All these assassinations in Lebanon.?!

Link.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Ok, maybe feeling slightly paranoid tonight lol..
But i was thinking about this, and being someone who reads into why someone or something would want this to happen, i have thought that maybe this is being done not by who the media plays out it to be, but some one with ulterior motives.

If we show Syria to look like they are doing these things, even if its just speculation.
It will build us up to the fact that Syria is a problem, meaning a problem that needs a solution.
The US, at the moment says it is inconceivable to attack Iran, maybe Iran would be just too obvious.
So create a problem, see a reaction, offer a solution.

Are people masterminding all this to execute an agenda.
As was seen in Iraq, and countless other incidents throughout history.

I'm no expert on this type of thing, but the more i think about it, the more i think Syria did not do this.

mod edit to shorten link



[edit on 12-12-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Now here's something I have yet to see reported by any of the mainstream media outlets, even the story has been out for several weeks.

www.antiwar.com...

So, the star witness (and the one person whose testimony Mehlis really relied on) recants his testimony. Meanwhile, the mainstream media carry on quoting the Mehlis report as if it's gospel.

Mmmmmm... I smell a rat, as always

This says it all....

"Syria is now girding for the imposition of economic sanctions and trying to head off the campaign to destabilize the country on two fronts: by restarting talks with Israel, and by cooperating with the request to permit Syrian officials to be questioned in the Hariri investigation. I have the funny feeling, however, that this is not going to do them a lot of good, as far as their enemies in the West are concerned. As we have seen in the case of Iraq, when the U.S. wants to manufacture a case for war, it can be done pretty easily"

I think that it was in February of 2003 when Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

The current administration also insists that their right to act preemptively and unilaterally, with or without the international community's formal approval, rests on the need to protect American lives. But with the exception of al Qaeda, most terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly in the Middle East, do not target Americans. Hamas certainly doesn't. Hezbollah, the most fearsome of terrorist organizations beside al Qaeda, has killed American troops in the Middle East, but not for some years, and it has never targeted American civilians on American soil. Yet like Hamas, Hezbollah has an extensive fundraising cell operation in the States (as do many terrorist organizations, including the Irish Republican Army). If we target them in the Middle East, can't we reasonably assume they will respond by activating these cells and taking the war worldwide?

I doubt very much whether Hezbollah will go out of its way to attack America...heck, I remember when the Bush administration was praising the Syrian government for cooperating in the war on terrorism, and opposing congressional efforts to impose tough sanctions on the country.

My, how times change.

Well, not really.

Originally posted by Britguy
Now here's something I have yet to see reported by any of the mainstream media outlets, even the story has been out for several weeks.

www.antiwar.com...

So, the star witness (and the one person whose testimony Mehlis really relied on) recants his testimony. Meanwhile, the mainstream media carry on quoting the Mehlis report as if it's gospel.

My personal feelings on the matter aside, it was covered in the New York Times last week (recantment) as part of larger article on the Hariri assassination. The article also made it very clear that Mehlis had intended to pass on the torch on December 15, though to be honest that was the first I had heard of it.

Personally I would imagine that the CIA is pretty busy with the State Department politically in Iraq right now to worry about trying to off someone in Syria and deal with the political fallout; not to say the thought hadn't crossed my mind though. I doubt Bush has the time or resources left to engage Syria, if that does happen I would pin it on the next president.

Personally I don't really get what all the fuzz is about.
Who really cares if the Syrian leaders were possibly involved in the assassination of some meaningless Lebanese ex-Prime Minister?
The US and other western countries have gotten away with worse.

That is surely no real reason to invade a country, in my opinion anyway.