Syrian president accuses Israel of warmongering

The Syrian president, Bashar Assad, today accused the Israeli government of attempting to provoke a war when it sent fighter planes to bomb a purported terrorist camp near Damascus on Sunday.
In his first comments to the media since Israeli bombers struck Syrian territory for the first time in 20 years, Mr Assad told the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat that the attack was "an attempt by the Israeli government to extract itself from its big crisis by trying to terrorise Syria and drag it and the region into other wars".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1057744,00.html

the Bush regime. As the Bush cabal is rather indisposed at the moment (scandals, Iraq, etc.), Israel is taking up the slack to keep PNAC plans for world domination and the subjugation of the Middle East, moving forward.

Israel, PNAC, and the Bush regime are partners. Israel gets what it wants (regime changes in the Middle East, and the pacification of its neighbors), and the Bush regime gets what it wants (oil, headline displacement, conservative American Jewish votes, and expanded imperialism). A rather nasty partnership, and one, in the end, doomed to failure.

Progressive American Jews must realize, that in supporting Israel right now, they are supporting Sharon and PNAC, which in turn is lending support to the Bush regime. Progressives must work just as hard for the removal Sharon/Likud, as they are the Bush regime. One cannot be done without the other.

On edit: Assad's comments are completely accurate, and worth reading.

You DO realize that what Israel really wants is just peace (even if you chose to call it "pacification"), you just hate them because they're "partners" with Bush (the enemy of their enemies...). Nevermind that our two COUNTRIES have been close allies since the founding of Israel regardless of which parties were in power, or that Bill Clinton was a much stronger supporter of Israel, or that they have no interest in the PNAC plan for world domination, they just want Syria and Iran to stop sponsering terrorism against them.

You just see them as nothing more than "the friend of your enemy". Kind of like hating England just because Tony Blair is such a poodle. Ironically, this makes YOU a "partner" with the fundamentalist "nuclear dispensationalists" who want to see Israel destroyed by war to advance THEIR insane agenda.

As for Sharon, he was elected to deal with Arafat's terror campaign after Arafat rejected Barak's offer of everything he was asking for but not the one thing he really wanted, the destruction of Israel. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bush. You can rail against Sharon all you want, but as long as Arafat is calling the shots the only way he's leaving is if Netanyahou replaces him!

(edit:spacing & a clairification)

This is one-sided propganda.

Arafat is a tribal leader, and so is Sharon. The later has a war machine to conduct state-sponsored terrorism, but he has deluded himself and the rest of Israel that the motivation is 'mere retaliation'. It's more pathalogical than that. The general instinct in today's Isreal is to reach for the racist's peace, the occupier's peace.

Arafat cannot completely control his people any more than Sharon can. But if an Arab state launched military raids on the Israeli settlements every time a settler killed a Palestinian... well I wonder who would go nuclear then.

It's not all about Bush (not even close), and I would hope to credit most DUers with the ability to discern that he and the neocons and the Likudniks and the mullahs are part of a larger problem. Bush DOES belong to us however, and Washington is the first place where we must apply pressure.

I have no doubt that Sharon dreams of a fully-restored western Judea and will continue working toward that goal as long as the Palestinians are totally intransegent, but I believe his past actions have shown that he's willing to compromise to make peace whenever the Palestinians are willing to do so in good faith.

Arafat on the other hand has repeatedly made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, and that any compromises he makes are just temporary tactical moves to be reneged on at his convienience.

Depends on what you mean by "Israel", I guess.

The current Sharon/Likud regime certainly has an interest. They helped write it. Perle and Wolfowitz spent a lot of their years in between the Bush regimes in Israel hanging with Netanyahu, Sharon, and the Likudniks. And as every single nation in the Middle East - except Israel - is invaded by PNAC, it's rather obvious who benefits. Besides the oil companies and Halliburton, of course.

Of course most Jews - Israeli and American alike - are probably as appalled by Sharon as any thinking American is by Bush, so it's certainly not fair to say Sharon and his fascist party speak for Israel.

They won't complain when Bush attacks the aggressors who are threatening them, but I really don't think they're planning on invading North Korea to use as a base to conquer China (PNAC phase 2).

It's about balance, remember?

SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! FNORD!!!!! :evilgrin:


Ok, so it's getting hard to take some of this stuff seriously, but I really don't think it's very "balanced" to condone the Arab confrontation states' continuing aggression against Israel. Even the Dalai Lama reaches for a shotgun when he sees predators attacking his favorite songbirds.

BTW, did you realize that the Star of David is another form of the same symbol, representing the union of opposites? (The upward pointing triangle is male, the downward one female...)

;-)

Jews and Arabs will find common ground, when both sides decide to remove their respective political pretenses and pursue a path with only the merits of peace and tranquility in mind.

And what are the Arab confrontation states? Another racist euphemism?

The "Arab confrontation states" are the Arab states who have been at war against Israel since they first invaded in 1948: Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Eqypt. (Jordan and Eqypt are no longer included since they have been willing to make peace, but are included in historical accounts. Iraq is in currently in limbo since it no longer has a sovereign government, but that's another story that has nothing to do with Israel). They're sometimes refered to just as "confrontation states" since they now include Iran, which is not Arab, but the term "Arab confrontation states" is the standard term used by journalists and historians since 1948. If you were born yesterday and know nothing about the history of the situation you might try doing a Google search.

http://www.antiessays.com/show.php?cat=history&eid=1741
(see Six Day War)

http://www.bahrain.gov.bh/english/bahrain/books/March_Towards_Progress/Ch1_15a.asp
(see bottom line #6)

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/exec/suppre.htm
(see 2nd paragraph)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19780101faessay9853/amos-perlmutter/begin-s-strategy-and-dayan-s-tactics-the-conduct-of-israeli-foreign-policy.html
(see last paragraph)

http://dissertation.com/library/5856461a.htm
(see abstract)

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010327/2001032717.html
(see line #7)

http://www.decisiongames.com/html/holy_land.html

Lol.
He can't even count on running water in his compound.

If israel wanted peace they wouldn't attack other countries. They do it for the same reason the attack residential neighbourhoods - to provoke violence.

The recent suicide bomber was a female office worker whose brother and cousin were killed by Israel while she watched in their home. Israel is at least equally responsible for fuelling violence.

He's an Arab.

Next thing, you'll be posting stories from an Arab news source!

</sarcasm>

in other news, Assad appoints Captain Obvious to position as press advisor..

BTW, are you sure about the Pope? Everytime I've seen him he was wearing a yalmulke!!:silly:

(on edit: better title)

and i'd call the cops too, but it's 2003 and there are no cops. only criminals.

invading Syria as part of his re-selection campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=155822

Wed October 8, 2003 06:36 AM ET
MADRID (Reuters) - Syria's ambassador to Spain said Wednesday that Damascus would respond militarily if Israel were to go on carrying out attacks in Syrian territory.
Asked about recent statements that Syria had the right to defend itself, Ambassador Mohsen Bilal told Reuters: "If Israel attacks Syria one, two and three times, of course the people of Syria and the government of Syria and the army will react to defend ourselves."

Asked if that meant responding militarily, he said: "By all means. If Israel continues to attack us and continues its aggression of course we shall react to the attacks in spite of the fact that we are fighting for peace and wish to reopen the (1991) Madrid (peace) conference."

SNIP

More:http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3576667

Let me guess: Sharon will accept this invitation.