Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2010, 01:26 PM   #1
JEDIYoda
Lifer
 
JEDIYoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,355
Default Ex-Israel PM doesn't deny air strike on Syria

Tell the world something they did not already know...lol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101125/...l_israel_syria

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Josef Federman, Associated Press 1 hr 16 mins ago

JERUSALEM Israel's former prime minister said Thursday that he can't deny ex-President George W. Bush's claim in a new book that Israel destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria.

It was Ehud Olmert's first public comment on the mysterious September 2007 incident, which happened while he was in office.

At the time, Syria announced that its airspace had been invaded by Israel but said nothing about what had been hit. The Israeli government has remained silent.

In Bush's new memoir, the former president claimed the target was believed to be a Syrian nuclear reactor being built with North Korean assistance.

He said that Israel first asked the U.S. to bomb the site, and after the U.S. turned down the request, Israel carried out an attack itself. Bush also suggested that he approved the mission.

The strike came about a year after Israel's inconclusive war against Hezbollah, in which Lebanese guerrillas battled Israel's powerful army to a stalemate. The poor performance raised questions about Israel's deterrent capabilities.

"Prime Minister Olmert's execution of the strike made up for the confidence I had lost in the Israelis during the Lebanon war," Bush wrote, adding that the Israeli leader rejected a suggestion to go public with the operation.

"Olmert told me he wanted total secrecy. He wanted to avoid anything that might back Syria into a corner and force (Syrian President Bashar) Assad to retaliate. This was his operation, and I felt an obligation to respect his wishes," Bush wrote.

Speaking to foreign journalists Thursday, Olmert said Israel took a position that "we will never comment on it."

He said he has not read Bush's book, but had seen this section. "I can only say that I don't want (to), and I can't deny it," he said.
__________________
JohnOfSheffield -- That said, Palestine will exist when they understand that Israel exists, it's that blatantly simple!
JEDIYoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 02:37 PM   #2
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

IN all due respect to JediYoda, its my understanding there are some basic historical errors in the Olmert GWB relationship distortions that should be corrected before the pre-history can be properly understood.

1. That by using satellite surveillance data, it was Israel that first noticed something really big was being constructed in Syria, and that was many years before the actual Israeli strike. Subsequent observation and the standard what is it questions followed for some period of time as Syrian construction proceeded. At some point a critical mass of though emerged among Israeli intel analysts, that building looks almost exactly like known designs for North Korean nuclear reactors.

2. When exactly Israel went to Washington with their panic panic panic plans to make a
preemptive strike on the suspected Syrian reactors, but three things are now fairly well known. Israel was already shared intel on this Syrian construction with Washington so CIA analysts were also watching, but for a period of at least six months to well over a year, GWB waited. Meanwhile GWB basically said the USA would not support Israel if Israel committed such an act of war on Syria while Israel kept nagging GWB for their complicity. What changed the mind of GWB may never be know, but at some point GWB gave Israel the green light. And once Israel had that green light from GWB, Israel soon bombed the Syrian site.

That Israeli bombing of a Syrian territory was technically an act of war, could have resulted in an ugly larger mid-east war, but Syria, for reasons of its own did not push the Issue while Israel admitted no public complicity.

And now to sell some books and excuse himself from his actual actions, now GWB comes out with some revisionists history, and so does Olmert. Which may be all well and fine for public consumption, but I very much doubt any responsible historians will be fooled.

I may not even know even close to a 1/4 of it, but the JediYoda version is not even close as he represents current PR as fact. After all, GWB was not supposed to admit Israeli complicity, but did. What the hell can Olmert do but admit Israel did it when GWB just outed him?

WE can all agree on the final results, the Syrian site was bombed without serious international consequences.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 03:11 PM   #3
JEDIYoda
Lifer
 
JEDIYoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,355
Default

actually we cannot agree because you have no clue what exactly went down or how...

Your understanding is flawed.....regardless if it was an act of war.
If Israel feels the need they will act on their own and do the same to Iran, which technically would be an act of a war that iran does not want at all!!

yet behind closed doors Israel would be everybodys friend....

yet you have not let me down with all your speculation that is not supported by facts....
__________________
JohnOfSheffield -- That said, Palestine will exist when they understand that Israel exists, it's that blatantly simple!
JEDIYoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 03:20 PM   #4
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
 
Freshgeardude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,511
Default

Syria didnt go and attack israel because they knew very well their reactor was illegal under international law AND they knew israel wouldnt allow it for israel's security


lets also remember how israel held back when they could have (and should have) carpet bombed damascus.


pretty sure assad wouldnt forget about history that easily
__________________
I sometimes post on my phone so please excuse any mistakes I may make.
Freshgeardude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 03:54 PM   #5
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshgeardude View Post
Syria didnt go and attack israel because they knew very well their reactor was illegal under international law
really? Which law? You realize unlike Israel, Syria is actually a party to the non-proliferation treaty? Not only does that allow them to build nuclear reactors, under the third pillar of the NPT it even obliges the other signatories to assist Syria with their civilian nuclear program. (That goes for Iran too BTW, as its also a signatory to the NPT, but for some reason we we only remember the NPT doesnt allow them a nuclear weapons program, but we seem to forget that very treaty explicitly allows Iran a full nuclear cycle, including fuel enrichment with our support. Of course we also forget the first pillar of that same treaty obliges the nuclear states to disarm. Selective reading I suppose).

In return the UN is allowed to inspect the facilities and monitor the nuclear cycle to ensure no weaponization program is taking place. Such safeguards are in place in Syria (although unlike Iran, Syria hasnt yet agreed to the additional protocol proposed later).

Buildings which are under construction do not fall under any of these obligations, not even for countries who signed the additional protocol; they dont even have to be declared, let alone inspected until they have gone operational and/or you have introduced nuclear materials in them. You cant build a nuke in 24 hours you see.

I really wonder which law you think Syria broke.

Last edited by P4man; 11-25-2010 at 03:58 PM.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 04:00 PM   #6
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
 
Freshgeardude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4man View Post
really? Which law? You realize unlike Israel, Syria is actually a party to the non-proliferation treaty? Not only does that allow them to build nuclear reactors, under the third pillar of the NPT it even obliges the other signatories to assist Syria with their civilian nuclear program. (That goes for Iran too BTW, as its also a signatory to the NPT, but for some reason we we only remember the NPT doesnt allow them a nuclear weapons program, but we seem to forget that very treaty explicitly allows Iran a full nuclear cycle, including fuel enrichment with our support. Of course we also forget the first pillar of that same treaty obliges the nuclear states to disarm. Selective reading I suppose).

In return the UN is allowed to inspect the facilities and monitor the nuclear cycle to ensure no weaponization program is taking place. Such safeguards are in place in Syria (although unlike Iran, Syria hasnt yet agreed to the additional protocol proposed later).

Buildings which are under construction do not fall under any of these obligations, not even for countries who signed the additional protocol; they dont even have to be declared, let alone inspected until they have gone operational and/or you have introduced nuclear materials in them. You cant build a nuke in 24 hours you see.

I really wonder which law you think Syria broke.

They never declared they had a reactor lol.


which is why they never did anything about it.

if they admitted to israel destroying their reactor, they would incriminate themselves.


if they had nothing to hide for a peaceful, civilian reactor, then by all means israel commited an act of war, but the facts point to an illegally built reactor for non-civilian use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

Quote:
On November 19, 2008, IAEA released a report[80] which said the Syrian complex bore features resembling those of an undeclared nuclear reactor and U.N. inspectors found "significant" traces of uranium at the site. The report said the findings gleaned from inspectors' visit to the site in June were not enough to conclude a reactor was once there. It said further investigation and greater Syrian transparency were needed. The confidential nuclear safeguards report said Syria would be asked to show to inspectors debris and equipment whisked away from the site after the September 2007 Israeli air raid.[81]
On February 19, 2009, the IAEA reported that samples taken from the site revealed new traces of processed uranium. A senior UN official said additional analysis of the June find had found 40 more uranium particles, for a total of 80 particles, and described it as significant. He added that experts were analyzing minute traces of graphite and stainless steel found at and near the site, but said that it was too early to relate them to nuclear activity. The report noted Syria's refusal to allow agency inspectors to make follow-up visits to sites suspected of harboring a secret nuclear program despite repeated requests from top agency officials.[82] Syria disputed these claims. According to Syria's IAEA representative Othman, there would have been a large amount of graphite had the building been a nuclear reactor. Othman continued, "They found 80 particles in half a million tonnes of soil. I don't know how you can use that figure to accuse somebody of building such a facility." [9]
In a November, 2009 report, the IAEA stated that its investigation had been stymied due to Syria's failure to cooperate.[8] The following February, under the new leadership of Yukiya Amano, the IAEA stated that "The presence of such [uranium] particles points to the possibility of nuclear-related activities at the site and adds to questions concerning the nature of the destroyed building...Syria has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation for the origin and presence of these particles".[83] Syria disputed these allegations, saying that there is not a military nuclear program in the country and that it has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the field of nuclear medicine. Syria's foreign minister said, "We are committed to the non-proliferation agreement between the agency and Syria and we (only) allow inspectors to come according to this agreement...We will not allow anything beyond the agreement because Syria does not have a military nuclear program. Syria is not obliged to open its other sites to inspectors."[84] Syria maintains that the natural uranium found at the site came from Israeli missiles.[85]
so they found uranium particles but the investigation was blocked by syria.

hmm, innocent syria was attacked by israel?
__________________
I sometimes post on my phone so please excuse any mistakes I may make.

Last edited by Freshgeardude; 11-25-2010 at 04:06 PM.
Freshgeardude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 05:49 PM   #7
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshgeardude View Post
They never declared they had a reactor lol.
Who says they had? Who says if it was under construction, that they had to declare it? In fact, under the standard NPT safeguards, they may not even have to declare operational nuclear reactors.

Quote:
if they had nothing to hide for a peaceful, civilian reactor, then by all means israel commited an act of war, but the facts point to an illegally built reactor for non-civilian use.
Even if the site was illegal (you still have to point me to the law they supposedly broke), that doesnt make Israel's attack legal.

What Israel should have done is provide the information to the IAEA so they could inspect the site and determine whether or not the site was in violation with the NPT. In fact, AFAIK, the US was legally bound to do just that, if they got the information from Israel (which itself is not bound to the NPT as they never signed it). Israel doesnt have a mandate to bomb any country or any site that it suspect is violating international agreements it itself doesnt abide by!

Quote:
so they found uranium particles but the investigation was blocked by syria.
I dont see how you could investigate a site that was bombed in to oblivion without finding uranium residue. Depleted uranium is commonly used in ammunition. Ask the iraqi's they know all about it.

As for not cooperating with the inquiry, that doesnt prove guilt and AFAICT they are not violating their agreements and are not legally bound to allow it. Sounds very much like the weapon inspectors in Iraq that sadam kicked out, not because he had WMDs but because they were not longer searching for them but for anything else useful in the war that was coming anyway.

If you are going to use treaties and laws to prevent nuclear proliferation, than you should stick to the treaties and laws and not use it only when it suits you. Actions such as these and the endless sanctions against Iran only provide countries with an incentive not to sign the NPT treaty or get out. If you only get the sticks but not carrots, why would you impose it upon yourself?

In fact, why would you not want to persue a nuclear bomb if that is what it takes to prevent the US or Israel from attacking you and achieving their desired regime change?
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 07:19 PM   #8
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

[QUOTE=JEDIYoda;30823038]actually we cannot agree because you have no clue what exactly went down or how...

Your understanding is flawed.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually JediYoda what I said was already fairly well know even before the Israeli air strike. And anyone who bothers to stay informed, read newspapers, and keep up on the internet
already knew most of the issues already.

And its somewhat laugtable for you to presume that someone like you who gets all their news from pro-Israeli propaganda dispenseries would be up to speed or have any understanding of the pre-history of the subject you are posting about.

Nor did I say I had a deep understanding of all the day to day events, I merely stated you had no understanding at all and you, JediYoda, proceeded to prove it in your initail post
on this thread.

And to some extent, the intelligence services of all countries on earth are about as close as anything on earth gets to a actual black hole, a zillion tons of manure goes in and very little every comes back out. And when ever much of anything ever comes back out, it likley to be even more politically refined and less relaible than the manure that went in initially. As things like all the Iraqi WMD that turned out to not exist is used to come to totally false conclusions.

But still all earthly intelligence services leak to some extent, in small dribs and dabs, and that allows many experts in a position to piece together what actually went on. Nor am I saying I am one of the experts piecing it together, but there has long been an expert consenus and it has been there to read about for many many years.

Those that bother can find what is actually known from the reports in excellent newspapers and on the internet. It may be not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than the cherry picked one sided JediYoda propaganda version.

The other thing I am trying to do in this thread is to stick to the topic of only the actual bombing of the Syrian site. And not go beyong that in speculating about any possible future Israeli plans to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

We have already war gamed that latter senario out on this forum ad nasium, And I don't want to ignite yet another fruitless troll war on the subject regarding events that have not happened.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 11:17 PM   #9
Harabec
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,058
Default

No one really cares about international treaties, the bottom line was that a hostile country was developing something we didn't want it to so it got blown up.
You can scream "illegal" after we take care of the problem.
Harabec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 01:22 AM   #10
JEDIYoda
Lifer
 
JEDIYoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4man View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshgeardude
They never declared they had a reactor lol.

Who says they had? Who says if it was under construction, that they had to declare it? In fact, under the standard NPT safeguards, they may not even have to declare operational nuclear reactors. --who says they don`t have to openly declare??
Quote:
if they had nothing to hide for a peaceful, civilian reactor, then by all means israel commited an act of war, but the facts point to an illegally built reactor for non-civilian use.

Even if the site was illegal (you still have to point me to the law they supposedly broke), that doesnt make Israel's attack legal. -- actually israel does not care, nor should they care if the attack was illegal! Obviously they had intelligence that it was a nuclear site....MOSSAD`s intelligence gather apparatus it the best in the world....

What Israel should have done is provide the information to the IAEA -- are you goofy or what??so they could inspect the site and determine whether or not the site was in violation with the NPT. In fact, AFAIK, the US was legally bound to do just that, if they got the information from Israel (which itself is not bound to the NPT as they never signed it). Israel doesnt have a mandate to bomb any country or any site that it suspect is violating international agreements it itself doesnt abide by!-- what israel should have done is just what they did!! teh IAEA has no teeth whatsoever!!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...onewall_t.html

Israel attacked Syria's nuclear facility without going through the "proper channels" of the U.N. atomic energy agency...for good reason. The IAEA continues to be ineffective. Over three years after the bombing of a suspected nuclear facility at Al Kibar by the IAF, the rogue state continues to derail a full investigation by IAEA, the U.N. atomic energy agency.


On 6 September 2007, a previously undisclosed facility in Al Kibar, Syria, was destroyed by aerial firepower. The target, located roughly eighty miles from the Iraqi border, was widely rumored to have hosted a nuclear reactor that the Syrian government was clandestinely constructing with assistance from North Korea in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Press reports suggest that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was behind the attack; however, neither the United States nor Israel has confirmed or denied exactly what occurred.


Photos revealing various stages of the facility's development were reportedly obtained by the Mossad sometime in 2006. One of the photos was of particular interest, as it revealed Chon Chibu (a member of North Korea's nuclear program) and Ibrahim Othman (director of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission) standing together at the site.


Press reports have also suggested that the Mossad was gathering intelligence from a human source planted inside the facility during the summer of 2007. The source is claimed to have provided Israel with visual evidence, including video footage, of the suspected nuclear site. The footage obtained revealed a reactor strikingly similar to the one in Yongbyon, as well as several North Koreans working at the location.


North Korea has long assisted Syria with their ballistic missile program, but the complex at Al Kibar was the first indication of cooperation between the two nations on a nuclear program.


It is suspected that sometime after midnight on 6 September 2007, seven F-15s from the 69th Squadron of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) bombed the suspicious Al Kibar facility. The planes were able to penetrate the site's Russian-built Tor-M1 air defense system after taking off from Ramat David air base in Haifa. The attack has since become known as "Operation Orchard."


Following the attack, Syria issued a statement acknowledging that the IAF had indeed crossed the border; however, the report claimed, after the Israeli planes made an unsuccessful attack on an unpopulated area, the nation's air defenses "forced them to flee." Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem reiterated this story four days later, proclaiming that live ammunition had been used by the IAF, but nothing had been damaged, and no one had been injured. It took almost a month before Syrian president Bashar al-Assad revealed to the public that the Israelis had in fact hit a facility, but he referred to it as an "unused military building." To this day, Syria has refused to acknowledge the site as a nuclear facility, referring to the allegations as "ridiculous."


Following the event, Israel immediately instituted a news blackout throughout the country, forbidding newspapers to write anything about the attack. When confronted about the raid, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert simply stated that members of the IDF were "demonstrating unusual courage" and that Israel "cannot always show the public our cards." The nation remained silent about the matter until early October 2007, when Israeli Army Radio revealed that the IAF had hit a military installation "deep inside Syria." Details of the attack were omitted from the report.


The United States government initially refused to comment on the situation; however, intelligence issued a handout video to the media in early 2008 identifying the nuclear facility and the reactor suspected to be inside. The video revealed photos of the reactor's construction, the location of the site, and how the facility was operating. Satellite images of the site were also released by DigitalGlobe and SPOT Image Corporation. Although the U.S. has been forthcoming in their knowledge of the construction and capabilities of Al Kibar, they have still not officially recognized Israel's involvement in the attack. To this day, the United States has not admitted to playing a role in the destruction of the suspected nuclear site.


The nations involved were so uncharacteristically quiet in the immediate aftermath of the event that the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, first became aware of the bombing through press reports. After hearing the news, ElBaradei chastised both the U.S. and Israel, claiming that the two nations "shoot first and ask questions later." However, an investigation was authorized by the IAEA, which began to probe Syria, requesting access to the supposed military installation hit at Al Kibar.


If the site was in fact home to a nuclear reactor, Syria would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they signed in 1968. Countries who have signed the treaty are authorized to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful means but are restricted from developing nuclear weapons. Virtually every U.N. member state has signed the treaty, and 151 of the 192 member states are members of the IAEA. Syria signed an agreement with the IAEA in 1992 obligating the nation to report its nuclear activity and plans to the agency, which is supposed to monitor their compliance with the NPT. If enough evidence is produced to find a signatory nation in violation of the treaty, the agency reports its findings to the U.N. Security Council. Syria has registered one nuclear reactor for research purposes; however, the nation has reportedly made several unsuccessful attempts over the last decade to purchase greater capabilities from Argentina and Russia.


Syria initially blocked the IAEA from inspecting the site of the bombing, claiming that the building was a military installation and that a visit from the agency would be unnecessary. Many outlets began to further question the credibility of Syria's claims following their hesitation to let inspectors into the country. If Syria had nothing to hide, why not invite the IAEA in to prove their innocence? Syria's obstruction, coupled with conflicting statements by various diplomats and government officials, led many to believe Israel was correct in its assessment and that Syria had in fact been constructing an illegal reactor.


To further dampen the hopes of an adequate investigation, satellite imagery began to reveal Syrian officials clearing the site of the suspected facility. On 10 October 2007, Syria conducted a controlled demolition of the remaining materials at the site. Several people were witnessed clearing the site and paving over it with concrete. The photos also reveal the removal of several large containers from the site and the erection of a new building over the location of the previous facility. Several press outlets have interpreted the mass alteration of the site immediately following the attack as a "tacit admission of guilt."


Roughly eight months after the attack, Syrian officials began to indicate a willingness to have the site inspected. They solidified this position in a 31 May 2008 letter that agreed to have IAEA inspectors visit Al Kibar to take environmental samples. The IAEA visited Syrian authorities in Damascus on 22 June, investigated the site on 23 June, and returned to Damascus for further discussion on 24 June. The IAEA reported that they had "unrestricted access" to all of the buildings on the site; however, Damascus would not grant the inspectors "any documentation relevant to the destroyed building, or any of the other buildings, to support its statements." During the 24 June meeting, the IAEA was repeatedly met with resistance over its requests for further documentation relating to the site. When Syria refused to provide records to the agency, the IAEA wrote a follow-up letter on 3 July reiterating their request for greater information and another visit. When Syria refused, another letter was sent on 15 August. Syria again denied the request, leaving the IAEA to conduct their investigation using only the samples they had acquired from the site on 23 June.


Following the IAEA's limited examination, the agency released a report on 19 November 2008. The report revealed that construction of the Al Kibar facility began sometime between 26 April 2001 and 4 August 2001 and continued until August 2007. The agency stated that the facility's "containment structure appear[ed] to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged."


Based on information gathered during the 23 June visit, the IAEA was able to confirm that the water-pumping infrastructure located at the site had a capacity adequate for the size of the alleged reactor and that there was "sufficient electrical capacity to operate the pumping system." The environmental samples taken from the site were analyzed by the IAEA's Network of Analytical Laboratories, which concluded that "a significant number of natural uranium particles" were present and that the analysis of the particles indicated "that the uranium [was] anthropogenic, i.e. that the material was produced as a result of chemical processing." Syria proclaims that these traces were the result of the bombs dropped by Israel; however, the IAEA has dismissed this possibility as "highly unlikely."


To date, the Syrian government has refused to further cooperate with the agency, a refusal which has largely gone overlooked due to the international focus on Iran's nuclear program. Following requests from the United States and the European Union last month to comply with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, Damascus defied both parties once again. The United States has suggested that the IAEA request a "special inspection" during next month's Board of Governors meeting, which would grant the agency authority to inspect Syria with little notice. Amano is reportedly unwilling to request a special inspection -- a tactic not used since 1993 in North Korea -- out of fear of further confrontation with the rogue state. However, even if a special inspection request was extended to Damascus, they could always reject it. The consequence of such action would result in a vote from the agency's board to refer the dilemma to the U.N. Security Council. The prolonged case, which isn't expected to be resolved any time in the near future, has embarrassed the IAEA and frustrated several Western states.


The Al Kibar dilemma highlights the problematic nature of working with international bureaucracies such as the IAEA in a multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, approach. The IAEA is responsible for maintaining the compliance of signatory nations to the NPT. However, the agency failed to detect Al Kibar or exercise any degree of authority throughout their investigation. Syria refused to grant the IAEA access to the suspected site until several months after the bombing. They also denied the agency any requested documentation or follow-up visits, thus prolonging the investigation and obstructing the gathering of evidence.


Given that Syria was extremely reluctant to grant the IAEA access to the facility after the attack, Israel was correct in not contacting the agency prior to acting, considering the enormous time lapse that would have occurred. The case of Al Kibar demonstrates the lack of authority that agencies such as the IAEA have over nations disinclined to cooperate with investigations. Israel concluded that it was in their national security interest to act first and answer questions later due to the direct threat posed to them by Syria's suspected nuclear facility in Al Kibar. Had Israel waded through the requested international processes, there is a good possibility that Syria would have proceeded with their reactor while denying the IAEA access to the site.


Quote:
so they found uranium particles but the investigation was blocked by syria.

I dont see how you could investigate a site that was bombed in to oblivion without finding uranium residue. Depleted uranium is commonly used in ammunition. Ask the iraqi's they know all about it.

As for not cooperating with the inquiry, that doesnt prove guilt and AFAICT they are not violating their agreements and are not legally bound to allow it. Sounds very much like the weapon inspectors in Iraq that sadam kicked out, not because he had WMDs but because they were not longer searching for them but for anything else useful in the war that was coming anyway. -- why are you so ignorant?? earlier you stated --What Israel should have done is provide the information to the IAEA --
so they could inspect the site and determine whether or not the site was in violation with the NPT. -- the IAEA has no power to just show up and say -- we are inspecting your nuclear site -- YEs you in your ignorance state that they can do just that...then you state that Sryia can refuse to grant them peromission -- you are not very bright are you??


If you are going to use treaties and laws to prevent nuclear proliferation, than you should stick to the treaties and laws and not use it only when it suits you. Actions such as these and the endless sanctions against Iran only provide countries with an incentive not to sign the NPT treaty or get out. If you only get the sticks but not carrots, why would you impose it upon yourself? -- rofl -- just because you sign something doesn`t mean you absolutely have to follow the treaty!!

In fact, why would you not want to persue a nuclear bomb if that is what it takes to prevent the US or Israel from attacking you and achieving their desired regime change?
-- hahahahaaaaa...my God, your logic just amazes me at how fallicious your thinking is...rofl..hahahaa
__________________
JohnOfSheffield -- That said, Palestine will exist when they understand that Israel exists, it's that blatantly simple!

Last edited by JEDIYoda; 11-26-2010 at 01:26 AM.
JEDIYoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 01:59 AM   #11
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harabec View Post
No one really cares about international treaties, the bottom line was that a hostile country was developing something we didn't want it to so it got blown up.
You can scream "illegal" after we take care of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therein lies the rub, who is the "WE" that took care of the "Problem". And whom is the "THEY" who took the bullshit?

The point is and remains, the world is now a vastly different place than it was in 2007, can Israel continue to pull the same stunts they did in 2007, or will they finally over reach and screw their own pooch,
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 02:53 AM   #12
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
 
Freshgeardude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4man View Post
Who says they had? Who says if it was under construction, that they had to declare it? In fact, under the standard NPT safeguards, they may not even have to declare operational nuclear reactors.



Even if the site was illegal (you still have to point me to the law they supposedly broke), that doesnt make Israel's attack legal.

What Israel should have done is provide the information to the IAEA so they could inspect the site and determine whether or not the site was in violation with the NPT. In fact, AFAIK, the US was legally bound to do just that, if they got the information from Israel (which itself is not bound to the NPT as they never signed it). Israel doesnt have a mandate to bomb any country or any site that it suspect is violating international agreements it itself doesnt abide by!



I dont see how you could investigate a site that was bombed in to oblivion without finding uranium residue. Depleted uranium is commonly used in ammunition. Ask the iraqi's they know all about it.

As for not cooperating with the inquiry, that doesnt prove guilt and AFAICT they are not violating their agreements and are not legally bound to allow it. Sounds very much like the weapon inspectors in Iraq that sadam kicked out, not because he had WMDs but because they were not longer searching for them but for anything else useful in the war that was coming anyway.

If you are going to use treaties and laws to prevent nuclear proliferation, than you should stick to the treaties and laws and not use it only when it suits you. Actions such as these and the endless sanctions against Iran only provide countries with an incentive not to sign the NPT treaty or get out. If you only get the sticks but not carrots, why would you impose it upon yourself?

In fact, why would you not want to persue a nuclear bomb if that is what it takes to prevent the US or Israel from attacking you and achieving their desired regime change?

WWYBYWB?


anyways

lol report it to IAEA!

what a joke.

look at their efforts to stop Iran. or even North Korea!

NK was behind the building of the syrian reactor, paid for by the iranian government.
__________________
I sometimes post on my phone so please excuse any mistakes I may make.
Freshgeardude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 03:36 AM   #13
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshgeardude View Post
WWYBYWB?


anyways

lol report it to IAEA!

what a joke.
Yeah very funny. Feel free to make fun of international law and treaties, throw the NPT in the bin, but then dont claim those laws are on your side and dont be surprised if countries like Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia or former soviet sattelite states conclude its better for them not to comply to the NPT, get out and actually arm themselves with nukes. They look at Israel, NK, pakistan, india and Iran and see that happens if you comply to the NPT and what if you dont. Why risk complying and still getting hit with sanctions and bombs, while still not being permitted, let alone helped to develop nuclear cycle for energy, while the states that got out or never got in, not only have the full cycle and are independent for their nuclear energy needs, they are under almost no risk of regime change.

Quote:
look at their efforts to stop Iran. or even North Korea!
North Korea got out of the NPT and then build their bomb (if they really did, AFAICS the jury is still out if they really succeeded). Under the NPT safeguard agreement they did not build a bomb secretively, nor has any state ever. Let that sink in for a moment before ridiculing it.

As for Iran. You are reading too much media propaganda. Im sure you would have mentioned Iraqs WMDs or nuclear program 10 years ago. Stop reading the warmongering media propaganda and start reading the treaties and national intelligence estimates. Iran is no nuclear threat, there is no way they can secretly build a bomb under the current inspection regime, they are by and large abiding by their promises and the treaties they signed (unlike for instance the US).

The problem with Iran is that the US doesnt like the regime, just like the regime in Baghdad fell out of its grace once it stopped taking orders and started selling its oil in euro's. US prefers equally cruel dictatorships that sell oil in dollars for some reason. This is not about law or treaties. Its not even about a nuclear proliferation. Its simply about oil and regime change. Wake up and smell the coffee.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 04:00 AM   #14
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
 
Freshgeardude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4man View Post
Yeah very funny. Feel free to make fun of international law and treaties, throw the NPT in the bin, but then dont claim those laws are on your side and dont be surprised if countries like Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia or former soviet sattelite states conclude its better for them not to comply to the NPT, get out and actually arm themselves with nukes. They look at Israel, NK, pakistan, india and Iran and see that happens if you comply to the NPT and what if you dont. Why risk complying and still getting hit with sanctions and bombs, while still not being permitted, let alone helped to develop nuclear cycle for energy, while the states that got out or never got in, not only have the full cycle and are independent for their nuclear energy needs, they are under almost no risk of regime change.



North Korea got out of the NPT and then build their bomb (if they really did, AFAICS the jury is still out if they really succeeded). Under the NPT safeguard agreement they did not build a bomb secretively, nor has any state ever. Let that sink in for a moment before ridiculing it.

As for Iran. You are reading too much media propaganda. Im sure you would have mentioned Iraqs WMDs or nuclear program 10 years ago. Stop reading the warmongering media propaganda and start reading the treaties and national intelligence estimates. Iran is no nuclear threat, there is no way they can secretly build a bomb under the current inspection regime, they are by and large abiding by their promises and the treaties they signed (unlike for instance the US).

The problem with Iran is that the US doesnt like the regime, just like the regime in Baghdad fell out of its grace once it stopped taking orders and started selling its oil in euro's. US prefers equally cruel dictatorships that sell oil in dollars for some reason. This is not about law or treaties. Its not even about a nuclear proliferation. Its simply about oil and regime change. Wake up and smell the coffee.

you have got to be kidding me.


you might be the first idiot on this forum to ever be on Iran's side of the nuclear debate.


They have repeatably defied international laws forbidding them to enrich uranium. There are sanctions passed by the UN and the US seperatly to cripple their economy.

they refuse to stop.

They hid the fact that they had nuclear reactors, and even more after the first was announced.

Quote:
there is no way they can secretly build a bomb under the current inspection regime, they are by and large abiding by their promises and the treaties they signed
wait what? last I've heard, they arent allowing IAEA inspectors anywhere near anything the has the word nuclear in its description.

the treaties they signed meant they were suppose to alllow inspectors and let known reactors they have built.

they havent done those things ( the latter being announced just recently)


they are by no means abiding by their promises.


you need to stop reading a corner of the internet article.
__________________
I sometimes post on my phone so please excuse any mistakes I may make.
Freshgeardude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 04:50 AM   #15
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Like I said, stop reading only corporate media. Start reading the bare unbiased facts. Its pointless to get in to the details if you actually think there is an international law forbidding iran to enrich uranium. Read the bloody NPT for yourself, its in plain english. If the legalise is too hard, try wikipedia:
Quote:
The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.
Iran voluntarily stopped enrichment for a while, it voluntarily accepted extra inspections and safeguards way beyond what the NPT requires. The discussion about whether or not they violated those extra restrictions (not the NPT again, AFAIK no one ever accused them of that) is a joke, its about paperwork that may or may not have been filed days to late and other inconsequential matters. Oh and about a laptop the US supposedly found containing old documents, but for some reason they wont let anyone verify whats on the laptop. But Iran is somehow supposed to explain whats on it anyhow.

Then you also swallow all the nonsense of that secret enrichment plant that was nothing but just a hole in the ground. Undeclared, but it was only a hole in the ground completely compliant with IAEA regulations and since opened to inspection (way before they were required as its not nearly operational yet).

Im not defending Iran's regime in general, I dont like any theocracy, Islam or other and I wont be sorry if this one disappears, but that doesnt change the facts. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for civilian use, under the NPT which they signed and agreed to (and no matter what security counsil resolutions demand. Its not like Israel cares a lot about those). Denying them that right gives them every incintive to get out of the NPT, kicking the inspectors out and maybe even actually build a nuke.

I have very little admiration for their regime but the way to put up with all this nuclear nonsense, I have to respect. I would not. never. If I sign a contract, either you also keep to your promises, or its null and void. And if you constantly threaten me with sanctions, bombs and regime change, I would do what it takes to protect myself. Kudo's to Iran for not losing its cool there.

Quote:
last I've heard, they arent allowing IAEA inspectors anywhere near anything the has the word nuclear in its description.
I suppose that only shows what kind of sources you get your information from.

Last edited by P4man; 11-26-2010 at 04:52 AM.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 06:10 AM   #16
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harabec View Post
No one really cares about international treaties, the bottom line was that a hostile country was developing something we didn't want it to so it got blown up.
You can scream "illegal" after we take care of the problem.
Except you have shown no evidence it was illegal, and I wonder which country is to be considered "hostile", the one dropping bombs (and regularly invading its neighbours), or the one building a site that may or may not have been nuclear and may or may not have been in violation of a treaty the other country even refuses to sign.

I know the israeli government has absolutely zero respect for international law, treaties or geneva conventions, let alone UN resolutions, but just dont be hypocritical pretending this act was legal under any of that.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 09:27 AM   #17
Harabec
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,058
Default

When did I ever say anything was legal/illegal? Am I the Israeli government?
I am simply stating how things are from our POV

Personally, I don't know much about the whole thing, although I'd be hesitant to speak against it because, well, its Syria.
Regardless, going through official channels like the UN does exactly nothing and everyone knows that. It is silly to expect a country to act like a child screaming for its parents (the UN) to do something when said parents are blind, mentally ill and in a wheelchair.

BTW, going off-topic for a bit, darfur refugees are still pouring over, trying to enter the only country that won't shoot them on sight. Sending them back to Sinai means certain death. What would you do with them? I'm bringing this up because a few days ago an officer refused to take a group of refugees back to the border for that reason as he thought it constitutes an illegal order.
Harabec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 10:54 AM   #18
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harabec View Post
It is silly to expect a country to act like a child screaming for its parents (the UN) to do something when said parents are blind, mentally ill and in a wheelchair.
No, its as silly as going to the police or a court when you suspect misdoings, instead of taking a gun and shooting the suspected thief (and a few innocent bystanders).

The UN isnt perfect, but the NPT works. At least it has worked for 40 years. If it stops working, its most likely because of the US subverting the process for its political goals (like taking the Iranian issue to the UNSC when the NPT is quite clear that this is ONLY allowed if nuclear materials were diverted for non-peaceful use, which didnt happen in Iran as the IAEA themselves agreed. That alone renders those sanctions illegal).

If on top of that, we allow countries to take matters in to their own hands, go and bomb suspected sites without even providing a shred of evidence, we might as well abolish international law and the NPT, and face all the consequences.

Quote:
BTW, going off-topic for a bit, darfur refugees are still pouring over, trying to enter the only country that won't shoot them on sight. Sending them back to Sinai means certain death. What would you do with them? I'm bringing this up because a few days ago an officer refused to take a group of refugees back to the border for that reason as he thought it constitutes an illegal order.
Id say thats for another topic.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 11:13 AM   #19
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

P4man is correct, what Israel did was an act of war and illegal to boot. But still might made right and the Israeli bombing of Syrian territory did not create severe international consequences. Nor did the Israeli bombing of an Iraqi reactor way over a decade and a half before the Syrian site was bombed.

The problem may become, that Israel gets a God complex and over confident, as they again picture themselves as David v Goliath with David winning every time. Because all it takes is once for Israel to over reach, and ole Goliath may end up being the one stomping David in the end.

At the same time the USA is losing international credibility at an ever faster speed. First came all the bullshit screming about Iraqi WMD that turned out not to exist, and now we are trying to arm twist the entire world about imposing ever more sanctions on Iran.
And as before in the Iraqi case, UN inspectors do their best to pander to US pressure, but the larger world is not getting on the US bandwagon in imposing draconian sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile Israel and the USA then scream panic, terror, Iranian WMD, ever louder, while the larger world realizes the USA is FOS. And more sooner than later, and especially if Obama fails to deliver an Palestinian State, the USA may find itself the totally ignored little boy who cried wolf while the rest of the world goes on their merry way.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 12:37 PM   #20
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Why is it Obama's responsibility to deliver a Palestinian state?
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 12:53 PM   #21
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
Why is it Obama's responsibility to deliver a Palestinian state?
It wouldnt be, if he (well, the US) would stop supporting Israel's illegal occupation, wars of aggression and other human right violations. The main reason there is little to no hope for an israeli palestinian solution is that israel feels no pressure whatsoever to abide by international law. And that is thanks to the US. In that sense, the US has a colossal moral responsibility.

Not that it will happen.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 01:06 PM   #22
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

So let Israel and the Palestinians decide what they want to do.

Keep everyone else out of it. And I mean everyone. No back door support. People want to bring up the past as a reason for contininue support of one side or another.

This is a Palestinian/Israeli issue. Both have been supported in the past; what they did with the support was up to them.

Now they make them live with the consequences of their actions
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 01:25 PM   #23
P4man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
So let Israel and the Palestinians decide what they want to do.
Yeah that would be fair, wouldnt it. After we've allowed Israel to control 100% of Palestinian terroritory for over 4 decades, destroying their economy, stealing their resources, after we let it build settlements that now control more than 40% of the West Bank, after we armed them to the teeth and even let them have nukes, while making sure no possible ally of the Palestinians poses any real threat (let alone a nuclear one), NOW let them just sort it out among themselves. That will guarantee a fair and just outcome, no doubt.

And actually, even that is still more than I would hope for at this point.
P4man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 02:48 PM   #24
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

So you want to look at the past 40 years and conviently ignore before then.

Why?

Israel was not the US creation, neither was Palestine.
The Palestinians have been supported by the Soviets and the Arabs for the most part.

Those entities screwed up in destroying Israel when they could have; also neither wanted a state of Palestine. That is a question that people are afraid to task. Why!

What is in the past that some are so afraid to look into?
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 02:51 PM   #25
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4man View Post

<snip>

Quote:
last I've heard, they arent allowing IAEA inspectors anywhere near anything the has the word nuclear in its description.
I suppose that only shows what kind of sources you get your information from..
And you have other info regarding the IAEA and Syria in what happened for the first two years after the bombing?

If so, please enlighten us to what that information is?
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.