Syria: the World Headquarters of Terror.

APRIL/21/2003 | JVERITAS

[jveritas]

There is no other nation that has more ties to terrorism than Syria. Even Iran ranks second to Syria when it comes to State sponsor terrorism. Syria has created, has sponsored, has trained, and has financed terrorism for the last twenty years and so far Syria was not hold accountable for it horrible deeds. Syria is terror center in the world. Unfortunately and against every logic, the bureaucrats of the State department have been advising the U.S administrations one after another not to take real reprisal actions against Syria despite the ample evidence against this terrorist state and its deep involvement in many terrorist acts against the United States.

October 1983, a homicide bombing of the Marines barracks in West Beirut killed 241 Marines, almost twice the numbers of U.S military personnel killed in operation Iraqi Freedom. The driver of the homicide truck was a member of Hozballah, the planning and the funding of this terrorist act were done by the Syrian intelligence, AL-Moukabarat. The U.S did not take any significant reprisal acts against Syria or their beast Hozabllah. It was a grave mistake for the U.S to withdraw from Lebanon without crushing Syria and Hozballah for this most horrible crime. This has emboldened the Islamic terrorists all over the world and they continued to grow and grow striking the U.S around the world again and again because there was no real reprisal against them until they hit us here at home on September 11 2001.

In the 80’s all the American hostages that were taken by Hozballah, the Islamic Jihad and other terror groups were blessed and approved by Syria. So what did Syria do, they start negotiating with the U.S on freeing these hostages claiming that they have nothing to do with it, and the sad part about it that the U.S believed them at that time and some in the State department still believe them.

Hozballah is the A team of terror and it is the dual creation of Syria and Iran, but Syria is the one that keeps Hozaballah alive and well in terror, let us not forget about this. It is Syria that supports and sponsors terror group like Hamas, Islamic jihad, and other terrorist organizations. All these terrorist groups have headquarters in Syria and Lebanon who is totally under the control of Syria directly or through the puppet government appointed by the Syrian Baath regime.

The Syrian regime is as oppressive and brutal to its people and the Lebanese people as the Saddam Hussein regime was to the Iraqi people. Remember that it is this Baath ruthless party that controls Syria. The Syrian jails are filled with ten of thousands of dissidents who are tortured on a daily basis. In every corner in every Syrian town or villages there is a statue or a picture of the dead brutal dictator Hafez Al Assad and now pictures and statues of his son Bachar Al Assad. Anyone who speaks against the regime of Assad will be tortured or killed.

Syria is illegally occupying Lebanon against the U.N resolution 520 which states that all the foreign armies must leave Lebanon including the Syrian occupying army. Syria has totally controlled Lebanon not only militarily and economically by steeling Lebanon wealth but also through an appointed agent government. The Syrian Baath regime is oppressing the Lebanese people in general and the Lebanese Christians in particular.

Syria has an advanced program of Chemical and biological weapons and there are ample evidences in the hand of the CIA and the Mossad that proove this. We cannot allow the ultimate terrorist state to have these weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately some politicians and bureaucrats in the U.S have a lot of respect to the Syrian regime. They always use this excuse that in 1981 Al-Assad destroyed an Islamic uprising against him lead by the Muslim Brotherhood and for this they believe he did a good job thus the U.S should forget about all the Syrian regime horrible deeds including killing hundred of Americans. However these idiotic politicians and bureaucrats in the State department forget to mention that to suppress the uprising AL Assad killed over thirty thousand people in a Syrian city called Hamah and many of them were innocent women, children and elderly. The Baath regime in Syria did not kill the Muslim Brotherhood because they are Muslim fanatics but because they wanted to take over the power. The Syrian Baath regime would kill an army of Angels send from heaven if they think that their power is in jeopardy. Let us not forget for one second that the Syrian regime greatly supports and protects the most extreme Muslim terrorists organizations in the world like Hozabllah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

It is time to bring Syria, Hozaballah and all the terrorist organizations in Syria and Lebanon to judgment. The war on terror will never be complete without the extermination of Hozballah and the severe punishment of Syria Baath regime of terror and oppression. The United States must tell Syria to exterminate Hozabllah and all the other terrorist organizations in Syria and Lebanon or the Syrian Baath regime will be destroyed together with these terrorist organizations. The U.S must tell them to withdraw from Lebanon, stop interfering in its internal affairs and start political reforms in Syria itself. The U.S must forced Syria to disarm from its weapons of mass destruction. The U.S must no be fooled anymore by Syria deceptions and tactics. The Syrian Baath regime have been creating the terrorist beasts for so many years, have been protecting them, and have been instructing instruct them to kill Americans and then have been negotiating with the U.S on temporarily subduing these terrorist beasts in return for regional political gains. The era nice negotiations with Syria must be terminated; only orders and the tremendous pressure must be applied. This is the time that the Syrian Baath regime must be forced to change his ways permanently or we need to change this regime once and for all, in either way the fate of the Syrian regime is sealed.

[evad]

Here's an opportunity for sonny boy to step up to the plate and be a major player in the inevitable change that's coming his way.

Does he have the vision...or the balls?

Time will tell.

[n1f2ns]

We have the troops in the region; we to take some sort of action against Syria within a year or two.

[JohnGalt]

I love how you permanent war types have completely lost the ability to formulate systematic thought.

The title of your vanity essay "Syria: the World Headquarters of Terror" contrasts with later in the body of the essay, when you talk about how poorly Syria treats its people. Such an absurd rambling essay captures the essence of current foriegn policy of a war in search of a cause.

Thank you for providing much needed laughter today.

[jveritas]

Oh! John, John, John
Terror can take many forms and has so many faces. It can blow up people via a truck bomb or it can terrorize people via brutality, oppression and torture. In any case, it is called TERROR.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think we have a hold of his vision and will apply pressure as needed.

[Uncle Miltie]

I would like to distinguish between terror and oppression.

Terror is the policy of murdering non-member innocents for political gain. Hezbollah terrorizes Israel, Al-Quaeda terrorizes the U.S., Pakistan terrorizes India.

Oppression is the policy of mudering member opponents in order to retain political control. Iraq oppressed the Kurds, Shiites, Sunni political opponents etc.

Syria does both, and has for decades. Hama was flattened and paved by Assad, murdering 10K+ Islamist opponents in a rather brutal policy of oppression. Hezbollah is funded, trained and based in Syria for the purposes of terrorizing Israel.

Iraq was certainly oppressive. And, in its policy of funding terrorists in Israel, training terrorists at Salman Pak, hosting retired terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, plotting to murder a former president, and hosting current terrorists (Osama's buddy who received medical attention in Baghdad), Iraq qualifies as terrorist too.

Separately, Reagan seems to have missed an opportunity, that of fixing Syria while in the neighborhood. The Cold War being what it was, it is arguable as to whether focusing on the BIG THING (communism) was more important, limiting the number of small things (muslim terror) one wanted to tackle.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I would find it a lot easier to accept this premise if there had been 18 Syrian nationals on those planes that slammed into the WTC on 9/11. However, as I recall it, those were Saudi nationals who comprised the majority of the 9/11 terrorists. With that as a given, why aren't we planning on invading Saudi Arabia?

[Uncle Miltie]

"current foriegn policy of a war in search of a cause."

Do you believe Saddam would not have allowed the use of his WMD against the U.S.?

[BlackVeil]

Yes, it would be funny, if all this proposed unilateral intervention wasn't to be paid for by our taxes and our lives.

My favorite bit of the article is this:

Syria has an advanced program of Chemical and biological weapons and there are ample evidences in the hand of the CIA and the Mossad that proove this. We cannot allow the ultimate terrorist state to have these weapons of mass destruction.

I think that the writer took an old article about Iraq, and did a word subsitute with Syria. So lazy.

[thetruckster]

Same schpiel. Different country.

[jaz.357]

Syria: the World Headquarters of Terror?

NOT FOR LONG!

[jveritas]

I believe that President Reagan is one of the best Presidents we ever have and we should be deeply thankful for his policies that dramatically fastened the fall of Communism in Europe and the destruction of the evil empire. I also grant you that he was more focused on the bigger and more painful cancer of his time that is Communism and that is why they did not destroy the cancer terrorism at its birth in the 1980's. But now, we are eliminating this cancer once and for all.

[jveritas]

I hope so my firend. However, I am always concerend with some of the Bureaucrates in the State department who do not like to put pressure enough on Syria.

[CrosscutSaw]

We now have a foothold in the region (Iraq, Afghanistan) so that if Syria does not respond favorably to diplomatic efforts, we can use more forceful means to remove the threat from Syrian based terrorists.

[jveritas]

The Saudi Arabian government is not a sponsor of terrorism. I am not a fan at all of their back-warded Islamic government but you cannot compare them to Syria when it comes to terrorism. However, we need to apply some continuous pressure on the Saudis to keep them under our control.

[jveritas]

If you had listened to Colin Powell and some other officials last week, they said that Syria has program of Chemical and Biological weapons. Listen to the news my friend before you make your comments.

[jveritas]

The terrorists of 9/11 were not Iraqis either and I surely hope that you agreed with the War in Iraq.

[montag813]

Syria has the blood of more Americans on its hands than any other nation (Al Queda is transnational). But try telling Colon Powell and his devious State Department hacks that. Instead of using this opportunity to go to the U.N. and demanding that Syria immediately withdraw from Lebanon--which a 25-year old S.C. resolution demands--they want to reward Assad with a Powell visit, for mere favorable words, with no action taken whatsoever. Americans should be as outraged at an Assad visit as they would have been with a Hussein visit by the SoS. I am outraged at the constant perfidy exercised by our Arabist (and therefore traitorous) State Department.

Syria should instead be blockaded by land, sea and air, eviserated economically, and target of special forces attack on key installations. They are hiding Iraq's WMD, officials, and illegal arms of their own. Why do we permit a Fifth Column to exist inside our own goverment--one which spirited the entire Bin Laden family out of America on Sept 12th, 2001, the the fury of the FBI. We must urge the President to resist the DoS on every matter involving national serurity, where they clearly do not have American interests foremost on their agenda.

[Darheel]

"The World Headquarters of Terror."

Funny, I always thought it was Mecca. Silly me.

[jveritas]

Amen, Amen, Amen. Your are 100% correct.

[jveritas]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the facts point to Damascus Syria.

[BlackVeil]

Colin Powell and some other officials last week, they said that Syria has program of Chemical and Biological weapons. Listen to the news my friend before you make your comments.

I do listen to them. I have had no faith in those claims, not since that stupid performance before the UN, with the "very brilliant intelligence document" from the British secret service, which Powell was waving around. You know the one - the plargarised student essay. Embarassing.

They should just stop talking about the WMD stuff, and let it fade from view.

[evad]

I think we have a hold of his vision and will apply pressure as needed.

Hehe..I think yer right.

Fortunately, we have a leader who's willing to do the right thing first and consider politics second...if at all.

Couple that with a dream team to help with those decisions and you've got an unbeatable combination.

I don't necessarily believe in divine intervention...but if I did....

[jveritas]

BlackVeil
Please keep your faith my friend in our government and our intelligence agencies. I guarantee you 100% that we are going to find WMD in Iraq and that Syria has a WMD program. This is as true as 1+1=2.

[palmer]

The Saudi Arabian government is not a sponsor of terrorism.

I thought Saudi officials were among the funders for 9/11. I though also the Saudi government supports Wahhabism which essentially endorses terrorism.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If ever the right guy came along at the right time...

[JohnGalt]

And if they don't will George W. deserve to be reelected or will, like your essay, just switch gears and talk about how oppressed the people of ________ are?

[JohnGalt]

A key part of Colin Powell's presentation in front of the UN was in regards to camp in Northeast Iraq, in the mountaions, along the Iranian border. The camp was captured on 3/31/03.

Because the camp was a key component of the evidentary case against Iraq, you would think that the media and the military would be taking this camp very seriously. But after a few news reports over the first couple weeks, the story has just disappeared.

Iraqi Freedom supporters, feeling used and abused, have moved on to this convoluted Clintonian doctrine of 'oppressed people' while others are (finally) starting to figure out that its a non-sequitur to attack Iraq after 15 Saudi's crash planes into your buildings.

[JohnGalt]

"Do you believe Saddam would not have allowed the use of his WMD against the U.S.? "

Is this the new standard for war: if you are not sufficiently against something you are liable to be invaded?

Sophistry, but thanks for strengthening my point.

Is Saudi Arabia sufficiently against terrorism?

[Uncle Miltie]

You misunderstand my point: It is the President's job to protect and defend the literal and figurative constitution of the United States. Having determined that an opponent is in the process of development of WMD for use against us, it is the President's primary job to avoid that outcome. A longstanding standard of war is to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States.

"Is Saudi Arabia sufficiently against terrorism?"

A: No. I would give them an ultimatum.

[JohnGalt]

By that standard you have offered, how is it any different than the left using the "general welfare" verbiage to justify every government program it offers?

But since you have established that standard, you should be the one more so than I who refuses to let this war become one of liberal causes (freeing oppressed people) and losing site of the original aim, removing an imminent threat to the United States.

Of all people then, you should be demanding the elected government prove its charges in relation to Saddam and should not allow yourself to be corrupted by the morphing of this war into a cause to free oppressed people.

[Uncle Miltie]

I think we've got plenty of common ground:

"By that standard you have offered, how is it any different than the left using the "general welfare" verbiage to justify every government program it offers?"

A: Leftist government programs do not promote the "general welfare" when they steal vast quantities of money from productive people and waste it on ineffective programs. I believe my Protect and Defend argument is supported by the facts in this case, and generalized leftist welfare is not supported by the facts.

"But since you have established that standard, you should be the one more so than I who refuses to let this war become one of liberal causes (freeing oppressed people) and losing site of the original aim, removing an imminent threat to the United States."

A: Agreed. We should not go to war with the primary objective of freeing oppressed people. That is a tremendous ancillary benefit not to be overlooked. But, it is not sufficient cause. War on Burma is not supported by a Protect and Defend argument, regardless of the oppression relieved.

"Of all people then, you should be demanding the elected government prove its charges in relation to Saddam and should not allow yourself to be corrupted by the morphing of this war into a cause to free oppressed people."

A: Aside from the above answer, when GWB believed that Saddam was developing WMD for the purpose of using them on us, that is sufficient basis for war.

If it turns out he was acting on faulty intelligence, that would be bad, and his fault in an administrative sense, but not a moral or strategic sense.

If it turns out he knew they were not developing WMD, or had no chance of using them against the U.S., then he is guilty of manipulating the country into a non-strategic war. I would personally do everything in my power to defeat him in the next election if that was the case.

I think we agree on many points. But my original question still pertains, because it gets at the heart of the matter, what is in GWB's or your mind:

Do you believe Saddam would not have allowed the use of his WMD against the U.S.? If Saddam would not have allowed their use against us, this was a non-strategic war. If Saddam would have allowed their use against us, this was a constitutionally required war.

Where do you stand on that question?

[Uncle Miltie]

BTW - Cool screen name. Have you read the latest Buckley book re: Objectivism & Birchers? I was a child in that age, and I'd like to hear a review from someone who lived it.

[JohnGalt]

I am agnostic towards the legalisms; I trust him as a man that he believed Saddam had to go because he posed a threat in one form or the other to the United States, and secondly, he probably had to go to serve as an example to other Arab states.

However, the evidence linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda thus far has been insulting if not comical and there is no way the FR crowd would have tolerated that crap from Clinton who sited phantom death camps in Serbia as a pretext to war. Secondly, WMD is the political equivalent of lock-box. If you wish to layout on a weapon system by weapon system basis what a WMD then perhaps I could intelligently answer your question rather than attempt to qualify my answer.

Lastly, I appreciate your principled stand in regards to the moral dilemma we would be placed in if no significant 'WMDs' are found. I myself could probably be bought off with 'tax reform' in 2004, but you maintain the only non-cynical view one can have to prove they seriously understand the nature and magnitude of going to war.

[JohnGalt]

What is funny is that I read Atlas Shrug about 7 years ago and really liked the John Galt character as an anti-hero of the American tradition. In college I had written a paper on Anti-heroes in post World War II American literature with a focus on Randall McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest) and Cool Hand Luke, this after a semester of discovering Nietzsche and Herman Hesse.

The thing was is that John Galt was the best character of them all because he captured something 'good' about the American outlaw spirit rather than the criminal in the case of my other two favorite anti-heroes. So it was an easy screen name for me, but I must say, as a novelist, Ayn Rand was great; as a philosopher, she was a great novelist.

Did not read the Buckley book, but maybe I should just to get his take on the conservative purges he led in the sixties.

[Uncle Miltie]

"If you wish to layout on a weapon system by weapon system basis what a WMD then perhaps I could intelligently answer your question rather than attempt to qualify my answer."

Clearly, impending nukes was the issue. I've always maintained that the Bush Doctrine II can be summed up as: "No Nuts with Nukes". On that basis, the mullahs of Iran are getting warm on both the nukes and nuts components. Hopefully, nearby encouragement of the student movement will take care of the problem before we are forced to act.

Chemical / Bio threat was not imminent, new, easily observed, easily controlled, or a widely applicable basis for action. Castro may have Anthrax, but we ain't gonna pre-emptively invade.

NKorean nukes OTOH pose precisely the pre-nuke Iraq question: Do you take them out before they cross that rubicon? Pursuing the preemptive invasion strategy against nuclear NK poses the additional question of whether you are prepared to sacrifice Tokyo or Anchorage.

I'll guess and agree if your answer is thus: Preemptive invasion is strategically sound to deny nuclear capability to nuts who have it in for us. Extension of that invasion to less clear-cut scenarios is dangerous.

No response required. It has been a pleasure exploring the ins and outs, and finding ourselves in similar positions after much rhetoric.

[WaterDragon]

With al Qaida tumbling, and Saddam down, Syria is beginning to stick out like a sore thumb. And I suspect they know it.