Comments on: ISIS : Syrian Target Looks Like a Reactor

By: virtual wonderer

virtual wonderer — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:33:37 +0000

I had my skeptic’s hat on when i first read the allegations that DPRK was helping Syrians build a nuke plant.

Hwang Jang Yop over at DailyNK states that he highly doubts Kim Jong Il would help the Syrians on the grounds that he would not do anything that would disadvantage him on the negotiating table against the United States.

Seriously, people need to really consider these defector’s news sources. I know sometimes they talk about the mark of the beast or sometimes they really stretch statistics, but mostly it’s good stuff.

The failure of finding WMD in Iraq is indeed the “gold standard”. People don’t elect presidents to have good reasoning, they elect them to be right all the time.

The bottomline is that it’s in Israel’s best interest to disarm any potential nuclear threats from real threats. If that hostile nation has any sort of “credible” link to DPRK, so much the better. I seem to remember neocons happily bought Chalabiesque stories of Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda.

At that time, people thought highly of Chalabi’s credibility too.

By: R. Elgin

R. Elgin — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:23:47 +0000

IMHO, this little before and after picture is pretty damning for the Syrians. Skepticism can be healthy but if it smells like and looks like a nuclear reactor, then . . .

By: snow

snow — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:24:44 +0000

“And all Those In Government are Paragons Of Truth And Credibility.”

As are most activist groups, which never stoop to lies, exaggeration or distortion to promote their agenda. Hmm, sounds like most governments…

By: wookinponub

wookinponub — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:40:01 +0000

And all Those In Government are Paragons Of Truth And Credibility.

By: bumfromkorea

bumfromkorea — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:35:52 +0000

The plot thickens…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7063135.stm

Well, the plot doesn’t thicken really (Syrian government probably wants to hide it from the rest of the world… whatever ‘it’ may be), but I just like saying that.

By: peninsular aborigine

peninsular aborigine — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:59:33 +0000

# 12, I’m with you. man.

By: globalvillageidiot

globalvillageidiot — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:13:21 +0000

10. It could have been something else of a strategic nature they bombed. Or it might have been something they hit on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate intelligence. Maybe it was a reactor. We don’t know.

11. I don’t think the Syrians have claimed it was a baby milk factory. I think that was something the Iraqis liked to claim in 1991.

12. I am also extremely skeptical of conspiracy theories, most of which, IMHO are completely and utterly full of shit. (I especially find the 9/11-related ones to be annoying and in especially bad taste.) However, I think that if one country bombs another, the burden of proof should, at least for the most part, lie with the country that carries out the attack. The lack of info surrounding this event invites conspiracy theories.

By: peninsular aborigine

peninsular aborigine — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:21:41 +0000

I guess the thing that pisses me off is that the tempo of our age is conspiratorial. I don’t mind conspiracy theories, but if your default position is conspiracy you need to look long and hard in the mirror and say, “I am a retard.”

By: Wedge

Wedge — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:10:23 +0000

Another commonsense question: If it was a baby milk factory, why would our friends the Norks complain about it the day after the “non attack?”

By: peninsular aborigine

peninsular aborigine — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:06:55 +0000

Common Sense Question: If it’s not a reactor, why bomb it?

The Israelis realize that they only have limited political capital, so why would they use it on just an exercise in dick swinging? I don’t particularly like Israel, but they are by so much (I’m American) our best friends over there. (Yes, Virginia. Even more than the Saudis.)