PDA

View Full Version : Official: Syria Seeking Banned Weapons



Seraphim
09-17-2003, 02:42 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_syria&cid=540&ncid=716


By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Syria is allowing militants to cross its border into Iraq (news - web sites) to kill U.S. soldiers and is aggressively seeking to acquire and develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a senior Bush administration official said Tuesday.



In addition, he said Syria continues to support organizations the United States lists as terrorist groups.


John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House hearing the United States was trying to change Syria's behavior through diplomatic means and urged lawmakers to let the effort run its course before passing trade restrictions and other measures.


After testifying to the House International Relations Committee's panel on the Middle East and Central Asia, Bolton left for Moscow, where he is to talk with the Russians about proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran, State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.


White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said on ABC's "Nightline" that "Syria is a country with which we continue to have a number of problems."


"We don't really feel they're meeting the mark, but we continue to press the Syrians," she said.


Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said Monday in Kuwait that Syria was not cooperating with U.S. demands to end support for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, which Washington labels a terrorist organization, and to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. He warned Congress would adopt the legislation if Syrian President Bashar Assad did not act.


Syria's foreign minister, Farouk al-Shaara, rejected charges his country was not cooperating and said in Damascus that Syria was willing to meet "reasonable" demands within the framework of international legitimacy.


"What Powell said about Syria's cooperation, I ask: Who is cooperating with America as America wants?" al-Shaara said at a news conference. "America has too many demands. If they are reasonable and realistic Syria is ready to cooperate."


Bolton contended at the hearing that Syria "permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war and is still doing so."


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Iraq last week that the largest numbers of figures captured in Iraq have been from Syria, then Lebanon. Defense officials said there have been about 200 foreign fighters rounded up so far in Iraq.


Rice said that the estimates of the number of foreign terrorists filtering into Iraq range from "several hundred — high hundreds — to a couple of thousands." She suggested that the majority of those individuals were among the 20,000 to 30,000 — or "possibly even a bit higher" — who passed through al-Qaida training camps.


"These are hard-core training terrorists," she said. "Are they actually being sent by al-Qaida or are they, in a sense, freelancing? I think we don't know the full picture. But these are people who were committed jihadists, who were part of the war on terror."


Bolton, who testified first in public and then in a classified session with lawmakers, said Syria offers sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — all branded as terrorist by the United States.


He said while there is no information Syria has transferred weapons of mass destruction to the terrorist organizations, "Syria's ties to numerous terrorist groups underlie the reasons for our continued anxiety."


Bolton put Syria in the same category as Iran, North Korea (news - web sites) and Libya as "rogue states, those most aggressively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and their delivery and which are therefore threats to our national security."


He said the U.S. objective was not just to prevent the spread of these weapons but to "roll back and eliminate such weapons from the arsenals of rogue states" through peaceful and diplomatic means. However, he continued, in order to do this and protect America and its allies, "we must allow ourselves the option to use every tool in our nonproliferation toolbox."





Asked by the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., if this would include regime change in Syria, Bolton replied the administration preferred diplomacy "but I am not taking any option off the table."

In her opening remarks, the committee chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, detailed Syria's unconventional weapons capability, quoting from an unclassified CIA (news - web sites) report to Congress that was issued in April and covers the first six months of 2002.

The report stated that "Syria sought chemical weapons-related precursors and expertise from foreign sources, maintains a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and appears to be trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents."

She said Syria's recent agreement with Russia concerning close cooperation on nuclear power "raises grave questions regarding the Syrian regime's true objectives on the nuclear front."

Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in an interview after the hearing she would like to see the Bush administration take a stronger stand on Syria. She is co-sponsoring a bill that could lead to sanctions against Syria.

Appeasing "these terrorist regimes does no good to the United States," she said.

Rantanplan
09-17-2003, 02:51 AM
Aha, Operation Syrian Fredom. It's all the same to me.
Let's Rock!http://smilies.crowd9.com/otn/violent/bigun2.gif

Argyll
09-17-2003, 03:40 AM
How about Operation:Letgs get Iraq sorted out first,and deliver to the Iraqi people what we promised them firt.

If there is to be something done against Syria,it will be a US venture on its own,as the UK public would not allow the government to send troops to another war,in which it just looks like the US trying to dominate the middle East...........the other Arab countries in the region would almost certainly not stand by and let that happen.
Perhaps if a lot of money fought on the war on terror was aimed at the war on drugs,and the gun culture within the US,from which there are far more related deaths than terrorist activities,then the less privalaged US citizens may feel a little better

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 03:55 AM
Send in armed IAF warplanes and over assad's palace drop to 200ft and break the sound barrier

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 03:58 AM
The arabs can't do a thing, they will just sit there point the finger call for jihad all the arab countires in the world can attack israel on all fronts and still lose as president bush has said "bring it on"

FuzziWuzzi
09-17-2003, 04:06 AM
READ PNAC NUFF SAID !





"100 monkeys with 100 random outcome machines couldn't have worse foresight than the CIA"

:bash: :bash: :bash:

Seiyuuki
09-17-2003, 04:35 AM
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House hearing the United States was trying to change Syria's behavior through diplomatic means and urged lawmakers to let the effort run its course before passing trade restrictions and other measures.

No need to jump the gun.

Argyll
09-17-2003, 06:15 AM
jdbjdb,
you seem to have a thorough working knowledge of the arab mind,in stating that they'll just sit there and do nothing,and call for Jihad,you an Israeli by any chance?

The reasons why no Arab states bothered about the Iraq thing,and the Israelis for that matter,is they did not percieve the threat gainst them the way the US did.

Sitting back and doing nothing...................yep If I was a betting man,I'd bet against the very thing!
There are terror groups much closer to home for the US than the Middle East,try South America for starters.
Again I'll point out that within Israel/and the occupied countries there are more terrorists than 2nd hand car salesmen...............sort that mess out 1st before starting another war with a crap objective!
GWB said in his speach if your country harbours terrorists,then you are no better than the terrorists,and will be trated the same........................better watch out all you guys living in Northern Ireland you're about to be invaded!oh,that goes for Spain,Germany,Italy too....................wake up!!!!!!

Saranof
09-17-2003, 06:32 AM
True, if you have to bomb every coontry harbouring terrorists, why not bomb saudi arabia now?

FuzziWuzzi
09-17-2003, 07:17 AM
Northern Ireland you're about to be invaded!

Yeah, there wouldn't be enough resources in the US to control the anarchy that would follow after that.
Same with Australia, I'd safely say after 700 years of conflict with Britian any country that thought it could fix that problem with force, would be sending their troops straight to hell.

Send the IDF in there peacekeeping with their bulldozers then send some embeded fox-news reporters. That would be quality entertainment.

I can see the fox-news reporter doing a live report , pulling out all the euphemisms used during GWII ...talking with with the sounds of bullets flying all around them ..."yes, the locals appear to be involved in a heated debate!
ooh, a building has just blown itself up at the approaching IDF bulldozer, thats right u heard it right here- a homicidal buildings!..."

foxnews, we report u believe

martinexsquaddie
09-17-2003, 08:10 AM
couple of Idf battalions with bulldozers in londonderry :roll: really let the repbulicans know what heavy handed security forces are :lol:
and send some Dermetts on there summer Holidays "what do you mean there are'nt any catholic lawyers to shoot :lol:

Adri
09-17-2003, 09:41 AM
True, if you have to bomb every coontry harbouring terrorists, why not bomb saudi arabia now?

yeah.... and usa will get a oil crise.... now thats ****ing smart...(yes, I know they suports terrorist)

but I cant understand how the usa could attack afganisthan from f.eks countrys like uzbekistan and tajikistan who bouth suport terrorists and have dictators..... strange ?

ps: jdbjdb; you sound like a fool.....or just stupied... BUT I am sure your not a fool or stupied....

Rantanplan
09-17-2003, 10:07 AM
yeah.... and usa will get a oil crise.... now thats f*** smart...(yes, I know the suports terrorist)

It's a pity that the US Oil Lobby sabotates alternative energy sources since 30 years. rofl

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 05:02 PM
they did not percieve the threat gainst them the way the US did.
No when it comes to conventional warfare arabs just flat out suck, poor training, logitics,

EvanL
09-17-2003, 05:42 PM
That would be due to the fact that they are mostly dirt poor. Im sure if they had the money they would be fine fighters. Look at Saudi Arabia. They have a fairly capable military.

SOG
09-17-2003, 05:53 PM
jdbjdb,
you seem to have a thorough working knowledge of the arab mind,in stating that they'll just sit there and do nothing,and call for Jihad,you an Israeli by any chance?

The reasons why no Arab states bothered about the Iraq thing,and the Israelis for that matter,is they did not percieve the threat gainst them the way the US did.

Sitting back and doing nothing...................yep If I was a betting man,I'd bet against the very thing!
There are terror groups much closer to home for the US than the Middle East,try South America for starters.
Again I'll point out that within Israel/and the occupied countries there are more terrorists than 2nd hand car salesmen...............sort that mess out 1st before starting another war with a crap objective!
GWB said in his speach if your country harbours terrorists,then you are no better than the terrorists,and will be trated the same........................better watch out all you guys living in Northern Ireland you're about to be invaded!oh,that goes for Spain,Germany,Italy too....................wake up!!!!!!


hmmmm...... wow yah the arabs were really afraid of saddam or would need to be because why? and israels screwed with saddam beofre and theyd do it again if they need to. stating the arabs didnt feel threatened or percieve the same threat is hilarious.

and what about south america? the US and britain have been conducting missions there for years! south america has been a continual hot bed for seals and green berets traing locals. iraq, iran, syria, is a hot bed of weapon swapping, lune dictators and a constant process with israel. the US's attention has been focused on the middle east for how many years? since the cold war? i dont get it, are you actually trying to say we dont care about terrorists anywhere else when we have confirmed ops being done there? hell we sent spec ops to train the philipinos and help them with there terrorists after they ****ed with some US citizens. oh i get it, its just argyll being argyll.


Send the IDF in there peacekeeping with their bulldozers then send some embeded fox-news reporters. That would be quality entertainment.

yeah because before we just had REALLY one sided left sided news and now that the right side has a opinion you have to beat off about it any chance you get. omg objectification!!! maybe if i have two sides of a story instead of a left hand beat off side i might be able to put TWO and TWO together. cuz, i mean, i was happy till fox news got big then they disrupted my reality distortion field!

SOG
09-17-2003, 05:57 PM
That would be due to the fact that they are mostly dirt poor. Im sure if they had the money they would be fine fighters. Look at Saudi Arabia. They have a fairly capable military.

right because the 'yards' and the viet cong were poor and thus = poor training? EHHHHH! its simple motivation to learn and to carry a gun. that is it. the arabs have no motivation except the unholy israel which they are prolly getting tired of hearing by now is screwing with those poor palenstiens again and running them over with tanks for NO reason whatsoever. meanwhile its play the saudi llord games as usual living like kings beating down your populace.

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 06:19 PM
That would be due to the fact that they are mostly dirt poor. Im sure if they had the money they would be fine fighters.
Its not about money, arabs treat their soldiers like subhumans, from 1948 till now, what arab army has actually one a war?, it was the americans who freeed kuwait, after we kicked the iraqi's out, the saudi's syrians kuwaiti's, went in, arabs are only good at terrorist tatics.

GazB
09-17-2003, 10:24 PM
"but I cant understand how the usa could attack afganisthan from f.eks countrys like uzbekistan and tajikistan who bouth suport terrorists and have dictators..... strange ? "

And of course you'd have to include Pakistan with its military coup installed leader and its support for many terrorist groups as well.

I really don't see what the big problem is. If Syrians who support OBL want to cross the border and fight with the Americans who cares. The super dooper well fed, well paid, well armed Americans WANTED a war on terrorism... that is what they are getting... they are fighting terrorists.
Of course the war on terrorism is bull****, because it is not really a war on terrorism. There are no US troops in Kosovo fighting with the KLA, or any US troops in Ireland fighting the IRA, or even any in Algeria or Spain or anywhere else there are nutters with guns and bombs blowing things and people up to try to get someones attention.
Al Qada sending men into Iraq to fight US soldiers is the only link to the war on terrorism that the invasion of Iraq has had. The US should be pleased at the opportunity to send them all to Allah.

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 11:02 PM
Pakistan decided to help america, because it was in their best intrest, money and other aid they were offered, uzbekistan and tajikistan, also offered some assistance to america in return for aid,

jdbjdb
09-17-2003, 11:04 PM
Al Qada sending men into Iraq to fight US soldiers is the only link to the war on terrorism that the invasion of Iraq has had
Iraq has clearly violated UN Resolution 1441 since 1998, America had done a huge favor for the Arab world by removing Saddam. Democracy in Iran coming soon! Syria better shape up, Hezbollah continues on their path, America will make their life hell.

Seiyuuki
09-17-2003, 11:22 PM
Of course the war on terrorism is bull****, because it is not really a war on terrorism. There are no US troops in Kosovo fighting with the KLA, or any US troops in Ireland fighting the IRA, or even any in Algeria or Spain or anywhere else there are nutters with guns and bombs blowing things and people up to try to get someones attention.

If there are US troops in all these places, they are brand as "Imperialist" or already have. Then when they aren't, it is ask..."Why aren't you there?"

Though I do have to agree on one point, the US should be pleased at the opportunity to send them all to Allah. After all, is that not a wise tactic of war? Don't rush to the enemy on all fronts, let them come to you.

jdbjdb
09-18-2003, 12:49 AM
There are no US troops in Kosovo fighting with the KLA
That would be NATO's area

Argyll
09-19-2003, 08:49 AM
SOG,
Get your schoolboy thumb outta your ass,the stuff I pointed out,has validation,South America......Iknew that we have team down there,but have they stopped the traffic of narcotics into the USA.........no!!!Have your SF teams actively been engaging the South American terroist movement in the last 3-5 years!
Have you actively done anything in NI apart from allow your government to fund the same terrorists I faced on a dialy basis for 2 years!!
In fact it is pretty well known within the UK forces that there was an ex USSF who had republican sympathies,who trained their sniper teams in "Bandit Country"in the use of the M82 Barret light 50,who had confirmed kill of British soldiers there..........!!!!!!
Just for your info.........the UK have had Spec Ops running simultainiously,so stop beating the we're alone drum,it was the event of 9/11 that brought it all home,until then you're Ops against terror were minimal to say the least!!!!


BTW there are US troops in Kosovo!! jdb!

GazB
09-19-2003, 08:46 PM
"If there are US troops in all these places, they are brand as "Imperialist" or already have. Then when they aren't, it is ask..."Why aren't you there?" "

I admit they do get a hard time, but if they were at least a bit consistant then their might be less criticism.

US forces, along with NATO forces are in Kosovo. They are ethnically cleansing the region of Serbs so KLA terrorists can run illegal arms and drugs into Europe. Ironically they went in to stop what they called the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs, but it just turns out that the result of their intervention resulted in something worse. At least the Serbs seemed to have law and order in the region before.

"Pakistan decided to help america, because it was in their best intrest, money and other aid they were offered, uzbekistan and tajikistan, also offered some assistance to america in return for aid,"

So the fact that Pakistan decided to help the US then it is OK for them to have a military dictatorship that ignores the will of its people (the very same people it is most likely that are hideing Osama Bin Laden)

"That would be NATO's area"

The US IS NATO.

He219
09-19-2003, 09:13 PM
The US IS NATO.
Quite a ludicrous statement considering you just wrote:

US forces, along with NATO forces are in Kosovo
The usual contradictions from GazB. ;)


Check Here (http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm) for the 19 NATO Member Nations
and Here (http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/nations/default.htm) for the KFOR composition.

You need a refresher on the KFOR mission objective (http://www.nato.int/kfor/kfor/objectives.htm) according to UNSCR 1244.

Seiyuuki
09-19-2003, 09:28 PM
I admit they do get a hard time, but if they were at least a bit consistant then their might be less criticism.

I admit they do get a hard time, but if you were at least a bit consistent with your view then your criticism might make sense.

Don't forget...


There are no US troops in Kosovo fighting with the KLA.


US forces, along with NATO forces are in Kosovo.