Patterico's Pontifications

10/24/2007

Independent Sources confirm possible Syrian Nuclear Site

Filed under: International — DRJ @ 11:48 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

According to the Washington Post, independent experts have located the suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site bombed by the Israelis earlier this month and identified the structures as similar to North Korean-designed reactors. A former UN inspector, whose work for ISIS involves tracking nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world, acknowledged it was difficult to know for sure what the site was but he was “pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor.”

The IAEA is also investigating but its director Mohammed El Baradei expressed anger at the Israelis’ decision to use force to deal with the Syrian installation. Frankly, I’m curious why El Baradei and the UN inspectors apparently didn’t have a clue what the Syrians were up to. In any event, I think the root of the problem is rogue states who want nuclear programs. The use of force is one of several tools, including inspections and diplomacy, that the world should use to deal with this problem.

Earlier posts on this topic can be found here, here, here, and here.

— DRJ

28 Responses to “Independent Sources confirm possible Syrian Nuclear Site”

  1. El Baradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation. “When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein’s research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground,” he said. “The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem.”

    Am I the only one who looked at this and said – hey, finally, they admit what President Bush argued was the reason for going into Iraq. As far as the IAEA is concerned, Hussein was trying to pursua nuclear program. Imagine that.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  2. Independent Sources confirm Syrian Nuclear Site?

    They looked at a map on Google and found a site they think may have been the target.

    A square building.

    Haha.

    alphie (99bc18)

  3. Maybe it’s like global warming, G.B.?

    It makes things hot, cold, wet, dry, stormy, calm, causes rainforests to die, causes rain forest to flourish, makes one pole melt and the other freeze up…and it’s all our fault!

    So it’s perfectly reasonable to figure that Bush was a huge liar about Iraq heading for nukes and that we shouldn’t bomb nuke factories because Iraq was going for it in secret….

    Foxfier (290c52)

  4. One day — I hope in my lifetime — history will exonerate Bush for the tonage of crap heaped upon him by a speculative media and pernicious populace. While I could blister his behind for a few of his actions in office, I wholly believe then and now in his reasons for being in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sincerely attribute to him my family’s safety since 911 that is no accident.

    Now, more than ever, I fear for my children’s future, the sovereignty of my country, and the survival of my species. This post and its predecessors only exacerbates said fears.

    And alphie sure as heck holds a nail for my coffin.

    EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3)

  5. I’d like to think we’re all on the same side in the GWOT, E-Heaven.

    But, instead of trying to win the support of a majorty of Americans for it through reason, Bush choose to go for the support of the 25percenters with fairy tales like the one linked to in this post…as well as pursue a far right domestic agenda guaranteed to polarize the country.

    If Bush doesn’t take it seriously (go shoppin’, y’all) why should anyone not making a buck off it support the GWOT?

    alphie (99bc18)

  6. I’d like to think we’re all on the same side in the GWOT, E-Heaven.

    Roll up your pants people. The BS is far too deep to save your shoes.

    Just Passing Through (ff997a)

  7. The Syrians admitted at the United Nations that it was a nuclear site that was attacked, Idiot Demagogue.

    Alphie is a troll, we need to stop replying to him no matter how ridiculous his comments are. They’re designed to be ridiculous to provoke an emotional response from us, that’s what trolls do.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  8. Maybe you could provide a link for your claim, chaos?

    alphie (99bc18)

  9. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/17/un-document-confirms-israel-hit-syrian-nuclear-reactor/

    So was the transcript edited because the Syrian ambassador misspoke and leaving a record of the ambassador saying that would have been inflammatory, or was it a slip by the ambassador?

    Israel didn’t bomb that site just for the hell of it. I’m betting that the Syrian ambassador got his ass chewed out by Assad at first opportunity for such a blunder.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  10. “Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns.”

    Can anyone cite an example of an international agency acting (much less acting favorably and decisively) on a concern expressed by Israel?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  11. For information and analysis I suggest you go here.

    blah (a01d4a)

  12. Take the Syrian official’s words at face value and what do you get? Israel in the past still hasn’t taken circuitous routes up the Mediterranean coast, over Turkey, and then into Syria through her back door, penetrating what was, before the raid, allegedly one of the most impenetrable national air-defense systems in the world, to bomb random “military warehouses.”

    There was something there that Israel felt threatened enough by to do a re-do of Osirak. The Syrian reaction was, for weeks, incredibly muted. A “military warehouse” full of chemical and biological warheads, a missile and/or chem/bio weapons R&D facility, a nuclear reactor, it was something WMD related I’m sure.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  13. …Bush choose to go for the support of the 25percenters with fairy tales like the one linked to in this post…

    Would that 25 percent support include the 77 Senators, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who told us that Saddam had WMD and voted to go to war?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  14. Aaah,

    Here is what Congress authorized, PS:

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    If Israel had the ability to “confirm” the presence of Syria’s “nuclear weapons program” before they attacked it, how come the United States couldn’t “confirm” Iraq’s “nuclear weapons program” before launching an accidental war?

    See like a huge conflict in the neocon mythology there.

    alphie (99bc18)

  15. As a person with many years in the Nuke field in days gone by this could be a containment building consistent with a gas-graphite reactor (the type NK used). The images are copyright 2007 per googlearth.

    It was under construction so any support stuff may have been built after the images they had.

    daytrader (ea6549)

  16. If Israel had the ability to “confirm” the presence of Syria’s “nuclear weapons program” before they attacked it, how come the United States couldn’t “confirm” Iraq’s “nuclear weapons program” before launching an accidental war?

    I don’t think there has ever been an “accidental” war.

    Your question is a nice exercise in logical fallacy, but not much else. The United States acted based on the intelligence it had, as did Israel.

    See like a huge conflict in the neocon mythology there.

    You enjoy non sequitirs, don’t you?

    Maybe you don’t quite comprehend what Section 3a(1) and (2) mean, particularly (1). The language is very clear, I don’t know how to explain it simpler than it already is:

    (a) AUTHORIZATION.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

    chaos (9c54c6)

  17. chaos,

    Are you saying tiny little Israel has capabilities that the $700,000,000,000 a year U.S. military doesn’t have?

    I don’t think so.

    Think of all the trouble we coulda saved if the neocons allowed a few commandos to do a physical check of Saddam’s “WMD facilities.”

    alphie (99bc18)

  18. …how come the United States couldn’t “confirm” Iraq’s “nuclear weapons program” before launching an accidental war?

    WMD in Iraq was confirmed.
    Clinton’s CIA director, George Tenant told Bush it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMD. (As is your practice, it is a disingenuous for you to rearrange the facts to imply that the Saddam’s only threat was nuclear weapons.)

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  19. Haha,

    Based on phony documents from Italy and an insane source held by German intelligence, PS?

    Don’t you think a President who wanted to know the truth (as opposed to whether he could get away with it or not) would have sent in some people to take a look for themselves to confirm the questionable intelligence before launching a trillion dollar war?

    alphie (99bc18)

  20. Are you saying tiny little Israel has capabilities that the $700,000,000,000 a year U.S. military doesn’t have?

    You’re going to have to try harder at employing logical fallacies than that.

    The Mossad is one of the world’s premier intelligence agencies. It has accomplishments that rank next to any successful operation the CIA or other Western intelligence agencies can claim.

    Also, the two situations are dissimilar. Israel is right next to Syria and has extensive ties to Syria that can be exploited to gather intelligence. Israel has also spent decades building up its intelligence apparatus inside Syria.

    The United States had no advantages of comparable magnitude in Iraq.

    I don’t think so.

    They do, thanks to geography and history.

    Think of all the trouble we coulda saved if the neocons allowed a few commandos to do a physical check of Saddam’s “WMD facilities.”

    I don’t grasp your point. Apparently, the Bush Administration was wrong to not commit acts of war against Iraq because such acts could have, according to you, revealed that there was, in your opinion, no need to depose Saddam Hussein’s government.

    Your arguments, as usual, rely heavily on ignorance, baseless conjecture, and ridiculously bad logical fallacies.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  21. Don’t you think a President who wanted to know the truth (as opposed to whether he could get away with it or not) would have sent in some people to take a look for themselves to confirm the questionable intelligence before launching a trillion dollar war?

    Your cavalier representation of highly dangerous and politically risky commando missions of little strategic or tactical worth does nothing to enhance the credibility of either yourself or your arguments. The post-war discoveries make it clear that Saddam Hussein violated UNSCR 687, 1441, and other relevant resolutions. The United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to give the President the authority to confront the threat posted by Saddam Hussein, which was not entirely or even decisively based on the threat of alleged warehouses full of chemical and biological weapons ready to be deployed, despite whatever lies you may wish to advance to the contrary.

    Have you ever read the President’s speech of September 12, 2002, to the United Nations?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  22. Aplhie, when Clinton’s CIA director states that is a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD, it is not “…questionable intelligence before launching a trillion dollar war.”

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  23. PS,

    Tenet’s “slam dunk” was that they could get away with it, not that the intelligence was believable.

    alphie (99bc18)

  24. Sorry alphie, that was not the intent of his statement. If the WMD intelligence was so questionable, why were 81 Democrat Congressmen and 29 Democrat Senators vote so derelict in their duties that they voted for the resolution to go to war (including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry)?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  25. Perfect sense. Go yell at the nearest wall. It will be far more receptive to logic than the alphtard.

    JD (e88f7b)

  26. Alphie – Valerie Plame thought Saddam was developing WMD’s. She’s a martyr for the left. Do you believe her?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  27. Tenet’s “slam dunk” was that they could get away with it, not that the intelligence was believable.

    No, alphie

    Tenet was talking about a slam dunk in making a case for the existence of WMD.

    Unsurprisingly, you tried to spin it some other way.

    Steverino (db5c07)

  28. I love how Alphie changes his argument in the middle of this comment section from:

    (a) Syria did not have a nuclear program and you are all idiot wack-jobs for believing it did;

    to:

    (b) the U.S. should have proven 100% that Saddam had nukes or other WMDs JUST LIKE ISREAL DID FOR SYRIA before the U.S. launched the Iraq war.

    Of course, alphie (as he ably demonstrates regularly) has no ability to comprehend that intelligence of this nature is never absolute and that nations make their decisions on the best intelligence they have at the time.

    The left is unable to defeat the argument that the Iraq war was reasonable based on the intelligence the U.S. had at the time (as demonstrated by what the CIA, and all political leaders – democrat and republican were saying for years beforehand). Thefore the left uses the argument that somehow the “evil” neocons knew that the intelligence was wrong but went to war anyway. this manages to absolve democrats who voted for the war and said things demonstrating that they believed Iraq and saddam were a threat – b/c you see, the evil neocons should have told them the truth that the intelligence was bad.

    Or, in the alternative they argue that the evil neocons were stupid, that any reasonable people would have realized that the intelligence was bad and not gone to war. Of course, when they make this argument they refuse to admit that, again, the CIA and democrats were saying the same things as the stupid, evil neocons.

    So, I don’t know what they are trying to argue. That everyone should be omniscient?

    Great Banana (aa0c92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3744 secs.