Anti-U.S. sentiment grows in Syria after raid

Brooke Anderson, Chronicle Foreign Service
Sunday, November 9, 2008

(11-09) 16:43 PST Abu Kamal, Syria — The U.S. incursion into Syria late last month put this eastern border town near Iraq on the world stage and many of its residents on edge.

"At the beginning of the war, we were scared. Then we got used to it. Now we're scared again - and angry," said Yusef Tara, who spoke to a reporter near the site of the Oct. 26 U.S. commando raid against an alleged al-Qaida in Iraq hideout that Damascus says killed eight civilians.

In this tightly controlled police state that had been trying to change its image and end years of global seclusion, protest groups are now allowed to stage anti-American rallies. And even though YouTube is banned, video footage of four U.S. helicopters carrying out the raid is making the rounds on cell phones.

The anti-American sentiment is in sharp contrast to months of toned-down rhetoric against the Bush administration as the two countries edged toward serious talks. The United States had been pleased that Syria accepted Iraqi refugees, made peace overtures to Israel, established full relations with Lebanon and shared intelligence about al-Qaida radicals. Two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in New York with her Syrian counterpart, Walid Moallem, in the highest-level talks between the two nations since 2005.

At the same time, the United States accused Syria of not doing enough to curb the flow of militant fighters from Syria into Iraq.

Now, the local media refers to the United States in language reserved for Israel after a military operation in the West Bank or Gaza Strip - war crimes, martyrs, terrorists and deaths of innocent civilians.

"This is the first time in Syrian-U.S. bilateral relations since 1945 (the year diplomatic relations were established) that the Americans attacked Syria," said Sami Moubayed, a political analyst in Damascus, Syria's capitol. "The raid makes it difficult for bilateral relations."

After the incursion, Al-Arabiya television reported that Iraqi troops had increased the number of personnel near Abu Kamal, a town of about 30,000 residents that border's Iraq's Anbar province and has no paved roads, daily power outages and cement homes with dirt floors. Syria also sent additional troops to the frontier, but has since withdrawn them to reduce security cooperation with the United States, officials say.

At the site of the raid, a large cement building under construction along the Euphrates River, there is an eerie calm as military police stand guard in an isolated area accessible by a bumpy, dirt road.

U.S. officials say the raid killed Abu Ghadiyah, an Iraqi who they believe was a top al-Qaida in Iraq militant operating a network that smuggled fighters into Iraq to carry out suicide bombings and other operations. They say several of his bodyguards were also killed.

As Saoud Rak Khalif entered the building, he viewed dried blood, shattered glass and walls pockmarked with bullet holes. His brother Ahmed, a 21-year-old construction worker, died during the raid by U.S. Special Forces.

"They did to us what they're doing to the Iraqis," Khalif said. "I have nothing against the American people. But they attacked civilians. This is terrorism."

Another fatality was Ali Abbas Ramadan, whom family members described as a 35-year-old construction site guard.

"I was in a tent when the helicopters came. The (American) soldiers came to inspect it. I don't know why," said 7-year-old Mariam Ramadan, Ramadan's daughter. "They were speaking a foreign language, and I didn't understand anything."

Syria has demanded that Washington apologize for the strike and has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security. The government has also ordered all foreign staff of the American Language Center and American Cultural Center in Damascus to leave the country, and postponed a Nov. 12 meeting of a joint Syrian-Iraqi committee in Baghdad to improve troubled relations.

Baha Rakad, a member of the Human Rights Association in Syria, has pledged to file a lawsuit in Syrian courts against President Bush and the Pentagon on behalf of the victims of the raid.

Meanwhile, political analyst Moubayed points out that Syria's response to the raid has so far been restrained and that President Bashar Assad has expressed hope that Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the U.S. presidential election will bring "constructive dialogue."

"We did not expel the U.S. charge d'affaires, nor recall our ambassador," Moubayed said. "We are keeping room for future dialogue with President Obama."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/MNDS13TRPL.DTL

Russia concerned over reports of U.S. air strike on Syria

MOSCOW, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is greatly concerned over reports that U.S. forces carried out a strike within Syrian territory, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

Official Syrian media earlier reported that American helicopter-borne troops launched an assault on Sunday on a building in a village near the Iraqi border, killing eight civilians.

U.S. officials said the strike targeted al-Qaida-linked fighters moving through Syria into Iraq, but Syria said four children were among those killed.

"Eight people were killed as a result," Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said. "Moscow is greatly concerned by these events. We believe that the War on Terror slogan must not be used to attack the territory of sovereignty states."

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081027/117975342.html

Surging Into Syria: American Incursion Opens New Front in Quagmire

Taking a page from the new bipartisan strategy now being employed in Afghanistan — waging cross-border military raids into sovereign countries in order to protect a failing military occupation in a neighboring country — the United States has apparently launched its first known incursion into Syria: the usual assault from on high with the usual tally of children as "collateral damage."

The BBC reports that American forces launched a small ground-air attack on the border village of Sukkiraya on Sunday, with military helicopters disgorging a squad of troops who attacked a building and killed "a man, his four children and a married couple."

Officially, the Pentagon has neither confirmed nor denied the attack, but the brass leaked word to the Associated Press that the shiv-stab into Syrian territory did indeed take place, and that it was aimed at — wait for it — "foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda." As the leaky Pentagon mouthpiece told AP: "We are taking matters into our own hands."

(And isn't it remarkable how every single person killed by American forces in the global War on Terror is somehow "linked to al-Qaeda"? Even the children. I guess American bullets and bombs have some kind of super-secret al-Qaeda sorting software embedded in them, guiding the munitions directly to the evil ones — including the little evil ones: the doctrine of "pre-emption" in its purest form — and sparing everyone else.)

Why has the Bush Administration raided Syria now, after years of accusing Damascus of aiding and abetting "al Qaeda-linked terrorist" funneling into Iraq? Well, most beserker militarist regimes have myriad reasons behind their various lashings-out, so there is probably a number of different factors invovled.

One might be the recent moves that Syria has made toward trying to end its pariah status, as the Guardian notes:

The attack comes as Syria takes another step in from the cold today when its foreign minister, Walid al-Mualim, visits London to hear praise for its newly conciliatory policies in Lebanon...

In recent months Syria has established diplomatic relations with Lebanon and held several rounds of indirect talks with Israel, with Turkey acting as broker. In July, President Assad was invited to an EU summit in Paris.
The BBC report also touches on this theme:

The attack's timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus, our correspondent adds.
As we have often seen, whenever one of the American elite's designated demons starts trying to make nice and act moderate, they are generally poked with a sharp stick in hopes of making them snarl again — thereby continuing their highly useful function as bogey-men to keep scaring the American people into giving trillions of dollars (and the blood of their children) to the Pentagon and its corporate associates in the war profiteering industry.

Of course, petty murderous spite can never be overlooked in anything the Bushists do. From the Guardian:

Joshua Landis, an American expert on Syria, commented last night: "The Bush administration must assume that an Obama victory will force Syria to behave nicely in order to win favour with the new administration. Thus White House analysts may assume that it can have a "freebee" - taking a bit of personal revenge on Syria without the US paying a price."
Some have also offered the idea that Bush is trying to make sure that Barack Obama is thoroughly tied down in the region when he takes office, forced to contend with a newly enraged Syria on the Iraq border, which the Bushists obviously hope will spur more terrorist attacks in Iraq — on American forces and civilians — thereby creating the "dangerous conditions" that will "justify" a continuing U.S. presence in the conquered land. (Yes, Virginia, fomenting terrorist attacks has long been a strategy of the American government, as we noted here — and here — years ago.)

It's unlikely that Obama will need much encouragement to keep a substantial U.S. military force in Iraq; that's been his plan all along. And as he has also advocated "carefully targeted" cross-border strikes into Pakistan, he can hardly object to the same tactic in Iraq. What's more, Joe Biden has already warned us that he and Obama are going to plunge head-first into an unspecified "foreign crisis" sometime next year, adopting highly unpopular policies that the poor, dumb benighted citizenry are just not going to be able to understand at first. A major incursion into Syria would certainly fit that bill — although, admittedly, the venues and opportunities for Barry and Joe to prove their "toughness" are legion, given the vast and goading scope of America's military empire.

II.
Of course, one can speculate on motives until the cows come home. (Or rather, until the chickens come home to roost, in the form of revengeful blowback against Americans. But none of the well-wadded, well-protected bipartisan Beltway barons are worried about that. After all, the more blowback, the more "emergency powers" they accrue.) But we should remember that Syria has been in the cross-hairs of several powerful factions in our militarist empire for years. The same gang that brought you the Iraq war — and would love to bring you the Iran war — have long been howling to put tanks on the road to Damascus.

Below is a piece that I wrote for the Moscow Times back in April 2003. Although a few details have changed since then, the column is still depressingly apt as an example of the imperial mindset that animates both parties in the corridors of Beltway power.

Some cynics claim that George W. Bush and his closest advisors — whom cynics cynically refer to as "bloodthirsty corporate pimps" — are just a bunch of vicious, shifty liars. But this column takes enormous umbrage at the heaping of such unsupported calumny upon the good names of these great leaders. They have been maligned, slandered, falsely accused. For when it comes to their plans for world conquest, these so-called "pimps" are as honest as the day is long.

As we all know, the rape of Iraq (or as future historians will doubtless call it, "The Dawn of the Shiite Empire") was planned openly several years ago by a hard-right agitprop cell led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Now it turns out that the recent big-monkey chest-beating aimed at Syria — threats of sanctions, "surgical" strikes, and "regime change" — was also carefully planned, by many of the same people, long before the Bush Regime seized power.

As we've often reported here, in September 2000 the Cheney-Rumsfeld outfit, Project for the New American Century, proudly published their blueprint for the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East. They even foresaw the need for what they called a "Pearl Harbor-type event" to galvanize the American public into supporting their ambitious program. Their reasons for this program were also stated quite openly: to ensure U.S. political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to the rapacious crony capitalism favored by the PNAC extremists. This dominance would be enforced by the ever-present threat — and frequent application — of violence. (A tactic known elsewhere as "terrorism.")

PNAC was also very honest about the role of Iraq in this crusade for empire, stating plainly that the need for a U.S. military presence in the area "superseded" the "issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." There was no sanctimonious posturing about "liberation," weapons of mass destruction or terrorist connections. To dominate the oil wealth centered in that region — and hence the economic/political development of the world in the coming decades — they needed a military presence in Iraq; it's as simple as that.

....A few months before PNAC's prophetic 2000 report, an allied group with an overlapping membership published a similar document outlining steps to be taken against Syria: first "tightening the screws" with denunciations and economic sanctions, then escalating to military action, as Jim Lobe of Inter-Press Agency reports. The architects of this document included Elliot Abrams, the convicted perjurer now running Bush's Middle East policy; Douglas Feith, one of Don Rumsfelds' top aides; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary to Colin Powell; and influential Pentagon advisors such as David Wurmser, Michael Leeden and everyone's sweetheart, Richard "Influence-Peddler" Perle.

The report sprang largely from the loins of the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon, a curious grouping of right-wing American Christians, right-wing American Jews, and a sprinkling of Lebanese exiles. They object — rightly — to the fact that Syria has maintained "long-term access to major military bases" in Lebanon, using this minatory presence to exercise undue sway over Lebanon's political and economic life. Of course, some cynics would say this situation is remarkably akin to Israel's own 18-year occupation of, er, Lebanon, or the United States' decades-long — and still-continuing — military presence in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Panama, etc. But you know what cynics are like.

The USCFL also provides highly insightful and very nearly literate analyses of vital regional issues, such as its seminal paper, "Even Arabs Don't Like Arabs." But the mindset of the group — whose members now stalk the corridors of power in Imperial Washington — is perhaps best displayed in its thoughtful 2001 treatise, "A Petition Demanding War Against Governments That Sponsor Terrorism" (Except, of course, for governments who enforce their will by the ever-present threat and use of violence — i.e. terrorism — but are run by nice white men educated at Yale and Oxford.)

Here, the proto-Bushist group demands that six "rogue nations" — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya and Sudan — "turn over their governments to the United States" on pain of massive military response. The United States will then "occupy these territories until proper governments" — ones that allow "long-term access" to major military bases, no doubt — "can be established." And just how massive should that threatened U.S. military response be? The USCFL is, as always, admirably — and brutally — forthright: "America must set a clear example-identical to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you tread on me, I will wipe you off the face of the earth."

Is this what the Bushists are really talking about in their fear-mongering diatribes about seeing "terrorism's smoking gun in a mushroom cloud"?

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m48291&hd=&size=1&l=e

Israeli Military Intelligence Chief: Syria Has Become Hezbollah De Facto Arsenal

Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin told the cabinet on Sunday that Syria was continuing to arm Hezbollah, and had in fact become the Lebanese resistance group's arsenal.

"(President Bachar) Assad is continuing to throw open the doors of Syria's warehouses for Hezbollah, and has become 'Hezbollah's arsenal.' Assad trusts Hezbollah more than his own army and Hezbollah operatives act in Syria as if it's their own country," said Yadlin.

A key Israeli demand in indirect peace negotiations with Syria is that it cut its ties with Hezbollah, and in particular, cease supplying the resistance group with weapons.

Yadlin did actually say he believed Assad was interested in a peace deal with Israel "on his conditions," but was waiting for the establishment of a new administration in the United States.

Yadlin added that, "The Syrians have removed almost every restraint; in their irresponsible behavior they are giving Hezbollah possession of almost every strategic capability they own."

Yadlin also said that Hezbollah is still seeking to avenge the death of its former military commander Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated in a bombing in February that shook a residential neighborhood of Damascus. Hezbollah says it was orchestrated by Israel.

http://jnoubiyeh.blogspot.com/2008/10/mi-chief-syria-has-become-hezbollah-de.html
or
http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=61410&language=en

Israel seeking peace talks with Syria

An Israeli minister said that the Jewish state was trying to revive peace talks with Syria and that the price of a deal was the occupied Golan Heights.

The comments by Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer came after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated this week that Israel was willing to make peace with its Arab neighbour and hinted at behind-the-scenes talks.

"Every effort is being made to bring Syria to the negotiating table," Ben-Eliezer told Israel Radio.

"We know that sitting at the negotiating table is not to sing Hatikva (Israel's national anthem) but to sign an agreement, and we know very well the price of this agreement."

Asked if the price was to relinquish control of the Golan Heights, Ben-Eliezer said: "Exactly."

Israel captured the Golan, a strategic plateau, from neighbouring Syria during the 1967 Middle East War and annexed it in 1981 in a move that has not been internationally recognised.

Peace talks between Israel and Syria collapsed in 2000 over the extent of a proposed Israeli withdrawal from the Golan.
Tensions have risen since then with Israel accusing Syria of supporting the Lebanese Shi'ite group Hizbollah and Palestinian militant groups like Hamas.

Russia has offered to host a Middle East peace conference this year to try to relaunch talks between the two countries.

Olmert on Wednesday appeared to signal reluctance about attending such a summit but said Israel was willing to make peace with Syria and that he hoped the two sides would be able to hold talks.

"That doesn't mean that when we sit together you have to see us," Olmert told foreign journalists in a news conference.

Israel has also raised concerns over Syria's close ties with Iran, the Jewish state's arch foe.

www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2862463220080328?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Inevitable: Turkey-Iran-Syria-Russia alliance

The Middle East has acquired immense strategic value as one of the determining fulcrums in the global balance of power due to its being the world's largest known storehouse of low-cost energy supplies. The region's geopolitical importance, the kaleidoscopic nature of politics among its states, the presence of volatile social and political forces within them and the interference of world superpowers all insure that the region will remain a potentially explosive source of tension for years.

Emboldened by its military strength after World War II, Moscow prepared to carve up its southern neighbors. It demanded territorial concessions and control of the Bosporus from Turkey and refused to withdraw from northern Iran, which it had occupied in 1941. Turkey and Iran rebuffed Soviet coercive diplomacy with the support of the United States and became key allies in the American effort to contain Soviet expansion.

The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was a defense alliance between Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Great Britain. Originally named the Baghdad Pact, the name was changed when the Iraqi revolution led Iraq to withdraw in 1959. The United States had observer status in the alliance but was not a party to the treaty. The fall of the shah removed the American shield from Iran, sounded the death knell for the anti-Soviet CENTO alliance and sailed Iran towards new horizons.

Now the same faith is on the road for Turkey. The measureless and injudicious backup given by the occupying power in Iraq — the US government — to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and to Massoud Barzani, the former tribal leader of the Iraqi Kurds and now the so-called leader of the Iraqi Kurdish region.

Turkey, taking into consideration the ongoing assaults by the PKK terrorists in the southeastern regions and the measureless backup given by US government to Iraqi Kurds, has drawn up a new strategic alliance policy that weakens ties with the US and strengthens relations with Iran and Syria, their millennium-long neighbors.

The US has failed to keep its promise to Turkey to confront the PKK. Turkey now feels that it has no choice but to attack the PKK's sanctuaries in northern Iraq together with Iran.

Iran is also suffering from similar assaults originating from the same terrorist group located in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq under the name of Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK).

The US and Iran are increasingly at odds over a range of issues, and Turkey has stood nearby the US as an old and devoted ally for the past 57 years.

Surprisingly, US strategists seem to be pushing Turkey and Iran together to fight against violent Kurdish attacks or into an alliance to fight together against the common enemy in the region at the cost of losing Turkey as a faithful ally. The sympathy of Turkish people towards the US had fallen sharply over the past couple of years, and it will take decades for US to recover it.

It seems it is now mandatory for Turkey and Iran to form a common cooperative ground in regard to common problems and interests. New and stronger cooperative action in the economic field by Turkey and Iran will play a major role in the eradication of the political distrust and concerns between the two countries. The parties have announced an upcoming doubling of the volume of their trade.

Both countries have already agreed on the elimination of the main source of discord: support for each other's separatist and oppositional organizations. Iran has committed to adding the PKK to its list of "terrorist organizations." Turkey has done the same concerning the Iranian group "Mojahedin Halk."

The second stage is the escalation of high-level cooperation between Turkey, Iran and Syria and this is moving forward, as well.

Aversion to American global policy, in particular to the actions of the US in Iraq, the common allies of Syria and Iran, and also shared economic interests, will lead to the merging of the political strategies of Russia and Turkey. Countries that were previously historical opponents will turn into partners in the creation of a new Eurasian coalition.

The final effect of the region's aversion to American policies will be the formation of the "union of four:" Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Of course, this rapprochement between Ankara, Moscow, Damascus and Teheran will definitely affect Washington's position in the Middle East.

http://www.todayszaman.com
----------------------------------------------------------

During his visit in Syria Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, he is praised as a hero not only by Syrians but also by a Turkish public that admired his willingness to resist American pressure.
It's not just the cooperation in fighting terrorists that allies Iran and Turkey.

Yes, Turkey has recognized the anti-Iranian MEK as terrorists, while Iran has recognized the PKK as terrorists. But the cooperation goes further than that.

For example, Iran has a pipe that feeds gas into Turkey. In the future, Turkey and Iran have plans to extend that pipe into Europe.

Both countries are also part of the ECO (The Economic Cooperation Organization) which by the way, does include Pakistan.

Both countrys' police cooperate in stopping drug-trafficers, and both countrys' tourism departments cooperate in promoting tourism between the two states. There are many other examples as well. Both countries have set up joint ventures in free-trade zones with each other trading textiles, decorative stone, chemicals and petrochemicals, foods, etc.

They have removed many tarrif barriers, and have established various banking relations.

Turkey-Russia relations are also improving very rapidly. Trade between the two states was just a few hundred million $ in 2004, and is projected to reach about 25 billion $ by the end of 2007.

Russia, similar to Iran, is also supplyin gas to Turkey. Russian companies are also distributing some of that gas inside of Turkey.
Turkey is currently also one of the most popular sites for Russian tourists.

Syrian 'Reactor Site' Photos Faked

Simple logic and observation will prove considerable image tampering has taken place when taking a closer look at the images of the supposed Syrian reactor site. Like the vector analysis I did showing advanced weapon damage to burn vehicles at the WTC event, no one seems to ask the question ­ were BOTH photos faked for the reactor location showing the reactor site, before and after it was destroyed? Let's look at both of these images using shadow vectors to learn more.

The key here is to examine the shadows in the notated images. Since this appears to be a daylight image, we can assume that the Sun is the only light source. At times other than mid-day when the Sun is directly overhead, objects can only cast ONE shadow since the Sun is the only light source. Shadows must be on the opposite side of any object on the ground. For large holes in the ground, the shadow must be down in the bottom of the hole, on the side nearest the sun. We shall see that the problems with these images is that there are shadows on BOTH sides of structures and objects above the ground.

* The large yellow arrow (right image, right edge) points to a straight line shadow. This shadow does NOT match the curved contour of the edge of this plateau just above it, as other shadows appear to match their nearby objects. This alone damages the credibility of both images.


* In the image on the left, the orange arrow is pointing to the supposed building's shadow. This is in conflict with the yellow arrows, which prove that a shadow cast by the building should be on the OTHER SIDE of the building. The yellow arrows appear to show this is a raised, plateau-like area as a result of these shadows. Even if this is not a plateau area, other shadows are still in conflict with each other.


* In the image on the right, I have added a blue arrow (center of the image) pointing to what appears to be a hole in the ground near the center of where the building was. Note the shadow at the top side of the apparent hole (center blue arrow.) Now look at the yellow arrows which seem to disagree with the shadow direction of this hole. At the top of the image, blue arrows indicate the shadows which should be on the opposite side. It's not necessary to know which shadows are right. Since these shadows conflict with each other, neither can logically be considered correct since there is no real point of reference.


* If this is a hole in the ground (center blue arrow, right) the shadow must appear on the side of the hole nearest the sun. If this is a raised structure above the ground, the shadow must be on the opposite side from the sun side. As this is supposed to be a site where a reactor building was destroyed, then the center blue arrow (right image) would probably be pointing to a hole in the ground. If this is true, the shadow is on the WRONG side of the hole with respect to the yellow arrows. No matter how you look at these images, the shadows are still wrong.


* Another problem which is even more obvious, is that this reactor building had no cooling tower or cooling pond. Reactors require extensive dissipation of generated heat into the surrounding environment. In the desert, this problem will be even more severe. Yet no means to cool this supposed reactor is visible. A cooling pond, lake or tower surely would have been constructed along with the building.

In short, there are numerous shadow conflicts (also visible among the yellow arrows) that tell us that BOTH of these images are FAKE. Most likely, these are photos which were quickly put together from more than one image, since the shadows are all wrong in both images.

Uncle needs to employ better graphic artists.

Ted Twietmeyer
www.data4science.net
--------------------------------------------------------
Who can we trust now?
CNN?
Fox News?
In days like these, the only one that we can trust is only our own logic and conscience.

UN: Action to be taken against interpreter for false report that Syria has a nuclear facility

UNITED NATIONS: The United Nations said Thursday action would be taken against the interpreter responsible for an erroneous report that Syria has a nuclear facility.

Syria denied that one of its representatives told the U.N. General Assembly's committee that deals with disarmament on Tuesday that Israel had attacked a Syrian nuclear facility. It said the representative was misquoted, demanded a correction, and insisted that "such facilities do not exist in Syria."

After more than seven hours of investigation Wednesday, U.N. officials agreed the Syrian delegate was misquoted. "There was an interpretation error," U.N. associate spokesman Farhan Haq said. "There was no use of the word nuclear."

The U.N. expressed regret for the incident.

The mistake made headlines in the Middle East and heightened concerns over Damascus' nuclear ambitions. Those ambitions were under scrutiny following a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike on an unknown target in northeastern Syria near the border with Turkey. Widespread reports say it may have been a nascent nuclear facility, a claim Syria has denied.

The incident started Tuesday night with a U.N. press summary in English of the disarmament committee's proceedings that paraphrased the Syrian representative as saying, "Israel was the fourth largest exporter of weapons of mass destruction and a violator of other nations' airspace, and it had taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria."

The Syrian representative spoke in Arabic, but Haq said Thursday the problem was not the translation from Arabic. An interpreter who worked from Arabic into French was fairly accurate, he said.

The problem occurred when interpreter translated the statement into English from French, Haq said.

"Action will be taken against that freelance interpreter to the fullest extent of the U.N. rules and regulations," Haq said, refusing to comment further on what that action might be.

Other U.N. staffers familiar with the rules said the freelance interpreter likely works on some kind of contract with the U.N. translation service that will not be renewed. The staffers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Earlier Thursday, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas told reporters: "We regret the error and the department that deals with General Assembly affairs is looking further into the incident."

She confirmed that the Syrian Mission had discussed the matter with the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management. She added that any reporter who spoke Arabic and listened to the original tape recording of the Syrian delegate would realize the mistake.

According to the corrected text, the Syrian representative said: "...the (entity) that is ranking number four among the exporters of lethal weapons in the world; that which violates the airspace of sovereign states and carries out military aggression against them, like what happened on Sept. 6 against my country, such entity with all those characteristics and even more, has no right for its representative to go on lying without shame..."

The Syrian representative was replying to a speech to the committee on Monday by Israeli Ambassador Miriam Ziv, deputy director general for strategic affairs in the Foreign Ministry, who accused Syria of continuing to transfer weapons to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/18/news/UN-GEN-UN-Syria-Israel.php
---------------------------------------------------

If the airstrike is proved to be based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation, this would be a major embarassment for Israel. That would also prove that Israel is willing to strike its neighbours only based on false clues.

Assad supports Turkey''s cross-border pursuit of PKK rebels in Northern Iraq

Visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on Wednesday that his country supports Turkish decisions to fight terrorism.
Assad has been given official reception at the Turkish Presidential palace following which he held in-camera talks with President Abdullah Gul.
The two presidents held a joint conference, during which Assad voiced support to Turkey's cross-border operation to fight against outlawed Kurdish Workers' Party )PKK) rebels in northern Iraq.
He said it was Turkey's right to take the measures it deemed appropriate in case political ways have failed.
Assad is expected to visit Istabul on Thursday before conclusion of his three-day visit to Ankara.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1848385&Language=en
------------------------------------------------------

It is quite well-known that Kurds has some relationship with Mossad as a number of Israelis are sighted around PKK bases. Turkish incursion on Northern Iraq to attack PKK is certainly is a good thing for Syria.

The enemy of my enemy's allies is my friend.

Israel Air Force target last month is claimed to be a partly constructed nuclear reactor

An Israel Air Force strike on Syria early last month targeted a partly constructed nuclear reactor, American and foreign officials with access to intelligence reports were quoted as saying by the New York Times on Saturday.

Comparing the operation to Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, shortly before that reactor was to have begun operating, the New York Times quoted U.S. and foreign officials as saying the Syrian facility appears to have been much further from completion.

"They officials said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium," the Times reported.
Advertisement

According to the New York Times, the Bush administration was divided over whether an attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted.


The officials told the Times that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were "particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat."

"There wasn't a lot of debate about the evidence," one American familiar with the discussions between the U.S. and Israel told the Times. "There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it."

According to the report, the officials said the reactor was apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel.

Syrian President Bashar Assad confirmed the air strike some two weeks ago, but said it targeted an unused military facility. Both North Korea and Syria have vehemently denied reports of nuclear cooperation between the countries.

Also Saturday, North Korea's state media reported that a senior Pyongyang official has departed for an overseas trip that includes a stop in Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/912377.html

-------------------------------------------------------------

Syria and Israel is technically still at war, as Syria did not sign a peace treaty like other Arab states.

There are two possibilities,
1. Syria did try to develop a nuclear capability based on North Korean technology transfer. This create an understandable casus belli on Israeli air strike.

2. Syria never intended to develop nuclear tecnology. Israel aim was to undermine Syrian position, by accusing it try to develop nuclear weaponry. This would legalize further military and political actions toward Syria, which may even lead to the Invasion of Syria by the Coalition of the Willing in a few years from now.