Alleged secret Syrian reactor

[brennan]

No sound at work so I will not be able to watch it till tonight, Discuss:
Syria 'had covert nuclear scheme'

- Includes 11 minute video from the CIA.

 

[Den Valdron]

I suppose its possible. But colour me doubtful. I'm afraid that the American Intelligence, including the CIA's track record on these things has been pretty awful. What recently comes to mind:

* The alleged "we're going to blow you up," threats of Iranian gunboats that was later determined not to be from the gunboats, making an international incident decidedly a non-event.

* The alleged weapons of mass destruction of Iraq. The so called 'slam dunk.'

* 9/11. Need I say more?

* The failure to anticipate Pakistan's nuclear weapon.

* Failing to anticipate the Iranian hostage taking.

* Failing to anticipate the Iranian revolution, thus the US was taken by surprise when the Shah fled.

* Failing to anticipate the Phillipine revolution, thus the US was taken by surprise when the Shah fled.

This is just a minor round up. I'm sure that if someone made a comprehensive list, the Intelligence failures, mispredictions, screw ups, etc. would go on for pages.

So why should we give this report credibility at the outset. Given past history, odds are even or better that it will be disproved, dry up and blow away. I want to at least see some verification, and from a source better than Israel.

I suppose I'll be attacked as Anti-American. But frankly, the history of failure speaks for itself. I'm not going to support a war or even sanctions because some idiot can't read a satellite photo and got the vapours.

 

[Patroklos]

The alleged "we're going to blow you up," threats of Iranian gunboats that was later determined not to be from the gunboats, making an international incident decidedly a non-event.

How is that a failure of American intelligence? Of course you, being such an expert, would have immediately identifed the source of any transmission while Iranian gunboats swarm you.

Whats your method? Omnicience? Telepathy? Cyborg implants?

 

[scy12]

It was time until they fixed news regarding Syria too.

 

[RedRalph]

I think he may have meant intelligence in its non military sense Patroklos

 

[Patroklos]

It would be nice if he really was being witty.

Unfortunetly, I think he actually believes his own rhetoric.

 

[El Koeno]

I'm reading this at the moment, it's an article in the New Yorker about this. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but it looks guite interesting so far.

 

[Den Valdron]

How is that a failure of American intelligence? Of course you, being such an expert, would have immediately identifed the source of any transmission while Iranian gunboats swarm you.

Whats your method? Omnicience? Telepathy? Cyborg implants?

Nothing so remarkable as that. Merely paying attention to what goes on and applying a little common sense. Sadly, an uncommon faculty in this sad world.

1) The video and audio were presumably vetted through American intelligence agencies before being released to the public. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't happen that way. Maybe provocative military footage is just randomly released to news media without any screening at all.

2) It is clear from the audio that the messages alleged to come from the boats aren't coming from the boats. Why? No engine noises. There's nothing in the background. These are small boats with powerful motors, noisy as hell. But there's no background consistent with a radio transmission from a boat that size in those maneuvers. This was the first thing that knowledgable people began to notice when critical second looks began.

3) Another thing that came clear after the story began to be critically examined was that this sort of radio transmission was extremely common in the gulf and constituted an ongoing nuisance. I believe that the phrase was 'phillipine monkeys' or something like that. So at the time, presumably, this would have been a factor in the minds of the US military command, if they were even aware of receiving these messages. It would have also been a significant factor in any intelligence analysis or vetting of the video images and radio messages... whether they were related at all, or coming from the source on video. And certainly, it would have been a factor in the release decision.

Now, I'm not a cyborg, or telepath, or magician. On the other hand, I can smell a when its stinking on ice.

If you're going to argue for the credibility of the United States on this one, go ahead. But I don't think you're in a position to deny that there's a pretty substantial track record of mistakes, oversights and even outright fraud going back to Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin.

So, like I said. You feel free to swallow whatever you want. I'll wait for verification.

 

[Ecofarm]

It was time until they fixed news regarding Syria too.

It was not a matter of "fixing" the news. The information was not going to be released, because it hurts US-nK relations with upcoming meetings. The US wanted to leave the issue unclear but some congressmen demanded full disclosure and so the reality of the situation was revealed.

Let's hope Lil' Kim doesn't get so pissed (have you seen their response yet? Not pretty) at being exposed that it undermines a peaceful solution to nK's nuclear development in multi-lateral talks.

Kinda makes you wonder how much other stuff we don't know.

 

[Patroklos]

Nothing so remarkable as that. Merely paying attention to what goes on and applying a little common sense.

Need I resurrect the various threads where I cleaned the floor here? I am sure RRW and brennen remember them.

1) The video and audio were presumably vetted through American intelligence agencies before being released to the public. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't happen that way. Maybe provocative military footage is just randomly released to news media without any screening at all.

It was indeed vetted, because it is in fact authentic. I would still like to know how you determine the source of a signal through a recording. In the real world signal tracking is not an automatic funtion of hitting F9 or X. VIDEO GAMES ROT YOUR MIND.

2) It is clear from the audio that the messages alleged to come from the boats aren't coming from the boats. Why? No engine noises. There's nothing in the background. These are small boats with powerful motors, noisy as hell. But there's no background consistent with a radio transmission from a boat that size in those maneuvers. This was the first thing that knowledgable people began to notice when critical second looks began.

No, this is not clear as I explained to everyone at the time. Now I am sure you are a serving naval officer with extensive experiance using maritime communications. I am sure you have actually done this in the middle of the SOH yourself. No? Well guess who is/has?

But here is some food for thought. In the Iranian video showing them making querries were they moving (wind) and were their engines on? Also, did all the boats have open cockpits? Were the US ships within range of Iranian shore stations?

3) Another thing that came clear after the story began to be critically examined was that this sort of radio transmission was extremely common in the gulf and constituted an ongoing nuisance. I believe that the phrase was 'phillipine monkeys' or something like that. So at the time, presumably, this would have been a factor in the minds of the US military command, if they were even aware of receiving these messages. It would have also been a significant factor in any intelligence analysis or vetting of the video images and radio messages... whether they were related at all, or coming from the source on video. And certainly, it would have been a factor in the release decision.

You probably know that because I told you that in the very threads on this topic back then, seeing as I entertained myself on many a midwatch listening to merchant mariners of all stripes insult each other of VHF. However, when you are being charged by Iranian gunboats who are also dropping objects in front of you, your perspective changes a bit don't you think. Well, you don't think and rather just assume, but since you have never been in a situation remotely analogous surrender your pride to those who have.

In any case, the "Phillipini Monkey" is not a person. I have heard the same jokes in the Chesapeake Bay, English Channel, Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, etc. etc. In fact, there is nothing in the transmission that really proves it is not Iranian. I actually don't think it is Iranian, but if I had been on the bridge at the time I would have thought so given what the Iranians were doing (which was enough to light them up anyway).

If you're going to argue for the credibility of the United States on this one, go ahead. But I don't think you're in a position to deny that there's a pretty substantial track record of mistakes, oversights and even outright fraud going back to Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin.

I don't think our record is any worse than anyone else, and definetly better than most. Of course I note you gloss over thousands upon thousands upon thousands of intelligence successes. Anecdotes are the internet warriors friends

 

[I'm Cleo!]

How are we supposed to live in a safe world when rogue nations refuse to cooperate with the IAEA?

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

How are we supposed to live in a safe world when rogue nations refuse to cooperate with the IAEA?

Cleo

Ummm, the IAEA did not know about this reactor. The US nor Israel were under any obligations to send inspectors before destroying what is obviously a reactor. The IAEA's job is regulating lawful reactors. Unlawful reactors are none of their business and should be destroyed (after collecting any additional intelligence possible). They are trying to stick their nose where it does not belong.

And you know what? Israel is not going to send in the IAEA before they bomb Iran, either. Shall I call you a waaambulance? Pooor Syria, your heart really bleeds for them, doesn't it? I can't wait for your outrage when Israel takes care of Iran's program.

The Israelis hope they won’t have to undertake such a mission today, but a bombing mission to Iran, if undertaken, is a different thing, the veterans of the 1981 attack say.

Zeev Raz, the commander of that mission, compares the situations. "We had one point to destroy. They have many points, many of them deep under the mountains…underground and it’s a much more complicated problem [than in] 1981," he tells Simon. "I really hope it will be solved another way. There is only one thing worse than the Israel air force having to do it - Iran having a nuclear bomb," says Raz.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040294.shtml

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Ecofarm,

Ummm, the IAEA did not know about this reactor.

No kidding. That's in the article to which I linked.

The IAEA's job is regulating lawful reactors. Unlawful reactors are none of their business. They are trying to stick their nose where it does not belong.

That's totally not true, by the way. IAEA enforces the NPT. That's also in the article to which I linked.

I was just trying to point out the absurdity in people preventing the IAEA from doing its job, and then complaining that the IAEA doesn't do its job.

Pooor Syria, your heart really bleeds for them, doesn't it?

Seriously, Ecofarm, as fun as it must be to pretend that people who disagree with you are terrorist sympathizers, leave this crap aside.

Cleo

 

[scy12]

How should the world react regarded the alleged secret Israeli reactor and nuke. Should it react by Israel is a friend of us so it is allowed while the others are not . If it does react that way then this accusing is a game i don't want to play. Regardless it can't be stopped so If Syria does have a nuclear program it is doomed and if Syria doesn't have a nuclear program there isn't much they can do eitherway.

 

[RedRalph]

I would absolutely love to see the reaction if Syria sent warplanes into Israel for any reason whatsoever. such incredible double standards on this board.

 

[Ecofarm]

I would absolutely love to see the reaction if Syria sent warplanes into Israel for any reason whatsoever. such incredible double standards on this board.

Syria is at war with Israel. I think, therefor, it's ok for Israel to bomb them.

Hate to shatter your worldview, red, but not all nations are equal. The ones who harbor and promote terrorism must be dealt with under different rules. Special rules even! Created just for those scumbags.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

RedRalphWiggum,

I have to disagree with you. It's not really a double standard. It's no standard at all -- might makes right. If you can get away with it, you can do it. If Syria or Iran were to attack Israel, I think the right wingers would say, "Oh, it's on!" and eagerly await Israel's retaliation. There is no law or morality, there is only power.

Cleo

 

[RedRalph]

Syria is at war with Israel. I think, therefor, it's ok for Israel to bomb them.

Hate to shatter your worldview, red, but not all nations are equal. The ones who harbor and promote terrorism must be dealt with under different rules.

I presume you think that works both ways then, yeah?

 

[Den Valdron]

It was indeed vetted, because it is in fact authentic. I would still like to know how you determine the source of a signal through a recording. In the real world signal tracking is not an automatic funtion of hitting F9 or X. VIDEO GAMES ROT YOUR MIND.

I can only assume that you present yourself as a case study of the phenomenon.

No. You can't verify source from a recording, and I made no such suggestion. On the other hand, I don't think that the video cameras used were equipped with their own radio receivers. So on some level, there had to be a choice made to match video images with roughly contemporaneous (hopefully) radio audio transmissions, to imply that there was some linkage.

But here is some food for thought. In the Iranian video showing them making querries were they moving (wind) and were their engines on? Also, did all the boats have open cockpits?

You are suggesting that the Iranians were charging with their motors off? Charging by wind power? Or are you suggesting that they would stop and turn the engines off in order to radio threats?

Bravo.

You probably know that because I told you that in the very threads on this topic back then, seeing as I entertained myself on many a midwatch listening to merchant mariners of all stripes insult each other of VHF. However, when you are being charged by Iranian gunboats who are also dropping objects in front of you, your perspective changes a bit don't you think. Well, you don't think and rather just assume, but since you have never been in a situation remotely analogous surrender your pride to those who have.

It appears that the incidents were considerably less provocative than your own description.

As to assertions of competence, I can't verify that you actually have the personal experience you claim or are just fabricating happily , and you certainly are not in a position to make assertions as to what experiences I have or have not had. So your comments there are without value.

In any case, the "Phillipini Monkey" is not a person. I have heard the same jokes in the Chesapeake Bay, English Channel, Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, etc. etc. In fact, there is nothing in the transmission that really proves it is not Iranian.

The Iranians are active in Chesapeak Bay, the English Channel, the Mediteranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, etc.? Remarkable.

In any case, I'm not arguing that the 'Phillipini Monkey' is specific person. As you describe it, it is a phenomenon, and a widespread enough phenomenon that a competent naval officer would be well aware of it and prepared to discount for it.

I actually don't think it is Iranian, but if I had been on the bridge at the time I would have thought so given what the Iranians were doing (which was enough to light them up anyway).

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are glad you were not on the bridge.

I don't think our record is any worse than anyone else, and definetly better than most.

I'm not sure about that. What are the comparative standards? The Soviet Union? France? Britain? China? Israel? If you're arguing that the CIA is better than Nigerian Intelligence agencies, I'll agree with you. But frankly, any assertions regarding global competence and comparative organizations I will take with a grain of salt.

Of course I note you gloss over thousands upon thousands upon thousands of intelligence successes. Anecdotes are the internet warriors friends

There are actually quite a few formal critiques of American intelligence going back to "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" by Victor Marchetti, from 1974, and "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia" by McCoy in 1972, including books by former insiders, and congressional hearings like the Tower Committee, many of which document systemic flaws in the United States intelligence gathering apparatus. Feel free to avail yourself.

Or you can just keep posting superficial and misleading glossy generalities and putting up cute smiley icons.

I don't really care.

You seem to have some bizarre fixation on the Iranian boats incident which is now largely discredited as a non-event. Well, good for you. Feel free to continue fighting that battle. However, the world has moved on and frankly, you're fighting on your own. I feel no particular need to pander to your fixation, and frankly, I don't feel its productive to derail the thread so you can ride your hobby horse. So I'm not going to continue that part of the discussion.

Feel free to start an actual thread on that topic and engage anyone who is willing to meet you there. Sadly, I suspect that what you'll actually do is clutter up this thread with mocking posts, borderline trolling and cute little smiley icons. Well, its your call, but frankly, I'm not going to be engaging it.

The topic of this thread, for what its worth, is Syria's alleged nuclear installation.

My position is that there has been enough of a track record of major misjudgements and errors, that it is unwise to take such assertions at face value, and I'd like to see some genuine independent verification.

Feel free to try and keep up.

 

[brennan]

I was just trying to point out the absurdity in people preventing the IAEA from doing its job, and then complaining that the IAEA doesn't do its job.

Sounds eerily reminiscent of the US attitude to the UN in general.