Syria Warns 'Gates of Hell Will Open' if U.S. Attacks

2//The Daily Star, Lebanon Wednesday, October 12, 2005

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=19252



SYRIA WARNS ‘GATES OF HELL WILL OPEN’ IF U.S. ATTACKS

By Leila Hatoum, Daily Star staff

BEIRUT: In the latest official Syrian comment on the increasing pressure on Damascus, Premier Naji Otari said "all the gates of hell will open on the U.S. if it attempts to attack Syria." Otari was replying to a report this week in Newsweek magazine revealing that Washington had debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in Iraq.



(SNIP)



Otari also accused Lebanese officials of being unable to make an independent decision, saying they were answerable to the French and U.S. ambassadors to Lebanon.



Addressing his Lebanese counterpart Fouad Siniora, the Syrian premier said: "Apparently Siniora forgot all of what we have discussed when he visited Damascus after his recent return from a visit to the U.S."



Siniora had held talks with several officials in Damascus to resolve a border dispute between the two countries in June.



Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat reported yesterday Otari had refused to answer repeated phone calls from Siniora on Monday.



The paper quoted unidentified "informed Syrian sources in Damascus" as saying the Assad regime believes Siniora has reneged on promises he made to the Syrian president during a visit on July 31.

MORE

the syrians will not roll over and play dead

We would have to actually kill them.

Syria does not have the military capability to fend off a US attack. Which is why we would go there...

N. Korea does... which is why we wouldn't.

Nothing like kicking a little guys ass every now and then to spur up morale.

Do Muslims believe in Armageddon?

I was wondering why BushCo were interested in a small state without
significant oil reserves (other than maybe helping out Israel) then
you go and post that ...
:-(

Takae a look at the King James version of the Book of Obadiah, Verse 4:

"Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD."

Then take a look at this:

About the empire of "10", the comming of the antichrist , the seven years of peace in the Middle East then the return of Christ fortold in Revelation .

My barber would go on about how that referred to the Common Market (EU) and that once membership reached 10 countries, then all hell was going to break loose. Well, that was 30+ years ago and the number of members has far exceeded that now.

So who is the Empire of 10 (with the 7 horns)?

Come on Fitz/GJ! *** are absolutely NUTS! :scared:

Come on!

The eagle is surrounded by stars-- therefore, it is "among the stars".

The eagle has a twig in its claws, the raw material for its nest.

Therefore, it is "setting its nest among the stars".

Wait, are you being serious?

Yes, I believe most sects do.

I used to work on a kibbutz near Meggido. But that's close enough if you're talking the end of the world.

It's not too far from the Golan Heights, but in Israeli (not occupied) territory.

I should have checked a map before posting

Oh, wait. . .

Just another example of hell envy. I would not make any bets against Bush hell, that is an area he seems to have a genuine talent.

They have government officials "committing suidcide" right now.

This is an old play of "create a plausible external boogeyman so we stop fighting among ourselves."

And it is a plausible boogeyman, of course.

Bush would no doubt invade, given the opportunity --- and Syria is playing into Bush's hands by letting the occassional suicidal nutjobs from other countries travel through it to Iraq.

They opened about 5 years ago.

that run along Saudi Arabia.Keep in mind about 80/90% of Saudi's are
Sunni Muslims and they DON'T want to see the USA victorious in Iraq.
They have much to lose if the Bush Crime Family gains complete control of Iraq's vast oilfields,not to forget half the country is
unexplored and the Cheney Energy Task Force back in 2001' had divided
Iraq into 14 parcels for exploration and 911 hadn't happened yet.The
Crime Family thinks it can blow away any obstacles except the Saudi's
since their buddies...House of Bush House of Saud.....

the Saudi's a while back?

The madman in the white house must be taken to the Hague.

Satellite pics from the first Gulf war showing Iraqi armies massed all along the border to SA were bogus... just like the incubator claims... just like the girl who testified before congress that she had seen the incubator BS happen when she wasn't in Kuwait at the time. She'd also been coached by Cheneys PR team before her appearance....

Man you have to hate how deep and far back this evil goes.

The entire fertile crescent in US/Isreal control. Another ancient civilization to destroy.Another jewel in the crown. What a bunch of sick fucks. This agression is not without its costs.Our freedom is the biggest.

n/t

in that case. Boy, I was worried.

In a traditional sense, we won, we took the capital of the nation. Two years later and 2,000 dead soldiers we still don't have the place under control, that may be the mother of all battles he was referring to. I don't know, I have never actually spoke with Hussein.

Russia took Kabul, and in the traditional sense they won in Afghanistan. 10 years later they had enough of the mother of all battles and limped home some time around 1989.

The "Mother of all Battles" remark was made at the begining of the first Gulf war. When we were hearing about the million man army of Saddam.

I would agree with you that in the "traditional sense" we did win... but then again the same could be said about Vietnam... we held the enemy capital and then when we left.... pooof N. Vietnam rolls over the south and that was that.

The problem I have with this entire situation is this ISNT a war. This is war lite... War should be the LAST option because of the brutality. When/If we decide to go to war with a nation, the end result should be complete and total victory with millions dead in the wake.

The reason for such viciousness is to gain a respect for the destruction and to remind us that war is not what we want.

I believe in the policy that the President is the commander in chief of the military... but where is the check and balence?

If the president orders a US military action (US only... non NATO... non UN) Then after the first 3 months Congress should have quarterly votes to stop the action (since they are the ones who are supposed to declare war in the first place) and recall the troops.

Also once a nation has been pacified... GET THE HELL OUT!! Turn it over to the UN and let the world body decide on the best course of action for it's rebuilding.

Fun to see that Americans are finally admitting that all of Vietnam was the enemy in that war...:rofl:

There was supposed to be a :sarcasm: after that particular line. But I fail to see how anything related to that war could be funny. The Vietnam War was a terrible example of why countries should stay out of Policy Wars...

Peace is the answer... but no one seems to know the question.

The only thing the US is in control of in Iraq is the Green Zone. And just barely.

Given that there have been mortar attacks, car bombs and suicide bomb
attempts inside the Green Zone, I'd actually question how much "control"
is being held even round there.

they barely control it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When the Roman Empire was being harassed by the peoples of the area, the Roman navy was sent off the coast of Syria. Ptolomy the Great then marched through Syria up to Armenia down the Tigris.

If we did this, we would not have the problems we have now. We are not willing to do what is necessary to do to win this war...

WTF are you suggesting that "we" use to "march through Syria up to
Armenia down the Tigris"? Boy Scouts? Lobbyists? Or do you think you
have got an army that could do that?

Do you mean Ptolemy I Soter, the Macedonian general under Alexander the Great, who inherited the Egyptian empire after killing off a full two percent of the world's population?

Do you mean Claudius Ptolemy, the astronomer?

Do you mean "Little Caesar" Ptolemy, the boy king put to death by Caesar Augustus? Or Ptolemy of Mauretania, who met a similar fate at the hands of Caligula?

Do you mean Ptolemy Keraunos, murderer of Seleucus?

Do you mean Ptolemy the General, who campaigned in Turkey?

Do you mean Ptolemy Apion, who flipped Libya over to the Romans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_%28disambiguation%29

... what else is left but to talk to them in the only terms their neanderthal brains will comprehend? Syria knows there's no point in raising conventional legal and diplomatic challenges to our threats to violate international law because we've amply demonstrated we don't give a shit about the illegality of our imperialist foreign policies. We set the grade school recess tone, it's only to be expected that they're going to follow suit and wave their peckers back at us.

before we invaded their neighbor..:grr:

Maybe Iran too.

So why do they hate this peace loving open democracy nation of ours?

Must be our moral values.

Gomer is in charge-
(backed by the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight)
What do we expect as a result of attempting to knock down a couple of more countries (Syria/Iran/etc.,)?
Success???
think again

if you are comparing * to Gomer Pyle, that's an insult to Gomer.

Gomer Pyle was good-hearted and decent.

It is now sufficient to simply topple any regime we find to be weak and conveniently unpleasant, then hold on to just those parts in which we have some profit-motivated self-interest.

Unfortunately for us, but very fortunately for Halliburton/KBR and Blackwell, Iraq's oil is distributed throughout many parts of the country, hence the long and costly occupation. Of course we can't "cut and run", that would completely undermine our reasons for invading in the first place.

But Afghanistan, well that's another matter entirely. We'd cut and run in a New York minute from that sad shithole if we weren't treaty-bound to see it through. So we leave a few token forces as an empire tax and move on to Greener Pa$tures.

Syria... what does Syria have? The obvious answer is access to the Mediterranean and adjacency to Iraq. Syria also has a relatively large Sunni population, and if the two countries were to be combined into one large provisional authority, it would be easier to obtain an ethnically "balanced" constitution. So toppling Syria would have a logistical and potentially democratic justification, and only a few port cities would need any real occupation.

The goal is chaos.

chaos throughout the region, lets the intercene squabbling commence, flair into regional religous conflicts, burn down and then go in and sweep up the mess.

Worried alot about the oil production?

Nah, The faction in power during the squables will increase production in an attempt to increase funds for weapons procurement (from us and alies) assuring us the oil, or if that faction loses, the new faction in power will continue to produce oil at the high rate to insure they can buy weapons (from us and allies) to defednd themselves from the now 'insurgent' factions.

It's not that I agree with this program, it just would be what I'd do if I was a despotic would be world conquerer.

Flavin

control shit except few square blocks in the capital. Why does anyone equate that deplorable situation with any type of 'victory'? And the bush** cabal must be crazy. Start bombing another Middle Eastern country and then they'll understand the words shock and awe. And it'll be our troops who are caught up in the chaos.

time to release a "report" from 'anonymous sources' close to the DoD to contradict the previously reported numbers...

Bush beat y'all to that whole opening-the-gates-of-Hell thing.

Would someone mind closing the gates of hell? I feel a draft.

If I was any country that the US considered bad I'd be spending every penny to buy some nuclear technology because we will only invade countries that appear to be easy targets. If they look like there might be a real fight, like N. Korea, no matter how bad they are we will leave them alone.

placate these warmongering creeps.

Another thing, I'd be forming alliances with other countries, so that if attacked by the Neocon lunies, hopefully the allies would come to my aid.

War is big business and so are disasters - man made or otherwise. Those companies that got the no bid iraq and katrina contracts, and likely 911 contracts, are getting used to cleaning up disasters.

I think they like a good disaster.

How better to really milk the US for more than to simply have a nuke dropped on US soil.

I don't trust our leaders. They've already killed for money. Why would they stop and have morals now.

Remember Bush has 3 years left and technically 2 before it's an election year. It's time to make some pretty good disasters and really clean us out. They do not KNOW the republicans will be in again. And, if one was, they don't know he'd play their game. Bush is the perfect candidate for doing the dirty work. He's the candidate of decades for them.

Regan helped with the missle crisis and bought their defense weapons,
Bush Sr. put them in a war to use missles so we had to spend more on defense, Bush JR. provides the war contracts and the cleanup contracts (which are also going to defense companies.)

Oh, now we're screwed. Let's hope Bashar has the common sense not to declare himself the Anti-Christ.

but isn't this the same stuff Iraq was saying was gonna happen when we invaded them. Mother of All Battles, the Great Satan will be drowned, etc..

Still, I think we should leave Syria alone. They've never done anything to us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> Most of the foreign insurgents in Iraq are entering thru Syria.

Bullshit. Most of the foreign "insurgents" (only a small part of the
total resistance force) are from Saudi Arabia. The US administration
has remained remarkably quiet about *that* border hasn't it?

> The very large weapons cache just discovered yesterday by US troops
> has Syrian finger prints on it.

Gosh, amazing what the US troops can determine just from fingerprints
isn't it? And in such a short time too!

2,000 US dead, almost ten times that many wounded, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, god only knows how many wounded, maimed, or crippled for life, a once stable country reduced to a terrorist wild west, billions beyond count lost that could have been spent on useful things, such as shoring up levies in New Orleans, to name but one item... I'd call that a pretty bleak outcome.

but you know, on the historical scheme of things, 2,000 dead vs the complete destruction of a 300,000 plus army. I'd say the U.S. won the war.

They can't win the after-the-war insurgency, but there's no doubt that, aside from China, Russia and maybe a few other Western countries, if the U.S. wants to come, baby, it's coming in.

That's why Rice is acting the Powell on this topic. Syria in recent months has made an alliance with Iran. If either one is attacked, both announced that the other will come to the other's assistance. Iran could turn off the oil spickets, or, at least, turn them down in retaliation for an attack on Syria.

In addition, Iraq has also formed an agreement with Iran in recent months.

As for the mother of all battles in Iraq, I would remind y'all that Bush Sr. did not take Baghdad for a reason during the first Gulf War. Currently, our military is over stretched in Iraq with little to show for it. The US is battling an ever increasingly accomplished insurgency in Iraq. What makes anyone think that the US going after the insurgency in Syria will meet with any better success?

Might I remind y'all that the bombing today by the insurgency (i.e. resistance) in Iraq took place where only days later the US launched a major offensive against the insurgency (i.e. resistance).

Unlike the starved and demoralized Iraqi troops, fighting without an airforce, Syria and Iran have modern military forces at top fighting strength.

Taking them on would show the world just how vulnerable we've become militarily.

of times. If Syria can't stand up to tiny Israel, are you
sure they can beat up on US defense forces?

First, the US does not have "defense forces" abroad.

Second, Syria is not being backed by the world's major arms producer.

Third, and most importantly, even though Iraq had was beaten back out
of Kuwait, had thousands of troops murdered, suffered ten years of
illegal bomb & rocket raids, had its civilian infrastructure smashed
back a century or so and was heavily weakened by a decade of sanctions,
it is STILL kicking the shit out of the invaders on a daily basis.

Shove your gung-ho "Team America - Fuck Yeah!" attitude up your arse.

from the safety of remote control is kicking arse?
I can't hink of more cowardly way of fighting than
exploding a bomb either by remote control or by
hiding it or by strapping it to myself and exploding
it amongst defenseless innocent civilians.

It works. That is sufficient proof. It kicks arse.

> I can't hink of more cowardly way of fighting than
> exploding a bomb either by remote control or by
> hiding it or by strapping it to myself and exploding
> it amongst defenseless innocent civilians.

Dropping it from 5000 feet (plane)?
Launching it from 800 yards (hand-held) or several miles (helicopter)?
Lobbing it from miles away (artillery)?

Or do you consider these to be "brave" ways of killing defenceless
innocent civilians?

Remember when Clinton was in office? Peace had a chance.

I think this tune is being sampled. :freak:

Wonder if those two countries would lend some support to Syria if Bushco attacked.

Russia will stay out of it and Iran doesn't want to give the US a pretext for war. If it comes to military action, I expect the French may participate as well.

(as you stated elsewhere)--what makes you think they are eager to be a US tool in Syria?

Happily, that's at least one country that recognizes an evil imperialist foreign policy when they see it and won't be bullied into playing along. Raise a glass of Bordeaux to France: salute!

The assassinated ex-PM of Lebanon was a personal friend of President Chirac. While the Chirac has no interest in doing the politically unpopular step of sending troops to Iraq, I'm sure he would be more than willing to sanction Franco-American air-strikes on Damascus.

You see, this is personal.

I confess, I know so little about current French politics, I probably ought to just keep my mouth shut, but my general impression was that the French had pretty much abandoned military force as a viable solution for foreign policy aggrevations. Am I hopelessly out of touch with reality?

It's just they stay off the radar. They muck about in their old colonies all the time. Ivory Coast, Central African Republic.

http://www.historyguy.com/french_wars_1945-present.html

The world remembers the US was Saddam's buddy in the 1980s. They forget that France was his buddy in the 1990s.

The French didn't avoid the Iraq war because of moral qualms, they did it because they could get along with Saddam (something the Americans couldn't do, because it would be just too hypocritical)

Do you think the French would have let an island off the coast of France with an anti-French communist government exist for 45 years (a la Cuba)?

Hey, remember, it never hurts to speak up, that's what DU is all about. Hey, Poli Sci was my major too......

> The French didn't avoid the Iraq war because of moral qualms, they
> did it because they could get along with Saddam

Same as the rest of the civilized world.

> (something the Americans couldn't do, because it would be just too
> hypocritical)

Is that meaning the Americans would be hypocritical if they hadn't
invaded Iraq? I thought the reverse applied.

> Do you think the French would have let an island off the coast of
> France with an anti-French communist government exist for 45 years
> (a la Cuba)?

Well, we're not communist but the French have had a lot of experience
with a frequently anti-French island off their coast over the last
900 years or so ... maybe they're just a bit more relaxed these days?
:-)

As I said before, Iran could resort to other methods outside of military. If the US needed a pretext for war against Iran, it already has it with Iran flipping off the US over the nuclear issue. Iran has even recently told Europe to go fuck itself over the nuclear question.

Regarding Israel, it has already learned from its battle with Lebanon in the 80's that military might doesn't guarantee victory.

If you bring in the question of France, it won't happen for the very simple reason that European nations do not want to get bogged down, especially in the ME. France might assist the US in the question of Haiti, but it's not nuts enough to take on a ME country. Chirac reads the newspapers, and in France they actually get information about the melee in Iraq.

I'm fairly sure

attack.

Now why would they feel that way.

What has it gained them? Who has benifited from the killing?