Syria Says Ready to Fight if Israel Attacks Again

[dutchdemocrat]

Syria Says Ready to Fight if Israel Attacks Again
Wed October 08, 2003 08:14 AM ET


By Dan Williams and Dan Trotta
JERUSALEM/MADRID (Reuters) - Syria's ambassador to Spain said on Wednesday Damascus would respond militarily against Israel if the Jewish state carried out new attacks on Syrian territory.

A senior Israeli security source swiftly dismissed the threat, saying Israel did not want to escalate tensions and believed Syria did not want to start a war. The source said the envoy's statement was mainly intended to impress the Arab world.

But the comments increased tensions simmering since Israel carried out an air strike on Sunday on what it said was a training camp for Palestinian militants near Damascus, one day after a Palestinian suicide bombing killed 19 people in Israel.

Syria says the target was a civilian site and has said it has the right to defend itself.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3577501

[JNelson6563]

1. uh-oh

I have a feeling this is just the beginning of yet another ugly chapter in the ME.

Julie

[dutchdemocrat]

2. I keep hearing that British Football chant in my head

Here we go
Here we go
Here we go

Here we go
Here we go
Here we go-oh-oh

PNAC-Likud gang bang

[CounterCoulter]

3. Exactly.

Perle: Hey, let's test public opinion by having Israel provoke Syria. When Syria responds, we'll have the cover we lacked last April for our war on syria...

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Any opposition or resistance to US or Israel is terrorism

Self-defense is a privilege that can only be bestowed by the US.

[nn2004]

5. Maybe if Syria wasn't allowing terrorist training camps

They would not be picked upon by the victims of terror.

[el_gato]

12. the terrorists in control of isreal want war

since it will be funded and backed by u.s. tax dollars

[LivingInTheBubble]

14. How much training do you need?

How much training is needed to wear an explosive belt?

Its all crap, or do you have evidence of terrorist training camps?

[Nottingham]

6. They Want Syria to fight them They Want WWIII

Israel feels this is the time to take out Syria!

I'm telling ya guys we are escalating to WWIII :bounce:

And I think Syria is serious!

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. How come it wasn't WWIII all those other times?

I mean, come on, Israel and Syria have gone to war now how many times? This is nothing new. Syria wants to destroy Israel and Israel has been damn uncooperative in that respect.

[NoKingGeorge]

8. Pnac wants war with Syria, it is not Israel goal.

Israel is provoking Syria on behalf of the US. We will defend Israel and that is the cover for going into Syria.
Once Wolfowitz saw that the 'wmd have been moved to Syria' ruse wasn't going to fly they swithched to the 'terrorists in palastine attacked us so we are preemptivaly attacking a soverign nation' plan.
Just like the 'terrorists from Al-Queda attacked us so we are preemptiviley attacking a soverign nation'.

[Scurrilous]

10. WMD in Syria ruse.

I think the events of the last couple of days have pretty much proved that the story about Saddam moving his WMD's to Syria was untrue.

Think about it....

If there truly were WMD's in Syria, why didn't Israel take them out in their bombing mission. Wouldn't WMD's in Syria constitute much more of a threat to Israel than an empty terrorist training camp? Wouldn't they be a priority target for destruction? If your going to risk an attack on Syria, why not take out the WMD's?

Unless the story about WMD's in Syria was just a ruse. No one believed the story and there was no way the Bush administration could justify attacking Syria on such a flimsy tale, so the ruse was abandoned. In favor of the 'war on terror' ruse.

[soothsayer]

11. Or, PNAC wants war with Syria BECAUSE it is Israel's goal

I really can't tell which one of these things is calling the shots---PNAC or Israel?

I think in the end, one will turn on the other and take it over, too.

[SOS]

9. During the Cold War

the US raised it's alert staus to Defense Condition 2 (Defcon) on only two occasions. In 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis and in 1973 during the Arab-Israeli war.
After initial Israeli setbacks the specter of nuclear war was raised. The US went to Defcon 2 and the USSR responded likewise. Moshe Dayan reportedly wanted to go nuclear, but Meir and Nixon averted this near catastrophe.
So while it has not happened, it nearly did in 1973. Would Sharon and Bush act as responsibly as Meir and Nixon did?
Personally I doubt it. Also, the Soviet counterbalalnce is now gone, making a terrible localized nuclear/chem/bio war more, not less, likely. The past may be prolog, but the end of the story may be different this time.

[jmcgowanjm]

13. Israel cannot afford this

I mean-where will the funds to attack
Syria come from-the Wall, the Settlements
heath care, education?

This will be the 3rd negative economic growth
year for Israel.

[el_gato]

16. the money will come from the u.s. treasury

[MasonJar]

15. Syria and Israel

There is nothing balanced in the approach to Arab/Israeli conflict of the Bushies. How can we even consider going to war against Syria? We have no troops. Maybe the PNAC is worried that Shrub is history and want to eliminate as many Muslim governments as possible.

[SOS]

17. Very possible

The Bush gang must realize, despite their breathtaking arrogance, that Bush is likely a one-term president.
The neocons may see this is their last opportunity.

[Dhalgren]

18. Or maybe they just want to get us embroiled.

Then, whoever wins the '04 election - be it Bush or his DLC counterpart - they will have to "stay the course". "We have a responsibility to...blah, blah, blah..." Once we are in, the PNACers know that Dems will execute the war the same as Repugs.