quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r er...yea...fight the power! or somthing like that...

Fight with spoon, fight with sugar, but kill them.. fight, never give up, no matter what it takes.

___________________
___________________

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Probably lots, you think it should be easy for a country to guard it's borders but like I said earlier, look at the problems a country like America, with all it's resources, has on the Mexican border with illegals coming over. I know Syria has a history of helping terrorists, hell, Damascus seems to be the headquarters of every Middle Eastern terrorist organisation going, but I just can't see what they would achieve by helping insurgents in Iraq. I've never got the impression they're seeking to expand their area of influence eastwards, they have always sought to expand their area of influence westwards towards Lebanon and Israel. Iraq wasn't a threat to Syria (and probably won't be now) so no need to maintain internal unrest in the country. All they stand to achieve is the anger of America, which after the Hariri assassination is the last thing they need. Not that I'm saying there are no militants crossing the Syrian border, just that Syria may not have the power to stop them. I'd struggle to come up with a sound explanation as to why Syria would be helping these militants (altho it's very possible renegade factions within the regime may be following their own agendas?)

Syria's strategy in Iraq is simple: create the instability, then promise to "reign in" these elements of instability for concessions from the US. I say create because Syria funds and supports militant elements within and beyond its borders, either tacitly or explicitly, but keeps a tight grip on their activities. In other words, these elements are allowed to use Syrian land as headquarters as long as they spread instability outside of Syria's borders, specifically where Syria has vested interests to do so (in this case Iraq). They hope that the US will see them as major players in the Iraq debacle, recognize that they can turn off this faucet of instability, and thus seek to dialogue with them. But of course there is a fee to pay. That fee is one of two things: get the West, specifically the US, to break the current regime's international isolation, and Lebanon (the Hariri investigation is related to both of these issues).

This strategy of course is a double edged sword, but the Syrians realize that the US is rather weak right now with regards to its situation in Iraq, and so will more likely make concessions than threaten regime change or invasion of Syria. This claim is backed up by recent (over the past year) events such as the Baker-Hamilton report which encouraged dialogue with Syria, Nanci Pelosi's recent trip to Syria, the meeting between Condi Rice and Syria's foreign minister in May (the first such high level meeting since the beginning of the Iraq war) etc. So their strategy seems to be paying dividends right now, and they're milking it for what it's worth.

Having said that, the US shouldn't be there to begin with, and I find it absolutely laughable when the US complains about countries destabilizing others, especially when it comes to Iraq. The irony is simply rich.

While I cannot obviously rule anything out, your views on what Syria is doing seems pretty complicated and extremely dangerous game for Syria to be playing.

There are already problems and issues that Syria could deal with to get these "concessions" from America (whatever it is you think Syria wants from America) without having to manufacture extra problems themselves in Iraq (a region as far as I am aware Syria has not interest in extending it's influence over)

Also if Syria is responsible for these terrorists (or are encouraging them), then they are more likely to be punished by America than rewarded for stopping them!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley While I cannot obviously rule anything out, your views on what Syria is doing seems pretty complicated and extremely dangerous game for Syria to be playing.

It's not that complicated and has been Syria's modus operandi for as long as I can remember in Lebanon. The latter serves as a historical case study for this type of strategy. Create and encourage chaos that only you can suppress, but for a fee of course. In Lebanon, the fee has always been control of Lebanon's sovereignty. In Iraq, it's concessions from the Americans.

Is it a dangerous game? Well, yes of course, and especially so in the case of Iraq because of the consequences of such a strategy backfiring. However, the key here is that Syria's regime was already being threatened ever since the Americans decided to invade Iraq. They understood that they were targeted for regime change, that they (or Iran) were next after Iraq. They most certainly were not going to sit idly there twidling their thumbs.

The strategy they chose to adopt, in my opinion, especially now, makes a lot of sense, since if their regime was already being targeted for regime change, they understood that the only way they could potentially turn the tide on the US was by contibuting to the US's debacle in Iraq in order to emerge as players with demands to make. Furthermore, since the US is so much weaker now than at the advent of the invasion, this strategy is more likely than not to pay dividends, as I already mentioned by pointing to the Baker-Hamilton report, and the Pelosi and Rice visits.

Now you tell me, why would the US court the Syrians on Iraq (which is what this report and these meetings were about), if the Syrians had nothing to offer to the Americans? And if the Syrians did have something to offer the Americans on Iraq, what could it possibly be in your opinion?

quote:

There are already problems and issues that Syria could deal with to get these "concessions" from America (whatever it is you think Syria wants from America) without having to manufacture extra problems themselves in Iraq (a region as far as I am aware Syria has not interest in extending it's influence over)

And what would these problems and issues be that Syria could deal with to get concessions from the Americans?

Lebanon is non-negotiable for the Syrians, so they won't compromise there, in the sense that they would never give up their desire for hegemony over Lebanon in return for concessions from the Americans (or anyone else for that matter).

Peace with Israel cannot be it either, since they've been begging the Israelis for peace talks over the past two years, but it is Israel that has almost completely ignored their calls. So the argument that concessions can be made to Syria in return for peace talks with Israel is moot, since it is the latter that refuses to do the talking.

What else is there?

I claim that the only card Syria has to play to get any concessions from the US is the "destabilizing" card. Fund and encourage militant elements on your soil to spread instability elsewhere.

As for what these concessions are, they are, as I mentioned previously, either one of two things (or both): breaking Syria out of international isolation, and hegemony over Lebanon (the Golan heights, I believe, are a very distant third). The first of these things is the only guarantee Syria has to ensure its regime's survival. The second of these things, I assume, needs no explanation. These two concerns, ensuring the regime's survival and hegemony over Lebanon, I claim, have defined this regime's behaviour and will continue to define it into the future.

quote:

Also if Syria is responsible for these terrorists (or are encouraging them), then they are more likely to be punished by America than rewarded for stopping them!

Not if America was already going to "punish" them anyway, and especially not now since America is at its weakest and needs all the help it can get in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You do know that suicide attacks are not just carried out by Islamic extremists don't you? In fact, Islamic extremists were taught this tactic by Japanese Marxist terrorist groups. In fact, until 2000, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka had carried out more suicide attacks than any other terrorist group put together. Anyway, I assume the point of you posting that article was to accuse Syria of helping the terrorists right? Not that I'm saying they don't because there's no way for me to find out, but borders are not easily guarded - look at the US-Mexico border - and at the moment Syria is keeping it's head down (or at least bloody well should be if they have any intelligence about them) I can't really see what Syria stands to gain from encouraging or supporting terrorism in Iraq, other than to get them even more in the shit with America and the West (which they don't want)

We talked about this in class today. "History of Suicide Bombing". Apparently, up until today even, the LTTE has committed more suicide bombings than any middle-eastern groups put together. Not sure where I could find actual stats of this though, so take it at face value.

As for what Syria stands to gain: same shit any other country would stand to gain from having great influence over Iraq. Access to resources, territory, etc etc. They have more to gain on the political stage than America.

Last edited by infinity HiGH on Jul-13-2007 at 20:24

It seems pretty clear that Syria stands to gain a lot by helping to fund one side over another in Iraq, no matter which side. They want to have influence with who ever wins, or help who ever they have infuence with already win control of the country.

The "plan" by the mysterious "them" of islam has some founding in the notion that a stable unified islamic teritory can be created from Pakistan to Turkey to Lebbenon. Iraq is right in the middle of that and it needs to be secured in order to have regional cohesiveness.

Syria and Iraq have a long history of hating each other, so it doesn't surprise me that Syria wants to keep Iraq weak by playing the terrorist card. Exactly the same reason why Iran is doing the same thing to Iraq.

In that part of the world, no one can afford or win a war (except Israel), only thing remaining is to play dirty and pretend to be innocent.

BOMB BASHAR

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Here's a great investigative piece that came out last week in An-Nahar, one of Lebanon's most respected newspapers (the other is As-Safir). In general, An-Nahar is generally considered to be right of center and anti-Syrian, while As-Safir is considered to be left of center and more pro-Syrian (although not always).

The piece is about Syrian jails becoming fertile breeding grounds for radical Islamists, who are then purposefully transferred to Iraq and Lebanon to further Syrian interests. I've always strongly believed that the simplistic view claiming that Syria's secular regime could never "cooperate" with Islamists because of diametrically opposed ideologies to be deeply mistaken. Here's some evidence to support this claim, in a piece that supports my previous comments above about Syria becoming a breeding ground for radical Islamists bound for Iraq and Lebanon.

For the original Arabic article, click here

For the translated article, click here for part 1 and here for part 2.

Warning: it's a long read, but worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You do know that suicide attacks are not just carried out by Islamic extremists don't you? In fact, Islamic extremists were taught this tactic by Japanese Marxist terrorist groups. In fact, until 2000, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka had carried out more suicide attacks than any other terrorist group put together.

pssst you are so smart ...... I hope mu children have a quarter of your brain...

quote:

According to Jane's Information Group, between 1980 and 2000 LTTE had carried out a total of 168 suicide attacks on civilians and military targets[64]. The number of suicide attacks easily exceeded the combined total of Hezbollah and Hamas suicide attacks conducted out during the same period

quote:

NUMBER OF SUICIDE ATTACKS BETWEEN 1980 - _2000 The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka and in India 168 Hizbullah and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon, Kuwait and Argentina 52 Hamas in Israel 22 The Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) in Turkey 15 The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Israel 8 Al Quaida in East Africa 2 The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) in Croatia 1 The Islamic Group (IG) in Pakistan 1 Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) in India 1 The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria 1 http://www.janes.com/security/inter...01020_1_n.shtml

why do you islamic apologists always bring up the LTTE??? From 1980 - 2000, yes suicide bombings were used and yes.....they did more than your "freedom" fighters.... its as asinine as when white boys always bring up Rocky Marciano when talking about boxing.... you people always bring up the Tigers of Tamil Eelam.... always, it never fails And what surprises me is you will sit there with out knowing jack shit about LTTE and spout off tripe like you just did.


OMG and my source is not from Wiki



don't tell me jorge that you are that blind.....

wasn't last week that a suicide bomber, Islamic.... killed twice as many as that in one focking day?? or was it today, or yesterday.... I bet it will be tomorrow... hmmmmm I mean really!! Twice as many as LTTE did in 20 focking years.... all those souls dead in one min... compared to 20 years from the LTTE....

instead of making excuses for your Islamic Freedom Fighters why don't you speak out for the thousands of innocent lives that are lost.....due to the Religion of Peace?? I feel really scared for the innocents once the US gets out...... then I am sure you people will be still saying.. "Well the LTTE did more.....wah wah wah wah....and its the USA's Fault"

Last edited by LazFX on Aug-30-2007 at 03:53

I was responding to Firestarter's assertion that these explosive belts would definately be used by Islamists - they could easily be used by Marxist terrorists as they could Islamist terrorists as history shows - that's all

I never said anything about excusing the actions of suicide attacks in Iraq, clearly there is no justification for the murder of innocent civilians

I'm also unaware of giving my support to Islamist terrorists as you claim. I do not agree with their ideology, aims or means. I have only ever sought to understand them and why they do the horrible acts they do, as imo, that is the key to stopping them...

Are there marxist terrorists in Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Are there marxist terrorists in Iraq?

Not that I would discribe the Baathists as Marxists (altho they are Arab Nationalists which were heavily influenced by Socialism), but they were allied to al-Qaida in Iraq for a very long time (tho I understand the Sunni insurgents have since fallen out with al-Qaida in Iraq due to their methods and extreme religious beliefs) so it's not impossible to think they were involved in suicide attacks...