Conspiracy of Silence on Syrian bombing

Why has the different governments around the world been so quiet on what could have amounted to the spark needed to instigate a Syrian-Israeli war?

That's the question put to Stratfor.com analysts and their answer is surprising.

For those who need the background on this, if you remember, earlier this month, there was an incident in which Israel apparently bombed a target in Syria. Syria fired back. Reports were mixed as to what exactly happened and whether Israel actually fired ordinance or just dropped fuel tanks.

Then stories began to leak that the bombing was much more critical and involved Israel taking some sort of nuclear related installation out in Syria.

Still, the official response among all governments -- the U.S., Israel and even Syria -- was one of stunning silence. Nothing.

One would think that if Syria did have fissile materials or were engaged in a nuke program, Israel and Bush especially would be hawking to the world just how crazy Syria is and how it was taking itself to the brink of annihilation. On the other side, Syria hasn't come out lambasting the West for infringing on its territory or its rights and how the U.S. is using its hegemony power to push around countries in the Mideast.

Nothing.

Why?

Stratfor says the silence is there because the nuke material likely came from North Korea and the countries involved in the six party talks don't want this to spiral out of control and lead to Kim Jong-Il from pulling out of his agreement to completely abandon its nuclear program.

Their story can be found here.

What's shocking to me is how silent everyone's been. Especially the U.S., which based on its surface actions, you think would seek any little excuse to wipe Syria off the map, let alone Iran.

And last year, I reported that nations opposed to the U.S. bombing North Korea would stand down if it was discovered that the country sold its nuke materials to another country.

This may be indicative of larger machinations taking place in the Mideast. Perhaps western intel discovered the Syrian nuke materials and traced it to N. Korea -- then brought it to their attention and basically said, give it up or you will be bombed.

Or perhaps N. korea came to an agreement with the six nations and gave the west its nuke client list.

Either way, there is a conspiracy here to keep everything quiet.

The quiet on this one has been deafening if you will excuse the pun.And the blackout hasnt gone unoticed to be sure.Sooner or later someone is going to spill the beans about what happened that day.

To me the silence indicates that Syria was caught with it's pants down and doesn't want the world to know what happenned in their country. The governements of the world are staying quiet to prevent WW3.

Couple this event with the so called misplaced nuclear weapons in the USA. And also the VX warhead that exploded while being loaded by Syrians and Iranians. Mind you that all of these events were close in time. I think we are definitely on the verge of a huge ME conflict.

The Democrats were asked about this in the debate last night. Clinton said that the information right now is top secret in Washington and no one is in the know.

She mentioned that there was intelligence of a North Korean ship that apparently brought materials to Syria. She also, I think, mentioned that North Koreas support was 3 fold -Material - Know How and Actual technicians.

This could unravel into a huge story.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
The Democrats were asked about this in the debate last night. Clinton said that the information right now is top secret in Washington and no one is in the know.

She mentioned that there was intelligence of a North Korean ship that apparently brought materials to Syria. She also, I think, mentioned that North Koreas support was 3 fold -Material - Know How and Actual technicians.

This could unravel into a huge story.

Is there a link or anything to the actual question and response by Clinton on this matter? This is big news!

just found the text and it is eye opening.

link to text

The most striking aspect of the debate was Sen. Clinton's refusal to answer questions;

"MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, in 1981 the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.
If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?
SENATOR CLINTON: Tim, I think that's one of those hypotheticals that --
MR. RUSSERT: It is not a hypothetical, Senator. It's real life.
SENATOR CLINTON: -- that is better not addressed at this time.
MR. RUSSERT: It's real --
SENATOR CLINTON: What is real life is what apparently happened in Syria, so let's take that one step at a time.
MR. RUSSERT: But my question --
SENATOR CLINTON: I know what the question is.
MR. RUSSERT: The question is --
SENATOR CLINTON: But I think it's important to lay out what we know about Syria.
MR. RUSSERT: Would Israel -- my question is --SEN. CLINTON: Because we don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a Nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that.
We don't have any more information than what I have just described. It is highly classified; it is not being shared. But I don't want to go a step further and talk about what might or might not happen down the road with Iran .
MR. RUSSERT: My question was --
SEN. CLINTON: But I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria , so far as we know, I support.
MR. RUSSERT: My question is, would the Israelis be justified if they felt their security was being threatened by the presence of a nuclear presence in Iran , and they decided to take military action? Would they be justified?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, I'm not going to answer that because what I understand is that -- "


I like how Russert pushed if it was OK for the Israelis to bomb Syria over possible nuclear material, what about Iran. She wouldn't answer that one.

Something serious happenned out there in the Syrian desert. Hopefully we learn more soon.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by on_yur_6]

I remember seeing a news clip on TVO in which GW Bush refused to answer any questions about this attack. I searched YouTube last night without any luck.

There is a conspiracy of silence surrounding this and that makes me suspicious. Here's a post I made on another thread about this issue;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kudos to the OP for bringing this to light.

“Military force will need to remain on the table as a last resort. Russia, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. agree that in this context, the red line would be the actual or attempted transfer of a nuclear weapon or fissile material by North Korea to another country or non-state actor. As horrific as the consequences would be, there is a preparedness to back the U.S. in the use of military force to enforce this,”

Again, I quoted from a Senate report on North Korea in my story.

It seems we have passed a red line here if in fact North Korea shipped the materials and know-how to Syria. I'm not itching for a new war, but man! I would think this is the least amount of excuse the U.S. could use to justify bombing Iran.

Which leads me to believe that maybe Ahmad may be right when he says he doesn't believe the U.S. will actually bomb them. As they say in the news business, this story doesn't pass the smell test.

Originally posted by behindthescenes

It seems we have passed a red line here if in fact North Korea shipped the materials and know-how to Syria. I'm not itching for a new war, but man! I would think this is the least amount of excuse the U.S. could use to justify bombing Iran.

Which leads me to believe that maybe Ahmad may be right when he says he doesn't believe the U.S. will actually bomb them. As they say in the news business, this story doesn't pass the smell test.

Syria is on the left side of Iraq and Iran is on the other side of Iraq, I think the U.S. govt. would know who to take on using that excuse. Hey lets bomb Iran because we found nuclear materials in Syria instead.

But then politicians may have a hard time finding the country on the globe and bomb the wrong one. Kind of like Miss Teen USA talking about 1/5 Americans can't find our own country on the globe. So who knows, maybe we may indeed bomb Syria, or maybe bomb Iran by accident. Or maybe they like to blackmail Syria for its embarrassment, which is why Syria is shutting up for some reason. Its all speculation.

I found this article which really goes indepth on the operation that never really happened.

Israeli ground forces were involved as well, apparently.

I have been curious about this same thing since it was reported earlier in the month. Coupled with the explosion at the munitions base in Syria back in July, which was covered for about 30 seconds then gone, it gets my spidey senses tingling that something even much bigger than what is already known is happening. And thats very little at the moment.

Originally posted by behindthescenes

“Military force will need to remain on the table as a last resort. Russia, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. agree that in this context, the red line would be the actual or attempted transfer of a nuclear weapon or fissile material by North Korea to another country or non-state actor. As horrific as the consequences would be, there is a preparedness to back the U.S. in the use of military force to enforce this,”

Again, I quoted from a Senate report on North Korea in my story.

It seems we have passed a red line here if in fact North Korea shipped the materials and know-how to Syria. I'm not itching for a new war, but man! I would think this is the least amount of excuse the U.S. could use to justify bombing Iran.

Which leads me to believe that maybe Ahmad may be right when he says he doesn't believe the U.S. will actually bomb them. As they say in the news business, this story doesn't pass the smell test.

Interesting indeed, and good job to the guy who got the transcript.. I hate how politicians answer (or don't but pretend to) questions.

I was wondering what any of you guys thought about this incident, the quoted article from the OP above this, about actions pertaining to but not limited to Korea, Iran and Syria, along with Bush's visit to South Korea and the still unexplained flare between Bush and the South Korean President. The guy was pissed off, I still cannot see why the guy got so mad, and in another thread I proposed he was demanding America ensure their safety if we go to war with Iran / N Korea ... N Korea has the ability to kill millions of S Koreans with artillery barrages from the mountain border, if you have ever seen Behind Enemy Lines 2, that is based off of factual information.

But then again, if we had evidence of Syria with N Korean nukes.. why wait? .. Where is the political push for war? Aside from Iran anyways, we know our Gov wants war with them, but this is more proof then we had to go to war with Iraq. Very confusing.

More politicos are coming out of the woodwork now on what exactly happened.

And indeed, the finger pointing is at North Korea.

This from Florida Congressman Bob Wexler

so ? in the article about the florida dude. It states syria is threat to us? there clear across the globe and dont have anyway to attack us directly so how are they a threat. we should just let isreal deal with what they started if they stopped a nuclear syria well good for them. but it is no threat to us in america. Sure maybe some of our troops or bases in Iraq Afgan. but the america homeland is safe and would be even safer if we pulled the troops let the people there deal with the mess and protect our borders.

I dont think its unreasonable to assume that if N. Korea was providing nuclear material and technology to Syria why would they not be doing the same for Iran?

who cares if they supplyed Iran when they become a threat to us in the homeland then I will care and Im sure many americans think the same....get out troops home.....

but back on track the silence of the nations involved is a little strange but maybe there just making sure on everything for once.

reply to post by cav01c14


You are correct that Syria has no conventional military systems that can reach the US homeland. That has never been a problem. I believe the issue with Syria would be giving weapons (especially WMD) to a terrorist organization. In that case you only need two guys and a truck to kill a lot of innocent people in downtown anywhere, USA.

As others have said, something really big seems to be going on. I also think it is interesting that the Democratic Presidential Candidates are suddenly saying that they can't guarantee that US troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. Maybe that is related and maybe it isn't. The timing just seems a little odd to me.

reply to post by itguysrule



Have you seen the base/compound the USA is building in Iraq? It's freaking enormous. It is suppose to be an embassy but it sits on 104 acres with 21 buildings.

US embassy in Iraq

Don't think for one second the USA is leaving Iraq anytime soon. Iraq and Afghanistan bases will make it a lot easier to conduct military exercises against Iran or whoever is in the crosshairs next.

Hello everyone. I was just forwarded this article from a friend of mine that works from Bloomberg (The company not the Mayor). He says this article is making it's rounds around the office. Other financial institutions are sharing amongst each other as well.

One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in
a state of complete amazement.



"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and
over again, ‘Do you think the Americans will attack us?' ‘When will the Americans attack us?' ‘Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation
with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."

Here's the link to the original story. Link

This story is interseting since it does mention that Isreal was able to get almost all the way over Syria without being detected.