West Asia News and Discussions

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Sep 2012 20:19

http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/83 ... top-israel

Syria Islamists: 'next stop Israel'

As Bashar al-Assad fights for his survival, a new threat to Israel is crystallising across its northern borders.

What began in Syria as a limited but genuine people's uprising against a dictatorship has become contaminated with Saudi-funded foreign mujahideen who are driven, among other things, by an intense hostility toward non-Muslims - and an implacable hatred of Jews and Israel.

In Al Midan, a suburb in southern Damascus, Mateen, a fighter who claimed to have travelled from Afghanistan, shared his ideas for a post-Assad Syria: "We have to a build a society of respect and brotherhood in accordance with the Prophet's commandments," he said in Urdu. "We will treat non-Muslims kindly, but we have a big fight against the Jews ahead of us. We will take that up, God willing."

The threat to Israel comes not only from the large number of foreign jihadists currently amassing in Syria to take on Assad. Riyadh's monarchy is grooming Manaf Tlass as a possible replacement for Assad. A high-ranking official in the Syrian Arab Army and a once-close friend of Assad's, Tlass was seen as important enough to be smuggled out of Syria by French intelligence. Tlass has now adopted the vocabulary of the "moderate", but his family history should be of concern to Israelis.

Tlass's father, Mustafa, a former Sunni defence minister who wielded tremendous clout under Hafez Assad, is the author of The Matzah of Zion. Complete with a lurid cover depicting ravenous Jews draining the blood from the slit throat of a Christian priest, the book, a collage of discredited old documents, attempts to revive the blood libel. Tlass's cousin, Abdul Razzak, commands the notorious al-Farouq brigade of the opposition - the same outfit that expelled 80,000 Christians from Homs.

This view of an impending war with Israel was identical - almost word for word - to what Yahya Mujahid, a leader of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group charged with carrying out the Mumbai attacks in 2008, told me in Lahore in 2009: that the Lashkar-e-Taiba would take up the "fight" with the Jews after "liberating" Kashmir from Indian rule.

Neither Mujahid nor Mateen have ever met a Jew in their lives, although Mateen thought that Afghan president Hamid Karzai was "worse than a Jew".

However, both were united by a deep hatred that has been exported to their homelands by the Saudi Arabian theocracy.

In hijacking what could have matured into a genuinely inclusive people's uprising, Saudi Arabia has discredited this rebellion in the eyes of secular Syrians - the constituency that could, in a post-Assad Syria, play a role in building peace with Israel.

It is tragic that a Wahhabi monarchy that is pretending to be a friend of the West by observing peace with Israel while spreading noxious anti-Israeli ideologies throughout the Muslim world, is treated as a friend and ally by Western democracies.

Their victims so far have been Syria's Shiite and Christian minorities.

Regardless of the outcome of this war, the prospect of an Israeli settlement with Syria now looks dead.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Sep 2012 21:47

Only 10% at the most are estimated to be foreigners
--------------------
Netanyahu aides: PM to set Iran 'red lines' in UN speech, avoid Obama clash

Prime minister touches down in New York ahead of planned UNGA address; Lieberman: Israel must present its position clearly, even if U.S. disagrees.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plane landed in New York on Thursday, ahead of his planned address before the United Nations General Assembly later in the day.

In his speech, the premier is expected to define Israel's 'red lines' in regards to Iran's nuclear program, without, however, initiating a public confrontation with U.S. President Barack Obama.

Recent days have seen the renewal of contacts between Netanyahu's aides and White House officials, with both sides ostensibly attempting to relieve tensions between the two nations and showing that Washington's and Jerusalem's positions regarding Iran have become closer.

"In his speech, the prime minister will set a clear red line, but not one that will conflict with Obama's speech," a senior source in Netanyahu's entourage told reporters en route to New York, adding, "Obama said Iran won't have nuclear weapons, and the prime minister will present the ways in which that is achieved."

According to Netanyahu's aides, the premier is expected to say in his speech that Israel and the United States have a common goal, which is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities.

"What Netanyahu will say is that the red line issue will aid in reaching that goal," a source in the PM's entourage said, adding that "Netanyahu is convinced that the United States and Israel can work together to achieve it."

The premier is expected to address the UNGA around 7:30 P.M., Israel time, one hour after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is due to speak before the assembly.

Despite the fact that the Palestinian issue is expected to take up less attention than during last year's meet, Netanyahu's aides indicated that the premier's speech will also include a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is accompanying Netanyahu on his trip to the UN, told reporters on board the PM's plane that the prime minister must put Israel's position forward in the best, clearest fashion.

According to Lieberman, that position may not always completely overlap with the U.S. position, adding that it wouldn’t be the first time that such a discrepancy exists.

"We’ve had [disagreements] between past Israeli and American governments, and that doesn't harm the close friendship between the nations and their commitment to one another," the foreign minister said.

Source mentioned that to me last night about Netanyahu speech going to talk about specifics. Will speak more about it on the weekend.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Sep 2012 22:47

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/13 ... da-leader/

Support Syrian rebels so we can topple Israel: Al Qaeda leader

In a recent audio recording posted on the Internet, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Muslims to support the Syrian rebels, saying it was a way to confront neighbouring Israel.

“Supporting jihad in Syria to establish a Muslim state is a basic step towards Jerusalem,” he said. “And thus America is giving the secular Baathist regime one chance after another for fear that a government is established in Syria that would threaten Israel.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Sep 2012 22:50

ShyamD, CNN last night was reporting that it was AlQ that was behind the Benghazi attack and the US knew within 24 hours of it and were fudging.
There is something odd about the Benghazi attack. The US envoy, his past role if any in Qaddafi's ouster, and his coming back as full envoy, moving about in Benghazi without good escort all indicate there is black lentils.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 27 Sep 2012 22:51

They have already used the mujahideen to weaken the SU. They are trying to do the same. But this time the first blowback was sooner. I am just waiting for the rest to follow.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Sep 2012 23:31

ramana wrote:ShyamD, CNN last night was reporting that it was AlQ that was behind the Benghazi attack and the US knew within 24 hours of it and were fudging.
There is something odd about the Benghazi attack. The US envoy, his past role if any in Qaddafi's ouster, and his coming back as full envoy, moving about in Benghazi without good escort all indicate there is black lentils.

CNN leaked news about some Al Q guy living in tripoli today. He was to set up a cell in Libya. This is to pressure Libyans to act and force public opinion to help the Libyans act.

CIA humint guys (there were 20 guys who turned up for evacuation including official diplomats) have fully pulled out on the day after attack. So now only techint for them.

Haven't watched Libya much in detail as I've been busy lately.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 28 Sep 2012 00:20

Is this a plausible model of what is happening?

1. Iran wants WA hegemony and threatens Israel as a way to get it.
2. US & co springs to cut Iran down to size and handle the threat.
3. KSA & co including turkey takes the opportunity and manipulates US & co into supporting the replacement of relatively secular tyrants of Egypt, Libya and now Syria with MB rulers.
4. With the killing of Stevens there is more awareness in Israel of the danger of MB in Syria and Egypt: now the threat to Israel has doubled or tripled.

We are heading to a scenario in which Israel feels compelled to preemptively launch nuclear strikes against its enemies in which case mankind is seriously screwed for a long time.

To avert this, and recognizing that saudi machination is one of the keys, one approach I can think of is for the US to break its longstanding alliance Jwith house of saud, and depose it. It should take more direct control of the oil, and turn makka-madina into vatican style open cities under UN (read US) "guarantee of protection".

Downside: possible global tumult among muslims and rage against "crusaders". I am guessing that this will be manageable once saudi money is out of the picture.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 00:58

KLNM, I too was just a few minutes ago thinking the Arab spring intended quarry was Iran and not the "has been" dictators in Sunni Arab lands.they were the sacrifice for the greater good of West's interests. Arab spring was supposed to induce sympathetic detonation in Iran and other axis of evil. Recall all the hoopla about Iran President elections and how one lesser evil guy was supported by twitterati?

Looks like the worry that Syria collapse would lead to jepardize Israel and the rest of Middle East is staying their hands.

Meantime Ashok Mehta in Pioneer on a recent visit to Tel Aviv on Iran:

Coming very soon: Spring of Persia

Author: Ashok K Mehta

Israeli intelligence believes that March 2013 will be the decisive moment when Israel has to act jointly with the US against Iran, as a de-coupled attack is unlikely to derail Tehran's nuclear programme

The mood at the World Summit on Counter-terrorism at Herzliya, Tel Aviv, this month was sombre. Mixed feelings about the Arab Spring —which many called an ‘uprising’ — and what to do about Iran were dominant. While placards on the streets in Tel Aviv read: “Don’t Bomb. Talk”, discussions on ‘deciding on the bomb or bombing’ and ‘preparing for The Day After were plentiful’.

The regional scene was seen as very messy with the Arab Spring having been arrested in Bahrain. After Afghanistan and Iraq, a declining US was perceived exhausted and ruing the strategic error of not doing a pre-emptive on Iran instead of invading Iraq. After events in Iraq, Egypt and now Syria, Russia appeared the big loser. Turkey was confronted by a new set of problems with all its neighbours including Israel and especially Syria. Egypt, Libya and Yemen, nursing the Arab Spring hangover were now stung by the fallout of the anti-Islamic film.

The region had been hit economically too: Tourism evaporated in Egypt; Jordan was burdened with Syrian refugees; and Lebanon, Palestine and Gaza barely managing to survive. Syria was the new low-signature enemy. The ungoverned spaces in Sinai where the Bedouin were calling the shots posed a new challenge to Israel as well as Egypt. For Israel, the 1979 Treaty with Egypt was critical; and fortunately holding. Despite political reforms, Jordan could unravel any time, though not everyone agreed on this. The new concern and perhaps exaggerated was the fear of a Caliphate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sitting unfazed in this troubled neighbourhood was tiny Israel, coveting its strategic depth through special relations with the US. A robust deterrence and sound intelligence had enabled Israel to eliminate terrorism and end suicide killings at home. Hezbollah had not fired a single rocket from its armoury of 70,000 indirect weapons since 2006. Although Hamas in Gaza had been contained, Grad rockets continued to strike South Israel, skirting the expensive Iron Dome anti-missile defences.

Uppermost in Israeli minds is a nuclear Iran and the enlarged threat that an emboldened Hezbollah and others jihadi outfits would pose to the region. Iranian leaders have called Israel “a filthy bacteria”, “a cancerous tumour” and “a zionist black stain that must and will be removed”. The current assessment is that Iran’s 10,000 centrifuges have yielded 20 per cent enriched uranium to fuel five to six bombs. Apparently the decision to make the bomb which entails two more steps — bomb grade enrichment of uranium and weaponisation — has not been made. Once the go-ahead is given, Iran will take a year to possess the bomb. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that it could be only six to seven months.

P5+1 talks and sanctions have evidently not worked; International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Yukiya Amano along with the 35-member Board censured Iran for defying demands to curb uranium enrichment and halt its secret programme of weaponisation. One of Israel’s ‘red lines’ is Iran’s acquisition of bomb-grade uranium — Tehran’s point of entry into the ‘immunity zone’ disabling which would be beyond Israel’s operational capability.

The Israelis are asking whether it is wise to trust US intelligence on Iran’s nuclear capability before it reaches immunity zone. Over the years, Mossad has successfully penetrated Iran’s nuclear programme, delaying and disrupting it. The Stuxnet virus which attacked the centrifuge rods altered their speed of spinning resulting in physical collapse. The Stuxnet was injected following 1000 man years of work and has caused cost and time overruns of uranium enrichment. While anonymity prevails over the ownership of the operation, ambiguity reigns over Israel’s own nuclear capability which is its ultimate deterrent. No one ever talks about it.

Israeli intelligence estimates that the Spring of 2013 will be the decisive moment when Israel will have to act as well as ensure that the action is a joint US-Israeli operation, as a de-coupled attack was unlikely to decisively degrade Iran’s nuclear programme. Both the Americans and the Israelis have wargamed the offensive and the consequences of the operation. Israeli experts are advocating ways and means to ensure that the US is forced to act on time though at present Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ruled out defining ‘red lines’ or ‘deadlines’. She says there is still time for negotiations.

Later this month, for the first time in the history of US-Israel relations, a visiting Israeli Prime Minister will not meet the US President ostensibly due to the latter’s pre-occupation with the election While President Obama has said the US will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has asserted he will not permit Tehran to achieve the capability to produce a bomb. Mr Obama does not want to make any commitment on Iran till after the election.

Other options are being weighed. For instance, attacking the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its assets, instead of nuclear facilities, and further empowering the Iranian Resistance which presumably provided intelligence about the collapse of centrifuge rods. These force multipliers will not stop an Iranian bomb which will prompt Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to follow suit.

Israel’s fall-back position is the US. It is banking on Washington, DC to act and only if it were not to, Israel would go it alone. Surprisingly, retired Generals are less vocal and vitriolic about Iran’s bomb than politicians, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak. Former Military Chief Lt Gen Gabi Ashkenzai said that the Prime Minister and Defence Minister were more keen to wage war than the military and that coordination of expectations between politicians and military was critical to manage results.

Last week, military chief Lt Gen Benny Gantz tested the armed forces’ competence and readiness in the event of war resulting from Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons and Iran’s nuclear buildup. Iran’s top generals have said their response would be immediate and unstoppable —one of them even threatening a pre-emptive.

One of the immediate consequences of a nuclear Iran is the likelihood of Pakistan deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia on the latter’s request. Going beyond extended deterrence, this would give Pakistan a second strike capability and be hugely popular in protecting the Holy Land. There is a precedence: The US had stationed nuclear weapons in Turkey and Germany.
{Now Pakis are equal to US in the minds of the interlocutors!!! US is not TSP and Iran is not Warsaw pact}

My assessment is that Israeli bluster is diminishing. As for the Iranian bomb, it will make the North Korean bomb kid stuff.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Sep 2012 01:09

KLNMurthy wrote: We are heading to a scenario in which Israel feels compelled to preemptively launch nuclear strikes against its enemies in which case mankind is seriously screwed for a long time.

KLNM garu,

This may not be a bad proposition from (A) Indian Interests (B) Solution to Islami jihadism (C) west control over energy sources/routes perspective.

Added later: This will also solve the Paki nuke problem permanently, IMHO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 01:12

Read teh Ashok Mehta piece. Israel does not want to go alone. It has to be a joint op with US. Only US also can't do it. And such an action will rile the ummah.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 01:21

As soon as the attack ,on US Embassy in Libya happened I said "things don't jive"
About Israel I have often repeated if Israel could do it it would have done it. Plus adding US to the (Ad) venture the adverse events would not just be against Israel alone but US as we'll...
It's always better to have company when you may go down ( even in an elevator )

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 01:24

It was already well publicized that CIA suffered immense set back due to the embassy attack
I read some one writing that attack poked both the eyes of CIA and are blind in that region...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Sep 2012 01:26

pentaiah garu,
The originators of the problem must share the burden. That is Dharmic/Karmic law. CIA was blinded twice in the sub-continent, both times by Bharat.

Rji.

Read that article, and also noted your point at the end. Your comment fits nice into my justification.

Now we need to see if all pervading Mossad can pull this "Israeli experts are advocating ways and means to ensure that the US is forced to act on time"

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 01:32

The minimum quantity of uranium required is about 9 to 10 pounds of highly enriched to almost 90% and above, at this time no one has claimed Iran has any Pu, and all it's enriched uranium is around 25 to max of 30% and quantities are also minuscule according to Joshi as they are using it for Isotope production. If Iran does explode a bum it is for sure TS Paki bum as Iran also financed Paki efforts in the 1970s and 1980s.
Beside a Jewish merchant of South Africa was also in the business ....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 01:41

The Iranian tactics looks like a copy of TSP's: get some centrifuges to whirl like dervishes and claim enrichment. Get IAEA and self serving deluded chatteratti to say its their right to enrich for fuel/power reactor grade.
Meanwhile if cornered bringout PRC->TSP-> Rogues vintage nukes

One good thing LKA did in 1998 was to provoke the TSP to bring out their Chinese supplied wares.

Otherwise the P5 proliferators can make pious statements.

So someone has to bell the Persian cat. Then the TSP perfidy will come out.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 01:58

Pakis furiously making more fissile material may be related to supplying Iran and KSA , they need bum TSP need money and will sleep with any (strange) bed fellows

Also Iran is in the 1971 to 1981 phase of corresponding to TSP bum development, as of today.
If in the next one year they reach the goal it means they are entering the corresponding 1981 to 1984 phase of TSP when PRC supplied a ready to go bum. So if by 2013 Iran is ready its a PAKI bum 400% only

If Israel and Unkil do strike Iran then TSPaki will give them couple of them ready to go at a price

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 02:14

Pentiah,
They might have already given them long ago. Could account for the Iranian intransigence. By same token even the KSA might have got a few for their Chinese missiles.
Israel should consider what is its best option to reveal all the hidden stuff.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 28 Sep 2012 05:32

Reminds me of Collin Powel's famous presentation at the UN before Irag War

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 05:41

The Pakis showed the way. Get some bums from the Chinese and start a nuke factory. If any one pushes them then test the Chinese bum and automatically the US will rush in to provide stability and proximate security what ever that means. Later make more merrily with US experts advertizing your 'capabilites' to make the US challengers all submit.

So far no US expert has called out the Chinese and US role in this charade.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 28 Sep 2012 06:23

What do we conclude from this? Islamic rioting and assassination work?

.‘Innocence of Muslims’ Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested in L.A

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 08:57

Bibi looks like cartoon figure, the bums are always round bottomed

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Sep 2012 09:50

Pentaiah-> Pakistan Uranium Enrichment is more psy-ops. thier 1998 tests showed Plutonium which came from the Tallen and Deepen friends.

Attacking KRH in 1984 was considered no use as it would not had any affect of Paki Nuke capability.

Thier Nuke Technology is as good as thier Missile, thats why Khan cares 2 hoots for AQK and he is free to spout his rubbish. The reason Gadaffi so willingly gave up everything was that he realised Pakis had seriously cheated him and AQK knew zilch about a working design. Otherwise despite all the claims of SA and Brazilian Magnamity, with the exception of Japan nobody has really restrained themselves from obtainign Nukes.

Gadaffi knew if he had working design he would be immune from US attack due to pressure from European allies. Thats why he tried desperately Plan B and tried buy them off with money while they prepared to take him down.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 28 Sep 2012 10:12

Saar ji I know as I posted the New Scientist story ( way back in June July 1998)how US planes whiffed Pu with their (US) aircraft sampling the air space, later in order to cover their butt (US and PRC proliferation and winking) they said Indian tests had vented Pu into the air.....

****
This was not the original article but still look at the perfidy of Uncle

India's tests pollute Pakistan

19 February 2000 by Rob Edwards
Magazine issue 2226. Subscribe and save

PLUTONIUM from nuclear bombs exploded underground by India has polluted Pakistan's nuclear test site 800 kilometres away, according to sources in US intelligence. If true, India has breached its commitment to the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which outlaws explosions that contaminate foreign countries.

India and Pakistan both carried out nuclear tests in May 1998. A report in the industry newsletter, Nuclear Fuel, says that plutonium was later found in samples collected by US intelligence agents from near the Pakistani site in the Chagai hills. They initially thought that Pakistan had detonated a plutonium weapon.

Now, however, analysis of the ratio of plutonium isotopes in the samples by the US Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has shown that it leaked from one of the Indian explosions in the Pokaran desert, and was blown over to Pakistan. "It sounds plausible," says Trevor Findlay from Vertic, a nuclear test ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... istan.html

also read this

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/pakistan ... a-in-1998/

Pakistan May Have Conducted Joint Nuclear Test With North Korea in 1998
PrintShareEmailTwitterFacebookLinkedIn
Feb. 27, 2004
The reported confession by top Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, in which he admitted to having transferred nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, has renewed speculation that Pakistan might have tested nuclear weapon with North Korea in the late 1990s, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 24).

After the last of a series of nuclear weapons tests conducted by Pakistan in May 1998, a U.S. military jet dispatched to sample the air over the test site detected traces of plutonium, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. The finding surprised experts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory because Pakistan had said that all of its nuclear weapons used enriched uranium, according to the Times.

Analysts believed at the time that Pakistan did not have enough material or experience to develop a plutonium-based nuclear weapon on its own. Some suggested that North Korea might have provided Pakistan with plutonium to conduct a joint nuclear weapons test, the Times reported.

“It could only have come from one of two places: China or North Korea,” said one senior intelligence official involved in the debate. “And it seemed like China had nothing to gain” from providing plutonium to Pakistan, the official said.

There was no “compelling evidence” at that time, though of a joint Pakistani-North Korean test, a senior defense official in the Clinton administration said (Sanger/Broad, New York Times, Feb. 27).

Also

Aug. 7, 2012
Next North Korean Nuke Test May Involve Multiple Devices: Experts

North Korea at some point is anticipated to carry out a third nuclear test, which is likely to involve highly enriched uranium and the possible detonation at the same time of multiple devices, issue experts concluded in a Monday report for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (see GSN, Aug. 6).

Veteran nonproliferation specialists Siegfried Hecker and Frank Pabian in their assessment noted there is no concrete proof Pyongyang has enriched uranium to levels sufficient to fuel a nuclear bomb. Hecker in November 2010 was given a rare tour of the North's only known uranium enrichment plant, which he later said appeared sophisticated enough to generate HEU material.

North Korea in 2006 and 2009 conducted nuclear tests involving plutonium-based devices. The aspiring nuclear power is judged to need at least one more test before it can have any real confidence in its ability to develop nuclear warheads small enough to mount on missiles. Satellite images indicate the country has made significant preparations for a third atomic detonation at the Punggye-ri test site.

"Although Pyongyang announced in June that it has no plans to test at this time, we cannot rule out the possibility that the technological and military benefits may sway Pyongyang to test again," Pabian and Hecker wrote. "Satellite imagery shows significant new activity at what has been identified as a likely third nuclear testing tunnel."

"Earlier reports mention the appearance and disappearance of additional heaps of earth and sand in the area near the south portal entrance, allegedly part of an effort to entomb a nuclear test device or devices and suggesting that a test would have come within two weeks; we and others have not been able to confirm those reports based on currently available commercial satellite imagery," the experts noted.

"Technically, North Korea could be ready to test within two weeks," Pabian and Hecker concluded.

Analysts believe the Kim Jong Un regime has yet to make a political decision on moving forward with a new test.

The timing of a new test would be determined by the leadership's assessment of how much punishment the North is prepared to withstand, according to the Bulletin article. The U.N. Security Council sanctioned Pyongyang in the wake of both prior nuclear blasts.

North Korea's No.1 ally and top trade partner, China, has made it clear it opposes further nuclear testing. That also goes for Russia, which recently wrote off close to $11 billion in loans owed by Pyongyang.

North Korea's two nuclear tests have been judged as only somewhat successful. Hecker and Pabian said their analyses indicated the first detonation had a yield of roughly 1 kiloton and the second a yield between approximately 4 and 6.9 kilotons.

Hecker and Pabian said they believe a third test would utilize HEU material as Pyongyang in 2007 disabled its five-megawatt plutonium production reactor and at present has no other reactors producing the material. The experts, however, acknowledged the possibility that North Korea could use some of its remaining plutonium reserves to fuel another device.

They stated that "North Korea has strong technical reasons to do a third plutonium test, in spite of its meager plutonium inventory, which we estimate to be 24 to 42 kilograms, to better calibrate its computer models and understand implosion devices. It is therefore conceivable that North Korea may conduct two tests simultaneously, using a double fishhook at the end of the tunnel, with one bomb fueled by HEU and a second by plutonium."

The analysts further noted that "two detonations will yield much more technical information than one, and they will be no more damaging politically than if North Korea conducted a single test."

It is possible the Stalinist state acquired blueprints for a uranium-fueled warhead from disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist and proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan that could be adapted for the North's Nodong tactical missile. If this is the case, North Korea might have determined that highly enriched uranium represents the shortest route to attaining nuclear-armed missiles, according to the article.

"It is imperative for Washington, Beijing, and their partners in the six-party talks [on North Korean denuclearization] to join forces to increase the costs on North Korea of continued testing. An additional nuclear test or two would greatly increase the likelihood that Pyongyang could fashion warheads to fit at least some of its missiles -- a circumstance that would vastly increase the threat its nuclear program poses to the security of Northeast Asia," according to the experts

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/experts- ... e-devices/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 11:25

Pentiahgaru as you seem nostalgic:

[Chagai tests and Pu sample

from forum archives circa Dec 1999

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Sep 2012 14:01

Panning out exactly how I said back in October - businessmen will change and start to support the revolution.

One of Syria's richest men to help fund a rebel army

The Syrian regime's richest opponent, the business magnate Firas Tlass has pledged his fortune to the "revolution", promising to fund rebel groups, humanitarian aid and an organisation to deal with the chaos after President Assad has gone.

The Tlass family has long been a stalwart of the Syrian regime
By Ruth Sherlock, Istanbul8:00PM BST 27 Sep 2012
In his first interview with a western newspaper since leaving Syria, the country's biggest industrial tycoon has told the Daily Telegraph of how the ownership of his conglomerate of huge companies is to be given to a panel of leading opposition figures, and the profits used to help to build a democratic society in Syria.
"I am supporting a complete program [to oust the regime]. I am putting my fortune behind this, totally, until the end," said Mr Tlass. "But this is nothing. If I give all my money it is not worth one gram of the blood spilt by the Syrian people."
The Tlass family has long been a stalwart of the Syrian regime. Mr Firas' father Mustafa Tlass and Bashar al-Assad's father Hafez, worked together to bring the Assad family to power. His brother is the defected Brigadier General Manaf Tlass who was a close childhood friend of the Syrian president.
For decades the family benefited from its insider status. Firas Tlass was thought to have been influential on the privatisation process started by the regime in recent decades. Named Min Ajl Suriyya (MAS), or 'For the sake of Syria', Mr Tlass' empire spans several industries in Syria, from roasting coffee beans to construction and is thought to be worth billions of Syrian pounds.
"What Syria gave me I will give it back to Syria," said Mr Tlass.

After the collapse of the Syrian regime Mr Tlass said he plans to create a non-governmental organisation that will have formal ownership of MAS. "I am preparing the legal papers now. It will be owned by a panel of seven leading figures of the opposition, and I will make the accounts public and transparent," said Mr Tlass.

The NGO will use the company's profits to "prepare the people of Syria for new way of thinking", said Mr Tlass: "My dream is that Syria becomes a real democratic country".
His antipathy with the Syrian government stretches back for nearly a decade said Mr Tlass. "The Assad family thinks that they own this country and that the people in it are their sheep. Only the family owns the farm. Even us, people close to the regime, we were just seen as their guards. That's how they work with Syria," said Mr Tlass, recounting a catalogue of examples where businessmen who had garnered favour with the country's leadership were given sizeable business contracts.
"In 2005 I made friends with part of the opposition. We put together a study for political, economic and social reform and sent it to Bashar. Two months later I received a cold reply asking me why, as a businessman I was dealing in politics?" said Mr Tlass.
Mr Tlass told the Daily Telegraph that he would never seek a political leadership role in a future Syria, but he dismissed exiled opposition groups, including the bedraggled Syrian National Council as lacking the vision saying Bashar al-Assad would stay in power for "50 more years" if they led the revolution.
Instead he said he would fund a new leadership from "inside Syria". Refusing to give names he said a number of community leaders from cities across Syria were part of a group being groomed to form a transitional government.
"We need to create a national front, a council of 30 people that can form a transitional council and govern for the period up until the election of a new parliament," said Mr Tlass.
The council should represent the dozens of groups that currently make up Syria's fragmented opposition as well as Alawite figures from the ousted regime he said. "The Alawites look to the regime as their representatives, non-regime figures are seen as traitors if they join the opposition. We have to include some of the old guards".
In the past weeks Mr Tlass had been speaking with key figures of the country's business elite and working to convince them to join the revolution, he told the Daily Telegraph. As businesses close and the country's economy slides to a standstill amid the civil war, the country's commercial core is beginning to jump ship he said. Even business partners of Syria's biggest businessman and regime loyalist Rami Makhlouf are beginning to move away from the Assad family he said.
"Most of Makhlouf's business partners are leaving him," said Mr Tlass. "Now we need the Syrian businessmen from inside and outside the country to group together and provide funds for the opposition".

US must not hide from the Middle East

By Philip Stephens
©Ingram Pinn
If Mitt Romney wants to start another war in the Middle East, why doesn’t he just step up and say so? Barack Obama is too busy chasing votes on daytime television to show American leadership at the UN.
The US presidential campaign has turned its attention to world affairs. It would be an exaggeration to say that the debate has been uplifting. Behind the mudslinging, however, lie some uncomfortable truths for the winner of November’s election. Threats to bomb Iran and staying out of Syria do not add up to a coherent Middle East policy.

This week Mr Obama tipped up briefly in New York for the opening of the UN general assembly. After the killing of US diplomats in Benghazi and anti-American demonstrations across the region, he offered eloquent words about the sometimes uncomfortable balance between freedom of expression and religious bigotry. In defending the former, he spoke to US voters; in condemning the latter he sought to calm the Arab street.
Mr Obama rises to such occasions. The Republican charge, though, was that the president did not find time in New York to talk to other world leaders. A cynic would say the real complaint was that he refused to meet Benjamin Netanyahu. Given that the Israeli prime minister is a paid-up member of the Romney team and really does want to start another war by attacking Iran, the president’s reluctance on this score was unsurprising.
For all that, the Republicans are on to something. The administration has tried to put foreign policy on hold for the duration of the campaign. It has a carefully crafted message: Mr Obama has taken the US out of Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden and decimated al-Qaeda, helped to overthrow Muammer Gaddafi – and he will bring home the troops from Afghanistan. Weary of foreign wars, voters like this narrative. The White House is determined that nothing should disturb it.
The strategy, as the latest turmoil has shown, is vulnerable to events. But the judgment this week seems to have been that the way to shut down controversy was to avoid all encounters with foreign leaders. If the president had met Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s new president, then he would not have been able to refuse Mr Netanyahu. Better to shun both.
There was plenty Mr Obama could have talked about with fellow leaders. The civil war in Syria claims ever more lives and is spilling over into a wider Sunni-Shia confrontation. The Taliban are on the up in Afghanistan. The Iranian regime sounds as defiant as ever about its nuclear programme. Mr Netanyahu’s West Bank settlement programme is rendering impossible a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. With the US absent from the stage, the UN gathering has to content itself with hand-wringing.
Russia and China are blamed – and rightly so – for blocking UN measures to halt the murderous repression of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Diplomats, however, report that none is as determined as the US administration to avoid being drawn into the conflict. The message delivered to Europeans by their US counterparts is that the US does not have sufficient strategic interest to become embroiled in a Syrian civil war. The representative of one close ally of the US has been heard to remark that if Moscow really wanted to discomfit Washington it would lift its veto on international action.
None of this is to say the Republican campaign has come up with answers. Thus far, Mr Romney has subcontracted US Iran policy to Mr Netanyahu, a position he would presumably step back from were he to win in November. The presidential contender strikes a chord when he says Mr Obama has given up on the attempt to shape events in the Middle East. But Mr Romney offers few clues as to how he would restore US leadership.
Among foreign policy veterans in Washington – Republicans as well as Democrats – I detect a fair degree of support for Mr Obama’s reluctance to be drawn too deeply into the Middle East maelstrom. The cost of war and the Arab uprisings have changed the American calculus.
There is a broad recognition of the limits of US power. The days have passed when Washington could rely on friendly authoritarian regimes.
These observers are surely right in saying that after more than half a century of messing things up in the Middle East, the US would be wise to show a touch of humility in the region. Anyhow, shale oil and gas have reduced US energy dependence. That said, simple disengagement from the region is not possible.
Hard as Mr Netanyahu likes to pretend otherwise, Mr Obama is committed to the security of Israel. More than that, the president has fallen for the notion that bombing Iran would actually prevent the Iranian regime from getting the bomb. Foolishly, he keeps saying that containment is not an option.
What is needed is an American strategy for the Middle East that does not seem to dictate events but amounts to more than an effort to minimise direct threats to US interests. The first pillar of such a policy would be the offer of sustained everything-on-the-table bilateral negotiations with Tehran. If North Korea can be given security guarantees, why not Iran? The second would be to put America’s still considerable weight behind a serious international effort to start an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
It is clear enough that a president Romney would not embark on such a course. The option, though, would be open to a re-elected Mr Obama. Alternatively, he could be remembered as the president who ended two wars of choice in the region only to start a third.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 28 Sep 2012 19:14

shyamd wrote:Panning out exactly how I said back in October - businessmen will change and start to support the revolution.

Not really: you are pushing a line that is far from panning out. This businessman's brother (Brigadier Manaf Tlass) defected months ago .. what's the big development here? Obviously this family's business interests in an Assad-led Syria are toast, and he is hoping to get something back if the current regime loses power. It appears that the SNC don't like him very much, so its very possible his business interests in Syria are lost either way.

Mr Tlass told the Daily Telegraph that he would never seek a political leadership role in a future Syria, but he dismissed exiled opposition groups, including the bedraggled Syrian National Council as lacking the vision saying Bashar al-Assad would stay in power for "50 more years" if they led the revolution.

Instead he said he would fund a new leadership from "inside Syria". Refusing to give names he said a number of community leaders from cities across Syria were part of a group being groomed to form a transitional government.

Maybe your friends in Qatar paid him a few dollars to make a stupid statement about supporting the "revolution" and a chance to get some business back if the terrorists funded by Qatar win.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Sep 2012 19:28

re-read his comments - businessmen are starting to "jump ship" (assuming he is right of course and not doing psyops) including partners of the Makhloufs (you know about Talal Makhlouf back in November).

And yes, his brother is Manaf and his daddy is Mustafa Tlass. He is still close to the regime and could have stayed on with it.

UAE offered Asad asylum (along with senior figures) and is the "neutral" party and she as well as her husband were issued diplomatic visas before his death. She could have stayed in Damascus or elsewhere if she wanted to but chose to leave. Lets see what she does.

And FYI - SNC is a joke and have little support inside Syria. They are creating a new group. And yes, the businessmen will back the winning side to get more business - is that a surprise?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 28 Sep 2012 19:34

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 5737.story

Syria rebels struggle to advance in new Aleppo offensive

Syrian rebels struggled to make headway against government forces on Friday in a battle for Aleppo, the country's largest city.

On the second day of an offensive they have billed as decisive, the rebels also threatened to take on local Kurdish militants - a move which would further complicate a war that has already spilled over Syria's borders.

Fighters reached by telephone from Beirut described fierce combat in several neighborhoods of Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub and the site of a two-month-long stalemate in the conflict.

Armed with machineguns and homemade rockets, they said they faced a difficult task against an enemy hitting them with artillery and fighter jets.

"We reached the middle of Suleiman al-Halibiya and liberated some neighborhoods so I am still optimistic. But I'm worried about our organization. We can't force the regime out. At best, I think we can advance some of our positions," one fighter said, requesting anonymity.

Other rebels told Reuters that one of the units fighting in the city had been surrounded. Another said some battalions were pulling out of the front line or had never joined the battle.

Rebels from the rural parts of northern Syria had flooded into Aleppo two months ago but were held back by shortages of ammunition and the army's superior firepower.

Aleppo is pivotal to the course of the conflict, in which at least 30,000 people have been killed since protests against President Bashar al-Assad broke out in February last year.

World powers have watched the carnage with dismay but have been unable to agree on a way to resolve the crisis, which threatens to destabilize the wider region.

Neither side appears capable of striking a decisive military blow, although a rebel bomb attack wrecked the army's command headquarters in the heart of Damascus on Wednesday, showing their growing reach.

WARPLANES IN ACTION

Though the rebels claimed no major gains in Aleppo, government forces appeared to be coming under heavy attack in some quarters.

State television said "terrorist groups" were firing mortar rounds at an area in the southeast of the city, killing three people including two children, and wounding 10 others.

Activist Ahmed Abdelrahman said battles had been waged sporadically throughout the night and that a war plane had bombed a cluster of buildings near the town of Azaz, less than a kilometer from the border with Turkey.

Video published by activists showed frantic residents digging through a collapsed building and pulling out at least one body. Abdelrahman said others were still believed to be buried in the wreckage.

The rebels, who have grown suspicious over some Kurdish militants' ties with Assad, also threatened to confront groups they said were linked to the militant Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) in neighboring Turkey.

Turkey, which has thrown its weight behind the opposition and allows the Syrian rebels sanctuary, is worried about the autonomy-seeking PKK taking advantage of the unrest in Syria to strike inside its borders.

In Aleppo's Kurdish neighborhood of Sheikh Maqsoud, rebels said they had captured at least eight men from the shabbiha - Syrian slang for pro-Assad militias. Some of the captives were killed, they said.

It was unclear if the victims were Kurds, a stateless ethnic group who stretch over much of the region and have so far been split over their support for the uprising. The current head of Syria's political opposition in exile is a Kurd.

One rebel leader issued a warning to the Kurds through the Facebook page for the Tawheed Brigade, the largest Aleppo unit.

"Tawheed Brigade leader Abdelqadir al-Saleh made a final request by phone to the PKK gangs, to drop their weapons immediately and not drag themselves into a losing battle that is not their fight," it said.

"Whoever carries arms in the face of the opposition battalions will find themselves under fire."

notice that part about "rebels" flooding Aleppo from the North. I had said about 2 weeks ago that the rebel retreat from the North would be apparent very soon. I made that prediction based on 2 things: the inability to take Alepp, which is crucial if they want a foothold in the North; secondly, the increasing animosity against the Kurds. these 2 things make it really unfeasible for the Rebels to take the North. I would watch out for some careful propagandu about "taking the bastion" and "cutting the root" that will try to cover up the retreat from North into the South, and it will be accompanied by some seemingly spectacular happenings in Damascus like the recent bombing of a major Military establishment.

and if the Rebels can't take the North, they have no chance of completely destroying Assad's power base on the Northern Coast. the chances of Assad surviving in some shape or form have now gone up to the level of certainty. usually, at this tipping point, I expect the international watchers to start hedging against the Rebels. the historic pattern seems like it's gonna hold true once more: only a blitzkrieg type offensive has every worked in Syria. if the "rebellion" got bogged down in some center, they were eventually rolled back.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Sep 2012 20:14

IMO - their Damascus operation was a failure too. They hit the Army HQ (in the most highly secure place) and the building looked toast but from journalists that visited after they said little evidence of scores killed and no high ranking officials among dead.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Sep 2012 01:58

My take on the prospects of war with Iran and Israel:-

No doubt all of you have been hearing in the press for a long time of the war drums beating between Iran and Israel.

What to make of Obama's speech? He mentioned "The United States will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" - which from the sound of things looks like an attempt to allay the fears of Israelis and semi settle on Bibi's call for red line. Thing is he didn't talk about Iran having break out capability or stopping Iran from having the know how as well.

So at the moment regional states (GCC and Israel) reject the US position.

So there are less than 40 days to November 6th. The question US intelwala's must be thinking - what will the Israeli's do? Will it be a surprise strike? My question to you - Does it need to be a surprise strike?

Lets take a look the statement of the IRGC Commander Jafaari- he says that war is "inevitable" but Iran will be ready to defend itself. It seems that some Iranian leaders are asking if its worth waging a pre-emptive war with Israel? But as you know in 1973 - what happened when Egypt and Syria did that and also practically speaking their response will be Hezbollah and its rockets etc. But even then if Iran was to position troops it would be picked up straight away.

Iran has been threatening assymetric warfare with Israel - but obviously Israel isnt scared.

Now - lets take a look at the recent exercises with 25 countries - one of the largest exercises in the Persian Gulf. So what took place:

- exercises in missile defense with Israel, and maneuvers to clear the Persian gulf of mines with more than 25 countries being involved, and flight maneuvers with Egypt, exercises and planning processes with Turkey. In all of these maneuvers US sent most of their participating units.

The question of why? Some say fear that US will suffer from an Israeli strike and Israel will just sit far away.

There is a thought in the Gulf that the leak of Israeli war plans/discussions and indicating that the Israeli circle wants to coordinate with the US is to thwart attempts by Netanyahu to hide his intentions on striking Iran. Another observation is that in spite of continuing protest against Israeli unilateral strike on Iran - Israeli exercises on plans are increasingly complex.

General Shaul Mofaz (Former Chief of Staff, Min of Def, Deputy PM and leader of Kadima and chairman of their Security and FP group) say Israeli maneuvers to defend against missiles and simulate treatment of civilians etc to re assure the public on fall out.

WaPo recently leaked discussions of unilateral strike that the Def Sec will tell the POTUS 2 options - shoot down Israeli jets or prepare to face fall out of attack.
Of course we heard KSA during Mecca summit say the same and that they dont want a regional war.

What about Azerbaijani airspace? Iran backs Armenia in the Azeri and Armenian Nagorno Karabakh conflict. So as a revenge Azeri's could let the Israelis use their airspace. Earlier this year there was leak about Israeli teams placed on Azeri bases ready to help rescue downed Israeli pilots in a strike on Iran etc. Also both have signed a $1.5bn deal on military/intel eqpt and intelligence agreements.

What will an Israeli strike look like? It will be Air, Sea and Spec Forces operations that will probably last 30 days.

So what does US think of all this mess? Source was visited by US CENTCOM advisor - Source asked him if Israel will do it - the advisor said "We have never been able to predict what the senior Israeli leadership is thinking and going to do". Do they have the capability? "Yes they do have the capaiblity to pull it off on their own". He also went on to say that the he doesnt think the Israeli leadership really careabout what the US thinks - example being Syrian Reactor in 2007 - this strike toook place without US support or nod.

I'll leave it to you to decide what you guys think...

I'll talk about Bibi's speech next

Bibi's speech has basically succumbed to Obama's demands - could this be a hint that Bibi is expecting Obama to win in the elections. Also a recognition of US economic troubles and domestic pressure by the US public.
By Netanyaho talking about the IAEA and not his own intel agencies info - he is internationalizing the issue and saying this is a world problem and giving diplomacy a chance. The expectation is that the Obama admin will probably reward Bibi with military, intel and logistics later and if Romney wins he may go further.

Netanyahu's speech was also interesting because Israel has also started to recognise that the economic sanctions appear to be working on Iran. Saeed Jalili the Iranian negotiator told Catherine Ashton (the lady from EU) that they are ready to halt 20% enrichment in exchange for lifting of sanctions. This was confirmed by the Iranian representative to IAEA also.

But then look at the latest IAEA report - Iranians have a HEU stockpile of 72kg and it needs only 25kg more to get to 97% purity to reach enough to make a bomb. So even if they enter into another round of talks - will there be a point? This was in the IAEA report. This begs the question what is the Iranian game plan when they ask for lifting of sanctions etc? Its because every IAEA report is damning about the Iranian nuclear program and also because it precedes the meeting of the United Nations and it just shows that they are cooperating with the international community. And also perhaps prevent the Israeli's from striking and also the US which is promising this and that - by looking cooperative.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Sep 2012 08:02

wow thats original

there must surely be a position in that somewhere

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 29 Sep 2012 12:44

Bibi in 2002

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 29 Sep 2012 12:44

paramu wrote:What do we conclude from this? Islamic rioting and assassination work?

.‘Innocence of Muslims’ Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested in L.A

Officially, the reason for his arrest is because he violated his probation terms. The guy is not exactly a model citizen and has been in jail a few times already. He first got arrested for drug violations years ago when he was running a meth lab. At that time, he was using multiple fake IDs to purchase ingredients, so as not to raise suspicion.

After getting jailed for that and released on probation, the guy proceeded to commit some pretty serious bank fraud, again using a variety of different names and fake identity papers to establish accounts and register businesses, and was sentenced to jail for that too. He was again released from jail on probation, but had to follow some rules as part of his probation agreement.

One of those rules he agreed to was to do business under his own real name and not use a fake identity ever again. As it happens, at least 3 names having to do with the movie can be traced back to him. That means he again created bank accounts, registered businesses, filled in documents etc. all with fake identity papers, a clear violation of his probation terms.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2012 13:04

Well I hope Israel do bomb Iran thats surely one big incentive for Iran to go Nuclear not that they need one

That would also force Israel NW program go overt and bring in a sense of stability in this Hide and Seek game.

I wonder if Israel goes overt with its program the US would introduce automatic sanctions on them as they are suppose to do by their law or the Jewish lobby in US would make sure that Israel is exception to the law.

The only thing Iran should not do is launch a preemptive strike on Israel that way they cant play the victim card ever , Iran should be prepared to take some losses initially but hopefully they are smart enough to keep the Nuclear know how safe and Fissile Material at multiple safe location.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 29 Sep 2012 13:16

shyamd wrote:re-read his comments - businessmen are starting to "jump ship" (assuming he is right of course and not doing psyops) including partners of the Makhloufs (you know about Talal Makhlouf back in November).

And yes, his brother is Manaf and his daddy is Mustafa Tlass. He is still close to the regime and could have stayed on with it.

His brother is trying to overthrow the regime. Why should anyone believe that the Tlass family (this is a tribal society, family trumps everything) has the option to run with the fox and hunt with hound? Have the Assads ever acted so forgiving/gullible? When the Brigadier defected, he did so in full knowledge of consequences for Tlass family interests. You are writing unsubstantiated stuff that doesn't fit any historical pattern.

shyamd wrote:UAE offered Asad asylum (along with senior figures) and is the "neutral" party and she as well as her husband were issued diplomatic visas before his death. She could have stayed in Damascus or elsewhere if she wanted to but chose to leave. Lets see what she does.

You were patting yourself on the back ("ahead of the curve" or something like that

) on the basis of predicting a defection by Asef Shawkat and Bushra Assad. Bushra Assad's move to UAE is not a defection, so you were just plain wrong, and it is dishonest to claim that you were right.

Syrian president’s sister in UAE

It is unclear if Bushra al-Assad’s brother has approved her trip and sources told the Financial Times the trip is not a defection but an attempt to protect her children after the assassination of her husband in July.

Another source said that she had been in the United Arab Emirates “for some time, going back and forth, on-and-off quite often, for personal reasons”. Ms Assad was married to one of the regime’s top security chiefs, Asef Shawkat, who was killed along with three other senior officials in a bomb attack in July.

shyamd wrote:And FYI - SNC is a joke and have little support inside Syria. They are creating a new group. And yes, the businessmen will back the winning side to get more business - is that a surprise?

The opposition and their foreign backers (Turkey, KSA, Qatar, France, etc) remain as disunited as ever. Everybody distrusts everybody else, and nobody has the credibility to lead or unite the opposition, inside or outside Syria. Tlass family is a bad joke. Your Qatar/KSA friends and their Salafi-Al Qaida terrorists are a sick joke.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Sep 2012 15:05

Daddy mustafa Tlass and Firas the businessman left syria first and Mustafa joined the opposition I think after November December time. Manaf was still doing his thing for the regime even after daddy defected. He defected in June/July but that took a few months prep. more businessmen will begin to back the revolution and that is part of the theory of the revolution and just like defections are and the style of operations that the FSA have been conducting

They have been trying to unite the opposition - to save me from giving a long answer - watch PBS frontline battle for Syria. The rebel commander explains it well and see all the different ideologies coordinating.

There is a quiet move towards intervention when necessary by the US (EU and Arab countries are ready but US is not and they need USAF to knock out the air defence) - red lines are genocide and chemical weapons use.

Also, they will create a new group. Qatar and KSA have always had disagreements between them - Qatar supports the MB and the rest see it as a threat. And please jus because I speak to people from the gulf who have the knowledge doesn't mean I should get called "your" this and that.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 29 Sep 2012 15:33

^^^^^^

You happily spread the spin, conjecture and disinformation (the "knowledge") provided by the people you speak to on this forum, without any verification or sense check. I would not like to hazard a guess at the incentive or motivation. Suffice to say, we can read and play your spin.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Sep 2012 18:28

Lol - they said the same last year that Syria was just a "storm in a tea cup" and all propaganda etc. And as we can all see that was proven wrong long ago. I said in March/April last year that Syria was next.

Then almost every news channel was saying that little or no weapons were getting through to the rebels since Jan-March 2012. I was saying since December weapons were getting through (against what the press was reporting) and Damascus, Homs operations proved them wrong again. Now do you think Aleppo offensive would have been launched if they had no weapons?

Even in Libya - Adjabiya and other areas were lost and won by Gaddafi forces. Joint Chief of Staff Gen Mike Allen described it as a stale mate himself.

So wait and see, this will just drag on for a very long time.

------------------------------
Asad's NCC -

Syria: Opposition leaders convene for rare meeting in Damascus

Syria's opposition leaders met Sunday in the capital, calling for the ousting of Bashar Al-Assad.
Syria's opposition leaders gathered for a rare meeting in Damascus Sunday, where they called for the peaceful overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

The conference of 15 Syrian opposition parties and eight civil society movements was tolerated by Assad's regime, in an effort to show it is open to political reform despite its violent crackdown on dissidents, the Associated Press reported.

The goal of the gathering, which was organized by the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Changes in Syria (NCC), was to find solutions to Syria's ongoing crisis, and also hosted delegates from Russia, China, Iran, and other Arab nations, according to UPI.

"We are convinced that a dialogue without preconditions is the sole way out of the current crisis whose continuation bodes no good either for Syria or for the region as a whole," said Russian Ambassador to Syria Azamat Kulmukhametov, UPI reported.

The NCC called for "overthrowing the regime with all its symbols" in a strongly-worded statement, while maintaining a "peaceful struggle to achieve the goals of the revolution," according to the International Business Times.

The rebel forces fighting Assad's regime, however, believe the "internal opposition" is too lenient on Syria's dictator, and the meeting is seen by some as way for the opposition to gain credibility as well, BBC News reported.

Assad’s military has increased its airstrikes and shelling of civilian areas in recent weeks, as it attempts to tamp down the rebellion, the AP reported. According to activists on the ground, around 30,000 people have been killed in the conflict so far.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Sep 2012 18:37

If the NCC does not play up the rhetoric it will be immediately denounced by the Jihadi types and MB. That means they might not get moolah or recognition for a stake in power. What any voice in Syria is saying about Syria has to be deconstructed for the reality of power if any behind them, and the actual balance of forces - which again are all being projected on the basis of propaganda on both sides. There are posturings from both sides folks - don't get caught in the spin.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Sep 2012 21:10

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... o-protect/

Jonathan Kay: In Syria, ‘Do no harm’ must trump ‘Responsibility to Protect’

There are few people who know more about genocide than Canadian Senator Roméo Dallaire. As the Force Commander of the United Nations Mission in Rwanda in 1994, he did his best to protect the country’s Tutsi minority from a rising tide of Hutu hatred. Yet his small force, hobbled as it was by the UN’s limited rules of engagement, could not prevent the carnage that unfolded. Over three months, 800,000 Rwandans were hacked to death amidst scenes of medieval-style bloodlust.

And so you might think that Sen. Dallaire would be an active proponent of large-scale military intervention in Syria, where more than 30,000 people already have died violently over the last 18 months. But the man’s views on this subject actually are quite nuanced. His experiences have led him to believe that the best time for the world community to act is early in a crisis. As the Iraq War shows, once the slaughter begins, it is difficult for even advanced Western armies to stanch the flow of blood.

On Thursday night in Toronto, Sen. Dallaire discussed his views, alongside former Canadian defence minister Art Eggleton and Martha Hall Findlay, at an event organized by Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR). The evening also featured a screening of rough cuts from a new documentary film adaptation of Sen. Dallaire’s 2010 book Fight Like Soldiers, Die Like Children.

Like the book, the film focuses on impoverished children who are recruited into the savage militias warring over land and loot in Africa. But we also get an insight into the commanders who deploy these young killers. At one point in the film, a map of eastern Congo flashes up, with the names of the dozens of ragtag militias that infest the region. The geography lesson is bewildering, but sobering: Every one of these forces has blood on its hands. Most have had children pass through their ranks, have sacked villages, raped women, killed civilians.

The CLAIHR event was titled “International Crises: Should Canada Intervene to Protect Human Rights.” And so an audience member was disposed to ask himself: What would a “humanitarian intervention” in eastern Congo look like? Whose side would we take? And if we took no one’s side, and tried to disarm every evildoer and protect every innocent, how many hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be required?

The same question presents itself in regard to Syria, where the stand-off between regime forces and rebels likely will transform — Iraqi-style — into a more complex struggle once the Assad regime collapses.

Some Wilsonian liberals and conservative hawks are agitating for a muscular Western intervention in Syria — a no-fly zone, or even a bombing campaign along the lines of Libya 2011 or Kosovo 1999 — that will help the rebels oust the Assad regime, and then push the new Syria into a democratic, pluralistic, pro-Western orientation. But Syria is a patchwork of different ethnicities and sects ruled over by an Allawite minority that, itself, was formerly brutalized and marginalized by the Sunni majority (and which can fear more of the same if they lose power). Like Iraq in 2003 and Congo today, it is a tribalized powder keg sitting within artificial borders established by long-dead colonial map-makers.

Perhaps the most intelligent thing written about the prospects of a Syrian intervention was penned for the National Interest by Gary Gambill, a veteran analyst now affiliated with the Middle East Forum. In a Sept. 27 piece entitled Intervention won’t save Syria, he notes that the Sunni rebels have the force of numbers over the Allawite regime, and believes that their victory is inevitable. “That’s why they have zero interest in negotiating with [Assad].”

And when the Sunnis do win, one can expect bloody retribution — fueled in part by the uncompromising fundamentalist jihadi ideology that infects many of the rebels’ most aggressive cadres. If Canadian forces participate militarily in the rebels’ victory, we will morally own part of the resultant butchery as well.

Overall, the humanitarian arithmetic just doesn’t favour intervention. After Assad’s downfall, Mr. Gambill notes, “former regime forces are likely to regroup in areas of northwestern Syria where minorities predominate, and Iran can resupply them by sea. The reduction of these enclaves, as well as free Kurdish areas that have sprung up amid the fighting, could claim more lives than the fight to bring down the regime.”

Nor can we get around this problem by attempting an intervention narrowly focused on protecting civilians. As Gambill notes, the same “safe zones” that would provide a haven for non-combatants inevitably would serve as re-supply routes and staging areas for rebel forces. As in all civil wars, humanitarian and military affairs are hopelessly intermingled.

The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine suggests that Western nations, including Canada, should do everything in their power to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity in war-torn nations. But in Syria’s case, this aspiration runs up against a more basic proposition: “First, do no harm.” A humanitarian intervention that may serve to increase the total body count is no humanitarian intervention at all.