It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the first days of the war, fighters swarmed into Iraq aboard buses that Syrian border guards waved through open gates, witnesses recalled.
"Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."
Did ANYONE take note of the fact the SYRIA test fired SCUD missiles over Turkey a few days ago? Weren't these SCUDs some of the WMDs we were looking for originally? Wasn't there a "theory" that these WMDs were smuggled into Syria during the beginning or slightly before this conflict? I wouldn't call this PROOF, but it sure is awfully suspicous...
www.globalsecurity.org...
Syria obtained Russian Scud-Bs, but it is unclear whether it received Russian Scud-Cs. As of 1992 it was estimated that Syria had 18 Scud-B launchers, as well as 18 of the second-generation Soviet SS-21s, a highly mobile, but shorter-range, missile capable of striking targets in northern Israel. It is widely believed that in late 1991 Syria bought 150 Scud-Cs [an extended-range versions of the Scud-Bs] from North Korea. Syrian Scuds are claimed to have a variety of warheads available, including cluster chemical, unitary VX chemical and unitary high explosive.
And I wouldn't credit the WMD smuggling idea with the term "theory". "Wild speculation" or "grasping at straws" would be more fitting descriptions. Maybe even "puerile propaganda".
This is an article about
This is an article about Syria's continued role they are playing in the war with Iraq. It chronicles the story of a Syrian smuggler who has worked, since the war began, to smuggle insurgents into Iraq. Though we may never know all the reasons, it does offer some insight on why these insurgents - and helpers of the insurgency - are doing what they are doing.
No that would be called plagiarism. Dont give up, just edit your intro paragraph and all will be well.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Originally posted by subz
There is still no proof that Syria (the nation) is interfering in Iraq.
Originally posted by subz
If you want to use this logic then the first country to require a military retaliation would be Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of the foreign insurgents fighting against American forces in Iraq are Saudis.
Originally posted by subz
Would you not think that giving Syria a role in helping Iraq get back on its feet in the spirit of mutual national growth would be more appropriate than widening the conflict? Has the lessons of the quagmire that is now Iraq been completely lost on some people? Why on god's green Earth would you want to widen this conflagration?
Originally posted by subz
This constant demonization of every single country the Bush administration doesnt like is tearing this World apart.
Originally posted by subz
There is still no proof that Syria (the nation) is interfering in Iraq. If you want to use this logic then the first country to require a military retaliation would be Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of the foreign insurgents fighting against American forces in Iraq are Saudis.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Keep it up, subz. I just love sending off your anti-Saudi messages to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in D.C. by email. They loved your "invade Saudi Arabia" idea!
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Hardly. Syria have no interests in helping Iraq to get back on its feet. A down Iraq is a boon for Syria. Don't buy into the usual Syrian diplomatic bulls.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Constant partisan conjectures made by people like you are tearing the world apart.