'Russia's trying to save the Syrians'

[ECH1969]

While the Americans are considering which steps to take against Syria in the U.N. Security Council session on Tuesday in which the U.N. report on the murder of Hariri will be presented, a senior diplomatic source in New York told Ynet that "the toughest nut to crack is Russia, which is trying to save the Syrians"

A senior diplomat has told Ynet that the Russian government is attempting to rescue the Syrians from the potentially devastating consequences of a U.N. report on the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, which has tied senior Syrian officials to the murder.

"Ahead of the U.N. Security Council session on the report, and on which steps to take against Syria, the toughest nut to crack has been Russia, which is trying to save the Syrians. Their excuse is that the report is intermediate, and that the final report of the investigation committee must come out before further steps are considered,"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3158832,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------

No sanctions for Syria.

[jody]

1. Have other countries been involved in the assassination of political

figures, e.g. U.S. and Israel?

Why is Syria being treated differently?

[KnaveRupe]

2. Because we need to invade Syria!

Helloooo?

2006 elections are just around the corner...... you expect the Republicans to win without a war?

Duh!!

[Union Thug]

4. Bush's poll numbers are just too low. Someone must pay!!!

[TexasLawyer]

20. I started a thread on this topic in General Discussions/Politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2175844&mesg_id=2175844

some pretty lively discussion. Here's the initial post.

Israel's Assassination Policy v. Syria/ Hariri connection

The U.S. is doing some very serious saber-rattling against Syria because of Syria's possible involvement with the bombing that killed Rafiq Hariri. But Israel assasinates people all the time-- admits it-- and has done so for many years. The U.S. doesn't say "boo." We especially don't threaten a war or demand a regime change in Israel.

Not to be dense, but why the double standard?


Just some of the Israeli assasinations listed on this web-site:

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/146.shtml

Extra-Judicial Execution in Jenin, PCHR (17 October 2005)

More Israeli raids as Palestinians bury dead, PCHR (26 September 2005)

Israel threatens to invade Gaza, assassinates Hamas activist, PCHR (17 July 2005)

Israel launches air strikes in Gaza City, Al Mezan (16 July 2005)

Israel escalates attack on Palestinian towns, PCHR (16 July 2005)

Israel resumes assassination of Palestinians, PCHR (7 June 2005)

The Assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin
HAMAS founder

The Assassination of Abdul 'Aziz al-Rantissi
Israel assassinates Dr. Abdul 'Aziz al-Rantissi, leader of Hamas, PCHR (18 April 2004)

Annan condemns Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Abdelaziz Rantissi, UN News (18 April 2004)


2004

Israeli undercover unit assassinates three Palestinians in Nablus, PCHR (1 November 2004)

Assassination in Khan Yunis, death toll Israeli raid northern Gaza rises to 83, PCHR (9 October 2004)

Israeli forces kill Palestinian and wound eight in another extra-judicial execution, PCHR (20 September 2004)

Al Haq condemns assassinations in Nablus and Jenin, Al Haq (16 September 2004)

Jenin: Israeli forces kill three Palestinians in extra-judicial execution, PCHR (14 September 2004)

Israel kills five Palestinians in attempt to assassinate Hamas leader, PCHR (18 August 2004)

Tulkarem: Israeli forces kill 6 Palestinians in extra-judicial execution, PCHR (26 July 2004)

Six Palestinians Extrajudicially Executed in Nablus, PCHR (27 June 2004)

Israeli forces kill two Palestinians in another extrajudicial execution, PCHR (15 June 2004)

<snip>

[hiabrill]

3. Israel only assasinates terrorist..

Not former Prime Ministers & Presidents.

A big difference.

[jody]

6. One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter. n/t

[The Stranger]

7. You forgot the "sarcasm" indicator.

[tatertop]

10. I don't think that is intended as sarcasm

[The Stranger]

12. Then it is blatantly false. No indicator for that, unfortunately.

[tatertop]

14. I'll have to agree on that

[hiabrill]

16. Ops...

:sarcasm:

[tatertop]

17. There you go

Believe it or not, there are actually regular posters here
who throughly believe in your initial statement -
without the sarcasm indicator.

[hiabrill]

18. A jest?

Surely not....! An assassination is an assassination regardless of who it's carried out against. Why else do we have a Judicial System.

Israel claims to be a Democracy with courts and a judicial system, but it lacks JUSTICE......

[tatertop]

22. thank you

[tatertop]

9. Please use the 'check spelling' function

Unfortunately, DU does not offer a fact checker, as well.

[cantstandbush]

5. Russia helping to save, US trying to destroy. In a nutshell. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

8. No decent human being would want to see Syria become another Iraq

America is the greatest threat to peace the world has seen since the rise of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan.

[LiberalMandrake]

11. Russian Base Tartus

[Brooklyn Michael]

13. Unintended consequences

One of the (many) drawbacks from this administration's abysmally bad foreign policy, is that, like he's done to the country, instead of uniting nations in his "War on Terra", he's actively dividing them.

It should then come as no surprise that other countries, like Russia, will step in when they see an advantage they can take to get any leverage against the US.

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. From Robert Parry--Consortium: The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report

Here are a few snippets, but the entire article is defintely a must read:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/102205.html

<snip>
In reaching its tentative conclusions fingering Syria, the U.N. probe also relies heavily on two witnesses of uncertain credibility who implicated Syrian security officials, although with accounts that are partially contradictory.

For instance, the two supposed witnesses differed on the fate of the Lebanese youth, Ahmad Abu Adass, who claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in a videotape released to al-Jazeera television after the Hariri assassination.

<snip>
One of the problems with such “witnesses” is that they can be unreliable for a variety of reasons, including the possibility they are paid or otherwise induced to present false stories to help achieve a result favored by powerful political figures or countries.

<snip>
This risk of investigators accepting questionable testimony from dubious sources is highest when the allegations are directed against countries or political leaders already held in disdain – as was the case with Iraq and is now the case with Syria. With almost everyone ready to believe the worst, few investigators or journalists are willing to endanger their reputations and careers by demanding a high level of proof. It's easier to go with the flow.

[StrafingMoose]

19. Russia defending its everlasting anchor in the middle east, Syria

[eissa]

23. What's good for the goose....

Didn't we defend our "anchor" Kuwait? Wouldn't we defend Saudi Arabia if it were attacked unjustly? I'm glad Russia is doing what little it can to prevent the world's bully from waging yet another war.

[StrafingMoose]

27. I agree.

[sarcasmo]

21. I Recommended this article because it will take a Country like Russia

to stand up to MR Danger and his Reich wing cronies. If no country stands up against these Reich wing lunatics, Syria will be next on the list of countries bombed by the Reich wing. Good for you Russia for having the BALLS to stand up against them.

[daleo]

24. Russia is trying to save poor Americans

That would otherwise be killed in a neo-con adventure.

[enigma000]

25. In the end, Syria will stand alone

Russia, while being an ally of Syria, will not put much effort into saving Boy Assad. Putin knows that Syria is next to fall on the PNAC hitlist; he will stay out of this in the end.

[CHIMO]

26. I Would Not

Want to rely on Russia nor China to stop a possible war.

Syria and Iran might be the same areas targeted. If one looks at what Scott Ritter has said on Iran.

The Iran trap

In the complicated world of international diplomacy surrounding the issue of Iran's nuclear programme, there is but one thing that the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Great Britain) and Iran can all agree upon.

And that is: Iran has resumed operations of facilities designed to convert uranium into a product usable in enrichment processes. From that point forward consensus on just about anything begins to fall apart.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A678E7E-2612-4B21-8D21-04E6D5FC5D54.htm


Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein

SCOTT RITTER: .....
I threw in a lot of other things that had to happen, like John Bolton had to become the head of mission and that we had to transfer the debate from Vienna to the Security Council. Today, we see Bolton in place. And we're looking at the United States working very hard to get the issue of Iran's nuclear program transferred from Vienna to the United Nations. And I guarantee you when it is transferred and when the Russians veto the American effort to put sanctions on Iran, John Bolton has already written his speech. He will stand up, and he will condemn the Security Council as an ineffective body that is unwilling to stand up and deal with genuine threats to the security of the United States of America, and the United States cannot afford to stand by and let this situation exist, and if the Security Council won't deal with Iran, then we will deal with it unilaterally. That speech has been written. I know the people that helped draft that speech. And he's ready to give it when it occurs.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about Iran in terms of the -- clearly the Bush administration has to know that the American forces are already severely overextended in the wars that they're conducting now. The idea that they are even contemplating the possibility of initiating another war or another conflict with Iran, it's almost mind-boggling that they would be even thinking, preparing the American people for such eventuality. I mean, your sense of where the debate on Iran is going right now and what -- again, where is Congress on this?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, (a) there's no debate. I mean, unfortunately, the majority of Americans buy into this notion. Well, we're overstretched in Iraq. It's absurd to think we're going into Iran, and the Bush Administration is just moving forward.

SCOTT RITTER: Well, this is part of the overall neo-con agenda of global domination, in particular the Middle East, what they call regional transformation. And again, I'm not making this up. Global domination is spelled out in the National Security strategy of the United States that was published in September 2002 by the Bush administration, and regional transformation is the language used by every senior Bush administration official when they talk to Congress about what our policies on the Middle East are. So, it's not as though this is a secret agenda. It's part of the overall neoconservative agenda. There's not a single individual pushing this.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

Had to cut quite a bit but Ritter has a lot to say in that interview.

To rely on someone else or somebody to stop the war is, I think, dreaming. Scott is saying that no one would stop an invasion of Iran. And it could easily be assumed that the same would hold for Syria. Just read "War Made Easy" to see that checks and balances don't work the way people believe.

Further I would put it that Russia and China would gain if the US invaded either or both of these countries, as it would only drain the US that much faster. So perhaps a reliance on Russia or China to do more than words at the UN is a bit of dreaming.