granted the US forces to use their countries as bases for the attack on Iraq in a much biiger way than it was known when the war started). It doesn´t take much to start civil uprisings in both countries. This would destabilize the region completely. Right now SA is pretty vulnerable. The US can not protect them or send forces. They are running short on forces.

So if someone´s intention would be to topple some governments and cause big unrest they would do exactly what they do right now. Choose a country neighbour to Iraq and make some attacks.

It´s not about why and what but about:

What can destabilize the region, what can hurt the coaltion ?

Keep in mind that SA and Jordania are both important parts of the coaltion support ways.

Quote[/b] ]Look closer.

I had that closer look already

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ] The shooting was apparently random.

No.

Syria raids 'terror hideout' in Damascus

Quote[/b] ]

..............

The target of last night’s attack appeared to be a former United Nations office whose façade was blackened and scarred, but witnesses said the gunmen appeared to have fired at random

..............

“The gunmen just got out of a car and began shooting randomly,†said Bassam Adel, a civil servant who lives near the former UN offices. “It was very scary.â€

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Syria is accused of being supportive of attacks against colaition forces.

Proof ?

Syria's Assad Sees 'Legitimate Resistance' in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

1 hour, 9 minutes ago

DUBAI (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, under pressure from Washington to help stop attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites), said in an interview shown on Wednesday that the Iraqi insurgency was legitimate resistance.

Quote[/b] ]You really have to sit back Avon.

I am - very comfortably. But I'm not glued to my seat like you.

Quote[/b] ]We discussed this issue yesterday evening with 4 guys who know more about the situation down there than we alltogether do here at the forums.

So, I'll just ignore what I read in the papers and newswires. Oh, and Assad never really said such a thing yesterday or the day before. Al Jazeera is making it all up.

Quote[/b] ]I had that closer look already  

It doesn't help if you don't remove the blinkers.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ok. Ignore my posts then Avon.

It´s funny that you oppose everything I say. Even if it´s BND results, but why should Avon care...

And about your Syria "proof" Avon. What

has

this

Quote[/b] ]Syria is accused of being supportive of attacks against colaition forces.

to do

with

this

Quote[/b] ]DUBAI (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, under pressure from Washington to help stop attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites), said in an interview shown on Wednesday that the Iraqi insurgency was legitimate resistance.

I asked for proof that Syria is being supportive of attacks against coalition troops, not for a statement about domestic resistance within Iraq.

Do you still think that opposition within Iraq is only from terrorists or armed muslims ?

That must be the reason why so many members of the interim government already resigned, stating that they can´t cooperate with US ghosts like Bremer.

Sometimes I get the impression that you just oppose for the sake of opposing. Nothing new, but it´s astonishing that you even do it when the concept is so clear and evident...

Quote[/b] ]But I'm not glued to my seat like you.

Explain. Once again you go personal because you lack knowledge. I will not react on this level Avon. You should be grown-up enough to have a discussion. If you can´t have it without getting personal why don´t you just relax and accept that you don´t know everything, while I took part in an intel briefing yesterday evening. Of course they have told us bull...., according to your state of knowledge  

Read your papers of choice and watch Fox Avon.

Edit :

This is what I posted. It would be nice if you told me what was wrong with it.

Quote[/b] ]If terrorists can achieve to destabilize neighbouring countries to Iraq and cause some civil uprise (SA and Jordania are both very close to this as both granted the US forces to use their countries as bases for the attack on Iraq in a much biiger way than it was known when the war started). It doesn´t take much to start civil uprisings in both countries. This would destabilize the region completely. Right now SA is pretty vulnerable. The US can not protect them or send forces. They are running short on forces.

So if someone´s intention would be to topple some governments and cause big unrest they would do exactly what they do right now. Choose a country neighbour to Iraq and make some attacks.

It´s not about why and what but about:

What can destabilize the region, what can hurt the coaltion ?

Keep in mind that SA and Jordania are both important parts of the coaltion support ways.

[Bernadotte 0]

A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair:

Quote[/b] ]Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the UN to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.

We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others

[Full list of signatories: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge; Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian Hitch; Archie Lamb; David Logan; Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir; Alan White.]

[theavonlady 2]

Ok. Ignore my posts then Avon.

Maybe I should. I responded directly to your posts, asking for "proof".

Quote[/b] ]It´s funny that you oppose everything I say.

No I don't.

Quote[/b] ]Even if it´s BND results

Proof?

Quote[/b] ]but why should Avon care...

There's nothing much to care about, so far.

Quote[/b] ]

And about your Syria "proof" Avon. What

has

this

Quote[/b] ]Syria is accused of being supportive of attacks against colaition forces.

to do

with

this

Quote[/b] ]DUBAI (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, under pressure from Washington to help stop attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites), said in an interview shown on Wednesday that the Iraqi insurgency was legitimate resistance.

I asked for proof that Syria is being supportive of attacks against coalition troops, not for a statement about domestic resistance within Iraq.

I said that "Syria is accused". You asked a one word question - "proof"? The article I linked to shows that they are supportive. Note the word "supportive" and not "supporting". I did not say that Syria is materially or financially supplying terrorists in Iraq, although the US government does. See article below, paragraph in bold.

Was all this fuss over a grammatical misunderstanding?

Quote[/b] ]Do you still think that opposition within Iraq is only from terrorists or armed muslims ?

Armed opposition or general opposition? I was referring to armed opposition. But there is general opposition.

Quote[/b] ]Sometimes I get the impression that you just oppose for the sake of opposing. Nothing new, but it´s astonishing that you even do it when the concept is so clear and evident...

Looks like you've made a few booboos yourself.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]But I'm not glued to my seat like you.

Explain. Once again you go personal because you lack knowledge.

No. I've simply quoted you articles that offer the "proofs" you asked for. If there was a minsunderstanding what I stated, don't blame me from not being able to analyze your intended connotations from the single word "proof".

Quote[/b] ]If you can´t have it without getting personal why don´t you just relax and accept that you don´t know everything, while I took part in an intel briefing yesterday evening.

How pompous and condescending of you.

Quote[/b] ]Of course they have told us bull...., according to your state of knowledge  

Read your papers of choice and watch Fox Avon.

I don't get Fox and maybe link to a Fox article on the WEB once a week.

Quote[/b] ]

Edit :

This is what I posted. It would be nice if you told me what was wrong with it.

If terrorists can achieve to destabilize neighbouring countries to Iraq and cause some civil uprise (SA and Jordania are both very close to this as both granted the US forces to use their countries as bases for the attack on Iraq in a much biiger way than it was known when the war started). It doesn´t take much to start civil uprisings in both countries. This would destabilize the region completely. Right now SA is pretty vulnerable. The US can not protect them or send forces. They are running short on forces.

So if someone´s intention would be to topple some governments and cause big unrest they would do exactly what they do right now. Choose a country neighbour to Iraq and make some attacks.

It´s not about why and what but about:

What can destabilize the region, what can hurt the coaltion ?

Keep in mind that SA and Jordania are both important parts of the coaltion support ways.

I never disagreed with it.

The particular incident we're referring to is in Syria, a country that sympathizes with the anti-coalition turmoil in Iraq, a country where the Baath party still reigns supreme. Neither of these attributes are true about both Jordan and SA.

No one's claimed responsibility. The attack was pathetic. I quoted you the eyewitness accounts about the randomness of the shooting. An empty building was the target.

And I'm not the only one whose intuition based on the country of target, the lack of a target and the lack of an organization taking credit (stay tuned!) thinks that way. For what it's worth (to you, Balschoiw, I'm sure it's nothing), this is in today's headlines:

Quote[/b] ]Attack in Syria was 'charade': US lawmakers

Wed Apr 28, 4:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A shootout in a diplomatic quarter of the Syrian capital was nothing but a "charade," US lawmakers said, insisting it was an attempt by Damascus to avoid US sanctions for its support of terror.

Two legislators: Democratic Representative from New York Eliot Engel, and Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen both urged US President George W. Bush to apply immediately a law adopted by Congress and signed by him four months ago to enforce sanctions against Syria.

Damascus is accused of harboring numerous terrorist organizations, of occupying Lebanon, developing weapons of mass destruction and allowing terrorists to use its border to cross into Iraq to fight US-led coalition forces there.

"The attack Tuesday in Damascus was a charade, one more political maneuver by the regime to avoid US sanctions," Ros-Lehtinen said during a press conference to ask the Bush administration to apply the measures without any more delay.

"The UN building was empty ... this was staged," said Engel.

"After the attack, the Syrian regime said it won't tolerate terrorism," said Engle but he added: "I am very suspicious because Syria has been supporting terrorist organisations for many years."

Engel said Damascus continued to give shelter to officials with anti-Israeli terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Both lawmakers said they failed to understand why the administration had not yet unfurled sanctions, though a number of senior officials have said in the last few weeks the move was imminent.

"We have been more than patient," said Engel, adding: "I demand that the law be implemented now."

The law authorizes Bush especially to decree restrictions on exports and US investments in Syria, to reduce US diplomatic presence in Damascus and restrict Syrian diplomats' freedom of movement in the United States.

A building in the Mazzeh district of west Damascus that formerly housed UN offices was set ablaze late Tuesday and its windows shattered in the attack, which triggered a one-hour gunfight between militants and security forces.

Two militants, a policeman and a woman passer-by were killed in the shootout, according to Syrian officials.

Just for general interest, here's the website of the pro-democracy Reform Party Of Syria.

[Balschoiw 0]

Haha this is getting great. So Syria itself did the ambush ?

Quote[/b] ]"The attack Tuesday in Damascus was a charade, one more political maneuver by the regime to avoid US sanctions," Ros-Lehtinen said during a press conference to ask the Bush administration to apply the measures without any more delay.

"The UN building was empty ... this was staged," said Engel.

I´m sorry, but ...haha.. that´s just to nice  

Quote[/b] ]It´s funny that you oppose everything I say.

No I don't.

See !  

Quote[/b] ]Was all this fuss over a grammatical misunderstanding?

Hm maybe... but still my original post was on the general situation in SA, Jordania and Syria. The situation that includes terrorism in all of that countries. And that there may be a concept behind all this.

Quote[/b] ]Looks like you've made a few booboos yourself.

Erm why ?

Quote[/b] ]How pompous and condescending of you.

No I´m just sharing info I can share. If I see it right a forum should be some place where people can swap infos. If I have info I share it. That´s the basic principle I guess.

Quote[/b] ]Quote

Even if it´s BND results

Proof?

Come on Avon

[brgnorway 0]

Good heavens this is awfull!!!!!!

Israelis fire on crowds in Gaza

BBC World News

[Balschoiw 0]

Keep in mind that the israeli forces want to destroy more than 800 houses in the refugee camp.

Someone has to stop them. Seriously, this goes beyond the limit. Even for Israel.

But with a weak US president who is afraid of losing the jewish electors for november we will just see anothewr veto from them at the UN. Veto has to be cancelled. For all permanent members. It makes no sense and only hinders the UN.

To condemn the action politically has no effect at all on Israel. They just don´t give a f***.

Impose sanctions and let them rethink their attitude towards human life.

And stop the cashflow from the US.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Keep in mind that the israeli forces want to destroy more than 800 houses in the refugee camp.

Someone has to stop them. Seriously, this goes beyond the limit. Even for Israel.

But with a weak US president who is afraid of losing the jewish electors for november we will just see anothewr veto from them at the UN. Veto has to be cancelled. For all permanent members. It makes no sense and only hinders the UN.

To condemn the action politically has no effect at all on Israel. They just don´t give a f***.

Impose sanctions and let them rethink their attitude towards human life.

And stop the cashflow from the US.

1. The "jewish vote" is one of the smallest and they vote democrat.

[python3 0]

Quote[/b] ]Keep in mind that the israeli forces want to destroy more than 800 houses in the refugee camp.

Someone has to stop them. Seriously, this goes beyond the limit. Even for Israel.

But with a weak US president who is afraid of losing the jewish electors for november we will just see anothewr veto from them at the UN. Veto has to be cancelled. For all permanent members. It makes no sense and only hinders the UN.

To condemn the action politically has no effect at all on Israel. They just don´t give a f***.

Impose sanctions and let them rethink their attitude towards human life.

And stop the cashflow from the US.

1. The "jewish vote" is one of the smallest and they vote democrat.

small or not, they have a 80% turnout rate, and a population of 6,000,000 in the US. Do the math, and that amount could be the deciding factor in an election. Not to mention they mostly live in states with large electoral votes. They have some of the wealthiest citizens in the US as well. Another factor is the conservative christians in the US who support israel, Bush cant go against israel cuz he will lose them as well.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]small or not, they have a 80% turnout rate, and a population of 6,000,000 in the US. Do the math, and that amount could be the deciding factor in an election. Not to mention they mostly live in  states with large electoral votes. They have some of the wealthiest citizens in the US as well. Another factor is the conservative christians in the US who support israel, Bush cant go against israel cuz he will lose them as well.

However, if you look at their voting tend, they vote heavily democrat. They voted heavily for Gore not Bush. Historically, majority of their votes are for a Democrat.

[Badgerboy 0]

Someone has to do something. Perhaps the EU could get involved as a whole. Fuck the US. The amount of resolutions veto'd by them is rediculous, mostly to please voters.

The Jewish lobby should either class themselves as Jewish Americans and reside in the US, or Jewish Israelis and reside in Israel. Using your citizenship of one country to influence it's foreign policy of another country you feel you belong to is wrong.

I was christened catholic, but I don't vote in a way thats beneficial to the vatican. I'm British.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Someone has to do something. Perhaps the EU could get involved as a whole. Fuck the US. The amount of resolutions veto'd by them is rediculous, mostly to please voters.

Love your language.....butthead.......

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Someone has to do something. Perhaps the EU could get involved as a whole. Fuck the US. The amount of resolutions veto'd by them is rediculous, mostly to please voters.

Love your language.....butthead.......

I'm normally quite reserved, but in this situation its apparant that stronger wording is required. I mean no offence to you, but your government can fucking rot for all I care.

NO champion of 'freedom and justice' could allow this to happen. It's just fucked up politics, and weasly little fuckwits who buy themselves into power. When the rest of the world condems these actions, the US government just coughs, and says 'play nicely'.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Someone has to do something. Perhaps the EU could get involved as a whole. Fuck the US. The amount of resolutions veto'd by them is rediculous, mostly to please voters.

Love your language.....butthead.......

Actually, I can understand his sentiments on this issue. The palestinians are fucked as long as US doesn't consider another and substantially more neutral stance in this conflict. Basically, US - especially under the Bush regime with it's discriminal support to Israels stealing of land!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm normally quite reserved, but in this situation its apparant that stronger wording is required. I mean no offence to you, but your government can fucking rot for all I care.

NO champion of 'freedom and justice' could allow this to happen. It's just fucked up politics, and weasly little fuckwits who buy themselves into power. When the rest of the world condems these actions, the US government just coughs, and says 'play nicely'.

If that is the case then please sent in the mail a check with the payment of more than thousand billion dollars for all the various aid sent around the world. You might want to call the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for some money to help pay. That will probably fix the debt.

Quote[/b] ]

Actually, I can understand his sentiments on this issue. The palestinians are fucked as long as US doesn't consider another and substantially more neutral stance in this conflict. Basically, US - especially under the Bush regime with it's discriminal support to Israels stealing of land!

You talking about what Bush did early in his adminstration.