Photos show cleansing of suspect Syrian site

[BoogyMan]

I found this to be an interesting read.


Source: Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/26/africa/26syria.php)

http://img.iht.com/images/2007/10/26/weapons_550.jpg

New commercial satellite photos show that a Syrian site believed to have been attacked by Israel last month no longer bears any obvious traces of what some analysts said appeared to have been a partly built nuclear reactor.

Two photos, taken Wednesday from space by rival companies, show the site near the Euphrates River to have been wiped clean since August, when imagery showed a tall square building there measuring about 150 feet on a side.

The Syrians reported an attack by Israel in early September; the Israelis have not confirmed that. Senior Syrian officials continue to deny that a nuclear reactor was under construction, insisting that Israel hit a largely empty military warehouse.

But the images, federal and private analysts say, suggest that the Syrian authorities rushed to dismantle the facility after the strike, calling it a tacit admission of guilt.

"It's a magic act — here today, gone tomorrow," a senior intelligence official said. "It doesn't lower suspicions; it raises them. This was not a long-term decommissioning of a building, which can take a year. It was speedy. It's incredible that they could have gone to that effort to make something go away."

Any attempt by Syrian authorities to clean up the site would make it difficult, if not impossible, for international weapons inspectors to determine the exact nature of the activity there. Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna have said they hoped to analyze the satellite images and ultimately inspect the site in person. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that released a report on the Syrian site earlier this week, said the expurgation of the building was inherently suspicious.

"It looks like Syria is trying to hide something and destroy the evidence of some activity," Albright said in an interview. "But it won't work. Syria has got to answer questions about what it was doing."

The striking difference in the satellite photos surprised even some outside experts who were skeptical that Syria might be developing a nuclear program.

"It's clearly very suspicious," said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "The Syrians were up to something that they clearly didn't want the world to know about."

Cirincione said the photographic evidence "tilts toward a nuclear program" but does not prove that Syria was building a reactor. Besides, he said, even if it was developing a nuclear program, Syria would be years away from being operational, and thus not an imminent threat.

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the satellite pictures.

The new satellite images of the Syrian site were taken by DigitalGlobe, in Longmont, Colorado, and SPOT Image Corporation, in Chantilly, Virginia. They show just a smooth, unfurrowed area where the large building once stood.

The desolate Syrian site is located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River some 90 miles north of the Iraqi border and 7 miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah. An airfield lies nearby. The new images reveal that the tall building is gone but still show a secondary structure and a pumping station on the Euphrates. Reactors need water for cooling.

The purported reactor at the site is believed to be modeled on a North Korean model, which uses buildings a few feet longer on each side than the Syrian building that vanished.

Albright called the Syrian site "consistent with being a North Korean reactor design." Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, denied in an interview last week with The Dallas Morning News that his country was trying to build a reactor.

"There is no Syrian nuclear program whatsoever," he said. "It's an absolutely blatant lie."

Later in the interview, he said, "We understand that if Syria even contemplated nuclear technology, then the gates of hell would open on us."

[lily]

"It's a magic act — here today, gone tomorrow," a senior intelligence official said. "It doesn't lower suspicions; it raises them. This was not a long-term decommissioning of a building, which can take a year. It was speedy. It's incredible that they could have gone to that effort to make something go away."

Sounds pretty near impossible to me.


Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the satellite pictures.

No one is talking Not Syria, not Israel and not the US.

[Labrocca]

WOW..this was discussed a few days ago on the news and they were waiting for updated satellite photos to know for sure if it's that site that got nailed. Looks like it was.

I guess the US is embarassed that it's cozying up with Syria who now seems to have a nuclear program with N. Korea. Israel is normally tight lipped anyways. Syria of course doesn't want to discuss this either. Amazing that the story actually got out.

[Lazarus]

I have no choice but to call bullshit on this one.

1) the color variations between the two images renders useless their value as to whether heavy machinery had been brought in.

2) my BS detector also is asking why the great delay in repositioning those satellites to capture these images?

3) the only thing which these images shows definitively is that the site was destroyed: whether that was done by the Syrians or by the 6 Israeli jetfighters which bombed the area, we have no way of knowing.

[Elrathin]

Sorry but I am going to have to agree the second photo to the right is TOO clean, there is no signs of debree whatseover. Sorry but if there indeed was an attack with explosions, it would not be that clean.

[Labrocca]

Ugh...you don't reposition satellites...you wait for them to rotate around the earth again. They are in orbit not just hovering over the middle east.

The color variation could be from a variety of things...time of day for instance.

Sorry but if there indeed was an attack with explosions, it would not be that clean.

But there was a building there just a few days ago. Now there isn't. You explain it. No one gains by shaming Syria our newest ally in the war on terror. And the experts believe they just buried the foundation with dirt. A few bulldozers would get the job done.

Took some googling but finally found better info on this.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf

[Drocket]

Ugh...you don't reposition satellites...you wait for them to rotate around the earth again. They are in orbit not just hovering over the middle east.
Actually, satellites generally DO hover above where you want them - it's called geosynchronous orbit. The vast majority of satellites in space are in a geosynchronous orbit - if they weren't, it would be impossible to use them for things such as phone calls and non-local television (its rather hard to bounce a signal from New York to LA when the satellite you want to bounce it off of is over Australia...)

[jafar00]

Of course you never assume that the debris may have been cleared away to rebuild the building that was once there. No, some conspiracy theory about those evil ayrabs up to no good has to be the right answer no? :/

[Elrathin]

[But there was a building there just a few days ago. Now there isn't. You explain it.


Simple, it was doctored and taken out of the photo. Take a look at it there is NO debree whatsoever. No cleanup trucks, no pieces, its too clean

[Anti-Racism]

This is why Israel is vigilant about having nukes, and crushing the opposition. Israel's biggest mistake so far has been the USS Liberty.

[BoogyMan]

Ugh...you don't reposition satellites...you wait for them to rotate around the earth again. They are in orbit not just hovering over the middle east.
Actually, satellites generally DO hover above where you want them - it's called geosynchronous orbit. The vast majority of satellites in space are in a geosynchronous orbit - if they weren't, it would be impossible to use them for things such as phone calls and non-local television (its rather hard to bounce a signal from New York to LA when the satellite you want to bounce it off of is over Australia...)


Geosynchronus orbits are typically used in the implementation of communications satellites Drocket, not in those used for mapping and imaging applications.

The attack in Syria was on September 6th and was pretty hush-hush. It isn't outside the realm of possibility for the site to have been cleaned in the days since the attack.

[Elrathin]

Believe what you want. That is your choice.

[BoogyMan]

Believe what you want. That is your choice.


So are you contesting the fact that 47 days is enough time for a government determined to hide its activities is enough time to clean that site, or are you contesting the discussion about geosynchonus vs geostationary satellites?

[Elrathin]

So are you contesting the fact that 47 days is enough time for a government determined to hide its activities is enough time to clean that site, or are you contesting the discussion about geosynchonus vs geostationary satellites?


The site is way too clean, yes I am contesting that. But hey go right ahead and believe a government cover up happened on the tinfoil hat scale.

[Labrocca]

Wrong Drocket.

A geosynchronous orbit is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period matching the Earth's sidereal rotation period. This synchronization means that for an observer at a fixed location on Earth, a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same place in the sky at exactly the same time each day.

Satellites can't hover. And cell phones work because they have multiple satellites in orbit.


And it's funny that the tin-foil hat idea has been brought up. Since when is a few tons of earth covering a mess that difficult to accomplish. You think the area is "too clean" but on what basis do you have for that assumption?

Here is Vegas I have seen satellite images and personally witnessed them "clean" an area with bulldozers in less than a week. It's amazing.

Simple, it was doctored and taken out of the photo.

For what purpose? People are TRYING to bury this story.

Well..you believe whatever YOU want.

[crimzonsol]

Things I have noticed about the Photos.
-The Roads seem to be more worn in the secind photo.
-The Hill to the right of the building has changed shape.
-The site does seem to be to clean.
-The Site to the right seems to have undergone a re modeling as well.

I don't know what to think of this, but something has happened there, maybe google earth will start to focous in on that area and help clear up the image so that things will become more clear.

[Lazarus]

Wrong Drocket.

A geosynchronous orbit is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period matching the Earth's sidereal rotation period. This synchronization means that for an observer at a fixed location on Earth, a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same place in the sky at exactly the same time each day.

Satellites can't hover. And cell phones work because they have multiple satellites in orbit.


And it's funny that the tin-foil hat idea has been brought up. Since when is a few tons of earth covering a mess that difficult to accomplish. You think the area is "too clean" but on what basis do you have for that assumption?

Here is Vegas I have seen satellite images and personally witnessed them "clean" an area with bulldozers in less than a week. It's amazing.

Simple, it was doctored and taken out of the photo.

For what purpose? People are TRYING to bury this story.

Well..you believe whatever YOU want.


What I meant by " reposition " was to rotate these sats on their axes/axi (plural?) - to capture this specific Lat/Long.

To suggest otherwise ( that these sats have been capturing this exact location at the same time every day since activation ) only begs the question as to why haven't images been released showing the " clean-up " in progress?

These contrasting images serve only minimal function.

People are TRYING to bury this story.
Actually, only 3 governments are trying to bury this story.

If we had some " there " there, the US and Israel would have surely provided something as proof.

As it stands now, all that resulted fom this incursion was to expose the limitations in Russias' radar defense capabilities.
Something I am sure is being rectified as we speak/type.

Was this worth it - absent proof above and beyond these two images and the accompanying conjecture, I have to vote " NO ".

[Labrocca]

These images are coming from a PRIVATE COMPANY. These are not government photos which might exist and show even more detail.

Actually, only 3 governments are trying to bury this story.

Yes the 3 involved. US, Syria, and Israel.

These contrasting images serve only minimal function.

You can get high-res images for a price from the company. That's how they make money.

If we had some " there " there, the US and Israel would have surely provided something as proof.

Why? These nations don't want the story to get out. It's all hush-hush from their end.

Was this worth it - absent proof above and beyond these two images and the accompanying conjecture, I have to vote " NO ".

And you forget the confirmed reports of Israeli fighter jets in Syria attacking some target that at the time was unknown. That's what sparked the deeper look into the situation. Only AFTER the fact did people get wind of this story and it's partially why it's been difficult to get proper imaging from private companies.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/11/israel.syria/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/02/israel.syria.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/14/israel.syria.ap/




I don't see why you question this information when the only thing that isn't known was the exact location of this facility. The satellite company began the search and found this place which matches the N. Korean nuke site. Then..the place is demolished AFTER the reported Israeli attack.

What's so hard to believe in this story?

[Drocket]

Satellites can't hover. And cell phones work because they have multiple satellites in orbit.

You are partially correct: you're correct in that I said geosynchronous orbit, which do not 'hover' in one location. What I meant, though, was geostationary orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit), which can and do remain in a fixed location over the earth, and are used for long-distance communication relays.

[BoogyMan]

Satellites can't hover. And cell phones work because they have multiple satellites in orbit.

You are partially correct: you're correct in that I said geosynchronous orbit, which do not 'hover' in one location. What I meant, though, was geostationary orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit), which can and do remain in a fixed location over the earth, and are used for long-distance communication relays.


It is incorrect to claim that "generally" satellites are geostationary as well Drocket, the function of the satellite calls out its usage.

[Labrocca]

Satellites can't hover. And cell phones work because they have multiple satellites in orbit.

You are partially correct: you're correct in that I said geosynchronous orbit, which do not 'hover' in one location. What I meant, though, was geostationary orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit), which can and do remain in a fixed location over the earth, and are used for long-distance communication relays.



Stop changing your argument. Now you are referring to a type of satellite that would need to be orbiting and surveying Syria in the private sector. And you wonder why there isn't better civilian images. Please Drocket...drop the BS...admit your statement was out of whack with reality. Then admit that these photos are most likely legit as they most likely are. You have no grounds for any "suspicion" they are fake. Give me ONE good reason why these photos would be fake and why Syria and Israel would confirm a strike and not give out it's location.

On one hand you have Syria complaining Israel attacked them somewhere and on the other you have Israel saying that Syria had a hidden nuclear program being developed with the help of N. Korea. Now we have a photo of a place inside Syria where there was a suspiciously similar set of building to that of the N. Korean nuclear site and then it's vanished...gone...explain this to me please.

Do you just have a habit of disagreeing with anyone that's not on your side of the aisle?

[Drocket]

Stop changing your argument.
Actually, I didn't change my argument: I just used the wrong term the first time around.

Then admit that these photos are most likely legit as they most likely are. You have no grounds for any "suspicion" they are fake.
I never claimed that they weren't. I was merely correcting your science, when you claimed that satellites are incapable of 'hovering' above a single location. They not only can, they in fact virtually always do.

[Lazarus]

............and let the picking of nits continue....................[hr]Yet another photo of site in Syria, yet more questions (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html?ex=1351137600&en=c1951d27948582de&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Judy Millers' partner in crime continuing the drumbeat.

[jafar00]

All this nonsense over a nondescript building. If it was suspected to be a reactor, it should have been inspected first and UN inspectors sent in. Just sending in the bombers in an act of War based on a suspicion is completely the wrong thing to do.

[BoogyMan]

All this nonsense over a nondescript building. If it was suspected to be a reactor, it should have been inspected first and UN inspectors sent in. Just sending in the bombers in an act of War based on a suspicion is completely the wrong thing to do.


Syria has been such a peaceful nation that we should never question them, right?

That dog wont hunt Jafar00.

[lily]

All this nonsense over a nondescript building. If it was suspected to be a reactor, it should have been inspected first and UN inspectors sent in. Just sending in the bombers in an act of War based on a suspicion is completely the wrong thing to do.


Syria has been such a peaceful nation that we should never question them, right?

That dog wont hunt Jafar00.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Has this administration accused Syria of trying to get nukes? Not that I can recall. Does Israel have a beef with Syria? Yep.

I suspect this is just another example of Israel trying to start something and the silence is because we don't approve.....could be wrong, but time will tell.

[BoogyMan]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Has this administration accused Syria of trying to get nukes? Not that I can recall. Does Israel have a beef with Syria? Yep.

I suspect this is just another example of Israel trying to start something and the silence is because we don't approve.....could be wrong, but time will tell.


It has everything to do with the discussion at hand lily.

Why do you suppose that Syria is so quiet about this attack? If there were nothing to hide, would you not imagine that Syria would be squawking like an angry chicken?

You speak of "another example of Israel trying to start something." Care to expound on that one a bit?

[lily]

Why do you suppose that Syria is so quiet about this attack? If there were nothing to hide, would you not imagine that Syria would be squawking like an angry chicken?

They filed a formal complaint to the UN........what do you want them to do bomb Israel?

Going by your example, why is Israel and the US being so quiet about this?

You speak of "another example of Israel trying to start something." Care to expound on that one a bit?

Why bother? We're never going to see eye to eye on this. You consider Israel to be the innocent victim in everything they do. The just attacked another country, one that as a signatory of the NPT. What Syria was doing is perfectly legal.........Israel's possession of a nuke is not. Where's your outrage?

[BoogyMan]

Why do you suppose that Syria is so quiet about this attack? If there were nothing to hide, would you not imagine that Syria would be squawking like an angry chicken?

They filed a formal complaint to the UN........what do you want them to do bomb Israel?

Going by your example, why is Israel and the US being so quiet about this?

I cannot tell you why they are so quiet lily, that is why we are discussing it. There is obviously something that is being hidden.


You speak of "another example of Israel trying to start something." Care to expound on that one a bit?

Why bother? We're never going to see eye to eye on this. You consider Israel to be the innocent victim in everything they do. The just attacked another country, one that as a signatory of the NPT. What Syria was doing is perfectly legal.........Israel's possession of a nuke is not. Where's your outrage?


Once again you try to make it appear that I have said something that never came out of my mouth lily. I certainly do come down on the side of Israel against those around her garnering nuclear capabilities. Israel is not the country that is threatening its neighbors regularly. If you are unwilling to try and defend your assertions lily, I would imagine we are done here.

[jafar00]

Why do you suppose that Syria is so quiet about this attack? If there were nothing to hide, would you not imagine that Syria would be squawking like an angry chicken?

They filed a formal complaint to the UN........what do you want them to do bomb Israel?

Going by your example, why is Israel and the US being so quiet about this?

I cannot tell you why they are so quiet lily, that is why we are discussing it. There is obviously something that is being hidden.


They are making noise in the UN. What else would you have them do? I think it has more to do with underreporting in mainstream news than a lack of response.

[crimzonsol]

If it was suspected to be a reactor, it should have been inspected first and UN inspectors sent in.

The same UN that managed to completely miss several non-signatory to the NPT countries gaining nuclear weapons?
Besides, you can't just send in the UN nuclear inspectors, you have to get the security councils approval to send in weapon inspectors. What happens if during the UN inspection, Syria was found to have a nuclear reactor producing weapon grade nuclaer material? What if it was found that most of the weapon grade material was "missing"? How could you explain that to the citizens of Israel?


Just sending in the bombers in an act of War based on a suspicion is completely the wrong thing to do.

Syria and Israel are at war. I disagree, what else is Israel supposed to do? Wait for someone else who has no stake in its survival to do something about it?


I suspect this is just another example of Israel trying to start something and the silence is because we don't approve

What does Israel have to gain from this? Besides for border skirmishes & maybe the war withg Hezbollah, Israel has yet to start anything with its neighbours.


They are making noise in the UN. What else would you have them do? I think it has more to do with underreporting in mainstream news than a lack of response.

the only country making noise in the UN is North Korea. They are raising hell after a North Korean ship unloaded "concrete" in Syria. Thats not suspicious is it?
I suspect that Israel is keeping quiet because they no longer want war, they want peace, but they are having a hard time abandoning their ways.
We are being quite because The Zionist run this country... I bet the real reason is that our government is too busy talking about Iraq and that any shift away from Iraq would be considered to be an atempt to shift attention away from Iraq.

[lily]

The same UN that managed to completely miss several non-signatory to the NPT countries gaining nuclear weapons?

.....or the same UN whose inspectors said there were no WMD in Iraq or the same UN that looked the other way while Israel got a nuke?


What does Israel have to gain from this?

You tel me.......since they are the ones that did the bombing.

Besides for border skirmishes & maybe the war withg Hezbollah, Israel has yet to start anything with its neighbours.

Yeah, well you know......except for that.


the only country making noise in the UN is North Korea. They are raising hell after a North Korean ship unloaded "concrete" in Syria. Thats not suspicious is it?
Link?

[crimzonsol]

.....or the same UN whose inspectors said there were no WMD in Iraq or the same UN that looked the other way while Israel got a nuke?

My point is proven. They can look the other way.


You tel me.......since they are the ones that did the bombing.

I can see no other benifit other than they actually had a legitamite target.


Yeah, well you know......except for that.

As opposed to what 5 wars?


Link?


An IAF raid over Syria allegedly occurred three days after the country received a shipment of material from North Korea labeled as cement, according to a senior US expert on the Middle East, as reported in the Washington Post Saturday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3449496,00.html

[lily]

My point is proven. They can look the other way.

Touche'.


I can see no other benifit other than they actually had a legitamite target.

.........or they were wrong.


As opposed to what 5 wars?

That's really not a reason or explanation.


An IAF raid over Syria allegedly occurred three days after the country received a shipment of material from North Korea labeled as cement, according to a senior US expert on the Middle East, as reported in the Washington Post Saturday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3449496,00.html
[/quote][/quote]

Crim.......I really hate when people do this, so I hesitate to do it myself, but ynet is hardly a non-biased source.......I did read the article and at least it was fair. It was full of allegedly, seemed, believing and not clears.........hardly the rock solid proof that a bomb needed to be dropped.

[crimzonsol]

.........or they were wrong.

Quite possible, but Israel can hardly afford to be wrong. They are in the middle of bunch of people that have tried to kill them. Are they really going to provoke them unless they feel they have to.


That's really not a reason or explanation.

You stated that Israel was trying to start something again. it is the again that I object to, they could very well be trying to start something.


hardly the rock solid proof that a bomb needed to be dropped.

Generally nobody reveals their hand unless they gain more by doing so. Israel has everything to lose and much to gain by not telling people how they found out about the "nuclear reactor" if indeed there was one.

Just to be clear I do not know if there was a nuclear reactor there, but something did happen, I want to know what.

[lily]

Just to be clear I do not know if there was a nuclear reactor there, but something did happen, I want to know what.



Fair enough.

[jafar00]

.........or they were wrong.

Quite possible, but Israel can hardly afford to be wrong. They are in the middle of bunch of people that have tried to kill them. Are they really going to provoke them unless they feel they have to.


It seems to me that a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. ;)

[Scorpion]

It seems to me that a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. ;)


Quite right. I'm pleased that you've finally recognized why Iran should not have a nuclear device.

[Truth_and_Power]

Of course you never assume that the debris may have been cleared away to rebuild the building that was once there. No, some conspiracy theory about those evil ayrabs up to no good has to be the right answer no? :/


I guess they're in a hurry to rebuild their mostly-empty warehouse.

All they had to do was keep the site intact and let the international community take a look at it and then they'd have some great propaganda against israel. But instead they quickly clean up the site in order to rebuild their mostly-empty warehouse capacity to acceptable levels.

[Scorpion]

Of course you never assume that the debris may have been cleared away to rebuild the building that was once there. No, some conspiracy theory about those evil ayrabs up to no good has to be the right answer no? :/


I guess they're in a hurry to rebuild their mostly-empty warehouse.


Who builds a warehouse out in the middle of nowhere? Marginal quality access roads, no local water source, no local power source. Oh and by a strange coincidence the "warehouse" has the same configuration and footprint as a N. Korean design nuclear reactor building.

But of course the peace loving Syrians wouldn't lie about the purpose of the facility, would they? Or their friends in Iran?

[Truth_and_Power]

Published: December 11, 2002
A North Korean cargo vessel flying no flag was halted on Monday in the Gulf of Aden by two Spanish warships, and a search revealed Scud missiles hidden beneath sacks of cement, senior administration and Pentagon officials said today.

2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DF153AF932A25751C1A9649C8B 63)

HONG KONG, Friday, Oct. 20 — When helicopter-borne Australian commandos stormed a freighter three years ago after it was spotted unloading 110 pounds of high-grade heroin, the ship proved to be registered in Tuvalu, a tiny island nation in the South Pacific.

When a Spanish warship stopped a freighter carrying cement to Yemen four years ago, the cargo vessel turned out to be carrying 15 Scud missiles as well and was registered in Cambodia.

The two freighters had something in common: although registered elsewhere, both were owned by North Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/asia/20shipping.html

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

Just so no one thinks we're dreaming up impossible scenarios here..

[crimzonsol]

It seems to me that a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal.

You are right, fortunately North Korea has agreed to let the international community deal with their nuclear power.

Jafar, please try to stay on topic. :nana:

Israel has nuclear weapons for one purpose, the Samson Option. The Israeli government is alot of things, but stupid and suicidal are not something they are described as. Israel has been through what 3 wars in which it had nukes, but did not use them. I would say their credibility is alot higher than Iran who kidnapped another countries citizens to ensure help from that country.

[lily]

Israel has nuclear weapons for one purpose, the Samson Option. The Israeli government is alot of things, but stupid and suicidal are not something they are described as. Israel has been through what 3 wars in which it had nukes, but did not use them. I would say their credibility is alot higher than Iran who kidnapped another countries citizens to ensure help from that country.


Crim........somehow I don't take much comfort in Israel having them and not using them. It also doesn't change the fact that they are not even suppose to have them.

[crimzonsol]

I do not know why Israel is not supposed to have nuclear weapons, could you explain that to me?

Nukes exsisting are enough to make me uncomforatable. I was only saying, I would rather have a country that has shown restraint in their deployment have them than a country that has shown that it is willing to do anything to win.

[lily]

I do not know why Israel is not supposed to have nuclear weapons, could you explain that to me?

My main gripe is they are not signatories of the NPT, they have also never been inspected and they are keeping secret what we have....all rules we expect other countries to follow. But this (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html) explains it better than I can.

Nukes exsisting are enough to make me uncomforatable. I was only saying, I would rather have a country that has shown restraint in their deployment have them than a country that has shown that it is willing to do anything to win.

I agree.......but let's face it, we never know what is going to set a country past it's limits.

[crimzonsol]

I agree.......but let's face it, we never know what is going to set a country past it's limits.

This Explains atleast the basics for what people believe Israel is holding its nukes for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option

Also concerning the building in Syria, there are way too many inconsistencies regarding Syrias explanation. It may not have been a nuclear reactor, but there was definately something there and it was important.

[lily]

This Explains atleast the basics for what people believe Israel is holding its nukes for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option

Yeah, I read that when you first mentioned it. I've never heard of it before........somehow, crim it doesn't make me feel any better. I know how you feel about Israel.....and I think you know how I feel...so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.;)

Also concerning the building in Syria, there are way too many inconsistencies regarding Syrias explanation. It may not have been a nuclear reactor, but there was definately something there and it was important.

Well, the photos haven't convinced me and Syria is the only one saying anything to the UN.........Israel and the United States aren't saying anything. If there was something there, they would say something.

[jafar00]

So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Do you let a suicide bomber keep his vest, or do you try and disarm him?[hr]



It seems to me that a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. ;)


Quite right. I'm pleased that you've finally recognized why Iran should not have a nuclear device.


I wasn't talking about Iran :nana:

[Scorpion]

So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Do you let a suicide bomber keep his vest, or do you try and disarm him?[hr]



It seems to me that a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal. ;)


Quite right. I'm pleased that you've finally recognized why Iran should not have a nuclear device.


I wasn't talking about Iran :nana:


Ah, but you described, "...a bunch of violent, extremist, intensely paranoid people are not the right ones to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal" which is an exacting description of Iran.

If the shoe fits...

[Truth_and_Power]

So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Do you let a suicide bomber keep his vest, or do you try and disarm him?


If he starts yelling about allah I just shoot him in the head and run. If he's just a metaphor for the entire state of israel I'd probably just stop launching rockets at him.

[crimzonsol]

I've never heard of it before........somehow, crim it doesn't make me feel any better.

MAD doesn't make you feel better? Strange...

It is not meant to make you feel better, it is a nuclear DETERRENCE option.
Deterrence:
1. The act or a means of deterring.
2. Measures taken by a state or an alliance of states to prevent hostile action by another state.
It is not an offensive option, the Israeli politiocions know that the people of Israel would never let them use them in an offensive attakc on another country unless that country was threatening to do the same.


So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Sort of, it is only to be "used" if the Israel is going to be destroyed. It is a "If we are going down, you are coming with us" time of mentality meant to deter people from trying to achieve that goal.


Do you let a suicide bomber keep his vest, or do you try and disarm him?

This is completly unrelated to the Samson option, a suicide bomber uses his weapon to attack, the Samson option is more like a mine, it is meant to make sure nobody tries to do something.

[jafar00]

So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Sort of, it is only to be "used" if the Israel is going to be destroyed. It is a "If we are going down, you are coming with us" time of mentality meant to deter people from trying to achieve that goal.


That does seem to be just a little insane. Does Judaism condone such behaviour?

[Truth_and_Power]

So basically, the Samson Option is just one big suicide bomb like when Samson collapsed the temple in on himself and his enemies in the Bible.

Sort of, it is only to be "used" if the Israel is going to be destroyed. It is a "If we are going down, you are coming with us" time of mentality meant to deter people from trying to achieve that goal.


That does seem to be just a little insane. Does Judaism condone such behaviour?


Well, sampson did it in the bible in his moment of redemption. I'd say that's atleast a partial endorsement. According to you, that's more support than islam gives to those who launch rockets at israel. (/secret sarc)

[crimzonsol]

That does seem to be just a little insane.

The fact that they feel that threatened by the surrounding countries is also insane.


Does Judaism condone such behaviour?

Who knows, there are way too many different secs of Judaism for me to say conclusively wether the support is there or not. I also cannot real come to a descion on wether I support it or not, atleast not one that is true to all my beliefs.

I also think that in Judaism, there is less importance on a universal rule, and more importance on the individual thinking process. The best way I can describe it is: You should not do good because it was commanded, but rather you should do what you believe to be good because you want to act this way.

[Tessy]

Took some googling but finally found better info on this.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf


I wonder what the red circle is? It's not present in the before shot.[hr]The before shot is here by the way... since this thread is kinda oldish.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=8885&pid=108424#pid108424