Is Syria being set-up?

[bishop]

heh, well anything's possible of course.

seems that a hell of a lot of countries want to see syria withdraw from lebanon though.. the russians, the saudis, the egyptians, the french, the germans...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ria/index.html

against this seemingly unified opposition, syria is withdrawing troops from lebanon - but they aren't withdrawing all of their troops, especially the intelligence officers.. bush is pressing for a complete withdrawal..

speaking of occupying foreign land and withdrawing troops - wasn't the golan heights region syrian territory? (and doesn't israel occupy a bit of lebanon itself?)

[Paavo]

Wow anti-isreali biogots as moderator... wow..

"Definitions of bigot on the Web:

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

I actually had to look that up, never really got what it meant. So many buzzwords nowadays to fling at people one disagrees with...

What you're really saying is that anyone who doesn't hold the same opinions on some matters are "prejudiced" and "intolerant," right? And what has my task as a moderator got to do with anything? Are moderators not allowed to debate anymore?

I can't handle the tinfoil hat hate anymore.

Hey, look, two more buzzwords that really hold no real meaning; "tinfoil hat" and "hate."

Good luck sean with your atttmept to make volconvo somewhere peopel want to debate issues with facts instead of absurd claims and hate... big uphill road from the looks of the last tow posts above this one...

Good luck with whining about personal things every time someone has an opinion that goes against your way of thinking, man.

Wow staggers the mind how ignorance flourishes in this world.

More often than not, it does indeed.

[Matt W]

Gorgo, try this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...les/801669.stm

The BBC is fairly independent, I'm sure you'd agree? The Syrian government are not angels, and overtly suppress oposition.

[Gorgo]

Thanks for the link. I'm not disagreeing that many governments in the world are nasty. The United States is one of them. Why would you believe them?

[Matt W]

Gorgo, pretty much every government is nasty, when it comes down to it. However, it doen't mean they lie all the time. There's a fine line between looking critically at their statements and sticking fingers in your ears and shouting 'I don't believe you!' whenever someone from the government stands up to say something. In this case, there are many independent places that back up what the US government has been saying - so why shouldn't I believe them?

[Gorgo]

What I'm saying, Matt, is the U.S. has a history of setting up other countries to take a fall. That doesn't mean that I'm saying Syria is angelic. The Bush administration is a criminal organization. It needs no excuse to attack other countries. There is no reason to think this jingoistic talk is any different.

[bishop]

one thing's for sure - they amped up the anti-syrian rhetoric REALLY fast..

either they're riding the wave of lebanese opposition, or they see this as an opening to extend bush's agenda stated in his inaugural address.

[Matt W]

Yes, but every case has be examined on it's own merits. Yes, the language of the Bush administration is jingoistic - it always has been. This is not an excuse to automatically cast it out to the outer darkness (as it were), but rather shows it being more cunning in its' approach - it's actually aligned to a cause that has popular and visible support. Syria has been in the sights for some time, but they've actually avoided attacking it directly - and this Lebanese 'cedar revolution' has given them another excuse to turn the heat up. It doesn't mean it's a bad cause, it just means we have to be leery of Bush's motives - just like every government.

[rcne]

Why doesn't anyone believe that Syria could have acted alone in this assassination. They are a closed society, filled with their own propaganda, and may actually believed the assassination would instill fear in the opposition.

After all elections (unknown in Syria) were coming up and eliminating the opposition is standard fare inside Syria.

If it weren't for those pesky satellite communication channels outside of the Al-Jessera control, they may have gotten away with it.

They may not be dumb as rocks, just not used to anyone openly accusing them of the deeds.

[Gorgo]

I'll say it again. These are murderous lying criminals. Who cares what they say?

Quote by: Matt W Yes, but every case has be examined on it's own merits. Yes, the language of the Bush administration is jingoistic -

[Gorgo]

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_ar...5&sectionID=22

[rcne]

From CNN:

"If Syrian troops leave, Israel will use the opportunity to spark a new crisis in Lebanon. That is what the Americans want."

Maybe they are dumb as rocks.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Gorgo I'll say it again. These are murderous lying criminals. Who cares what they say?

Okay, this really has to stop, you're turning every political thread remotely to do with the US into an anti Bush admin flamefest. It has to stop NOW.

[Gorgo]

Pooey, the subject is whether or not the Bush administration is setting Syria up. A poster has submitted the amazing idea that these liars and criminals should be believed in any way. I was countering that assumption. Please tell me how this violates any rules. I suggest you do so privately so as not to cause a greater disruption of this thread.

[rmnunez]

Well, it would be nice if some like Gorgo would rely on sources more credible than zmag, at least in the interest of objectivity. I can appreciate the need to appraise all sources and consider differing perspectives and takes on issues, but if you cite to such tripe, what credibility have you?

The use of qualifyers like murderous lying criminals is hyperbolic noise highlighting a distorted perspective, try something a bit more subtle lake "dangerous misrepresentation" and, again, steer clear of the more obviously tendentious sources.

[Gorgo]

Like another person who has decided to leave because he had nothing to contribute, you seem to want to snipe at people without adding anything to the discussion. Please keep it to yourself, or deal with the facts at hand. If you think that Bush is not a criminal or a liar, please state your reasons. If you think the article is wrong, please state why and give your sources.

Otherwise, go away.

[Pooeypants]

Are you telling me that everyone in the Bush administration "qualifies" as a criminal? Do you have proof of this?

[Gorgo]

Everyone? I don't know. Did any of them speak out against criminal activities? Did any of them know that the U.S. attacked Iraq? Then are they not conspirators in the crime? Are you doubting that it was a crime to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti and who knows who else?

[Nono]

Bush is on record as making utterances that he must have known were factually untrue. As governor of Texas he showed a marked enthusiasm for homicide. And he's in conscious (and proud) breach of the law of war. And these are only examples. So it's semanitcally justifiable to call him and his minions murderous lying criminals.

But rummie is right: it's hyperbolic language that serves only to heat things up. Even if true, it smacks of rant.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Bush is on record as making utterances that he must have known were factually untrue. As governor of Texas he showed a marked enthusiasm for homicide. And he's in conscious (and proud) breach of the law of war. And these are only examples. So it's semanitcally justifiable to call him and his minions murderous lying criminals. But rummie is right: it's hyperbolic language that serves only to heat things up. Even if true, it smacks of rant.

In general I agree. I think, nevertheless, that officials lower than the rank of Assistant Under Secretary might be treated somewhat more charitably. I do think it is important that the murderous lying criminals, as you so aptly put it, should be charged and tried in open court, a consideration that they have noteably not shown to others.