Alleged secret Syrian reactor

[MobBoss]

Yes I thought so; you still haven't addressed that comprehension issue have you? Let me parse it a little differently for you:

"Does the IDF helicopter-in a special forces strike force to surgically remove the threat? No, the IDFjust bombs the threat and calls the resultant dead civilians 'collaterol damage'"

The sentence is about two possibilities for IDF behaviour you see. To 'helicopter in' a special forces team is used as a verb not a noun.

I hope that clears things up.

Nothing wrong with my comprehension that a little better writing on your part wont cure.

"Helicopter-in' isnt really a verb, or even a term. Might I suggest maybe 'drop', 'assign' or 'send' as much better alternatives than trying to use a noun like 'helicopter' as a verb.

And yes, I see your intent now that you explained it. Thanks.

 

[skadistic]

So hezbollah deliberately kills civilians just so that they can put some bad PR on Israel. Yes the deliberately kill civilians.

Unless you can show me some conclusive proof -- not just some vague video about Hezbollah troops in a town or something -- I'll take that as an absurd conspiracy theory. I'm sure you will. Its ok you continue to be a terrorist supporter.

Also, I've given you credible reports, which state that Israel deliberately and indiscriminately fired upon civilians. That's my proof.Where was this?



There's no evidence of this.Yes there is. Even the 9/11 commission could not conclusive prove any operational connection between Iran and Hezbollah, which to me seems to cast suspicion .What does hezbola have to do with 9-11? And of course Hezbollah needs public support -- that's why it has a fairly high public spending, for example. Yup nothing like a good bribe.

It's true that Hezbollah has received support from its allies in Tehran, But you said there wasn't. So which is it?especially early on, when it had to fight against severe oppression. However, currently, Hezbollah has pretty much taken a life of its own, and even if Tehran were to cut its funding (which it has offered to do) for Hezbollah, the organization would continue to operate.So does hezbola get help from Iran or not5? You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth.



Well, in the South Hezbollah is very popular, but I can't tell about the north.No you can't. Because its not part of the hexbola propaganda you love to swallow up.



No, straight from the IDF, those claims were made by the IDF.Straight from the mouths of those who tried to leave. You know Lebanese. Or are you saying that Lebanese who tried to flee were actually IDF? Considering your ability to contradict your self I need you to settle on just one answer.



Yes, but Hezbollah isn't exactly a massive military power, and a lot its support and resources come from the local population. And Hez. is very popular, which does confer it some credence as a leigimate organization.Yes but........... Thanks for showing me I was right and trying to explain it away like a good little sympathizer and apologist. Any one who calls a terrorist organization legitimate is a tool



A lot of Hezbollah's fighters are civilians off-duty.So a terrorist isn't a terrorist when they are off duty?



The report which I gave on this thread, casts doubt on this claim.

What report was that exactly? And does it cast doubt or does prove wrong? I know anything that goes against what you want to hear about your terrorist heroes wont sink in. Its like how you claimed the IDF shot at a hospital with a tank and only managed to knock a brick off a wall. Seriously you live off of anti-Israeli propaganda from terrorists like hamas and hezbola and any report that that makes them look good. Its really sad.

So has hezbola disarmed yet like it was supposed to?

Do you deny that hezbola used human shields when they set up camp next to the UN post? Who do you think got blamed for that? Who do you think hoped it would be the IDF?

But hezbola doesn't hide its rockets in homes.

Nope they never hide amongst civilians butting them at risk.

They would never hide rockets amongst civilians.

The honerable terrorist would never park its illegal military weapons next to a house

Now I know those aren't apologist reports but they do show hezbola hiding its launchers in civilian areas. That is called using human shields. Now why would they do that? What gain do they get when IDF blows them up along with what ever civilians happen to be around?


Remember this guy:
http://jcrue.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/green-helmet-003.jpeg

Remember what he did? He dragged dead kids around from place to place to make it look like there were dead kids then there actually was.

Yeah I'll take the real evidence that hezbolla does hide among civilians and will do anything including staging photos and video to make it look like the IDF is killing civilians at every turn and inflating the numbers over a report that says they don't.

You would have to be on some serious coolaid to believe a report over the video. And you are. You have already shown you are a sympathizer and apologist for terrorist time and again.

 

[Den Valdron]

Very interesting posts Den, thank you. Seems to raise quite a few questions about the validity of this supposed 'intelligence.' One does wonder why the US and Israel would want to attack Syria if this is true though. What else could the facility have been, I wonder?

I do love the reference to Al Qaeda having their own Cheyenne Mountain though. That's preposterous. Rumsfeld never once claimed Al Qaeda had a Stargate.

Well, if they did, they probably wouldn't have it in Syria, which shoots Al Quaeda on sight.

But if the intelligence is that the area was a weapons depot is correct, and that Syria was receiving a large shipment of SCUDS and missile parts, then that might have justified a bombing raid in Israeli eyes.

On the other hand, I don't know that any missile parts or munitions were destroyed. So perhaps it was an ineffective attack on a hardened site, or they got the site wrong, or there was some other screw up. The nuclear thing might have been a fallback story. No way to tell, really.

 

[brennan]

Nothing wrong with my comprehension that a little better writing on your part wont cure.

Learn English MB. It'll help you out; this is not the first time you've read me all wrong is it? Remember that time you failed to spot a question mark...?

 

[JohnRM]

I know I'm getting to this a little late, but...

You don't have to trust the CIA. Israel sure as heck seemed to think that something fishy was going no there, too.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The entire Arab world usually jumps at the chance to condemn Israel for every little thing, yet they were mysteriously silent about this.

But who was very vocal and condeming it?

North Korea.

 

[Den Valdron]

On the other hand, Israel really hasn't made much in the way of official claims on the subject. In any event, their threshold for bombing Syria is considerably lower than suspecting a nuclear sight.

As for other Arab states, I do believe that the bunch of them squealed quite a bit. About as much as they squeal for other Syrian raids.

 

[Den Valdron]

Latest development...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_ot/nuclear_syria

An Abridged version:

WASHINGTON - CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.

U.S. intelligence and administration officials publicly disclosed last week their assessment that Syria was building a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance. They said it was modeled on the shuttered North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which produced a small amount of plutonium. The Syrian site, they said, was within weeks or months of being operational.

I'm not sure this is right. The Yongbyon reactor is alleged to have produced a 'small amount.' Is this a statement as to its productive capacity? If so, how does the assumption hold up that this hypothetical plant would have produced enough for a couple of weapons? At least some previous information suggests that the Yongbyon design was crap.

Ah well. At least this guy isn't anonymous.

"In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons," Hayden told reporters after a speech at Georgetown University.

Almost all reactors produce plutonium, even those dedicated to peaceful purposes, according to David Albright, president of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security. Albright analyzed commercial satellite imagery of the bombed facility last fall and surmised then it was a nuclear reactor.

Interesting.

Neither the United States nor Israel told the International Atomic Energy Agency about the Syrian site until last week, about a year after they obtained what they considered to be decisive intelligence: dozens of photographs from a handheld camera that showed both the interior and exterior of the mysterious compound in Syria's eastern desert.

From the CIA's perspective, that intelligence was not the United States' to share with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Hayden said.

"We've made it clear we did not have complete control over the totality of the information because obviously it was the result of a team effort," he said. "One has to respect the origin of the information in terms of how it is used."

Interesting insight into intelligence sharing issues.

 

[Ecofarm]

Syria said on Monday that US accusations it had been building a nuclear reactor until its destruction in an Israeli air raid last September were as bogus as American claims that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

The ruling Baath party's mouthpiece daily compared the photographs of the bombed site shown to US congressmen last week to the images Washington presented to the UN Security Council as alleged evidence of Iraq's non-conventional arsenal in the run-up to the US-led invasion.

"When you look at these pictures... a single image comes to mind -- that of US Secretary of State Colin Powell accusing Iraq of hiding weapons of mass destruction and presenting as proof a dossier of photographs," Al-Baath said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080428095844.l5gcp1d2&show_article=1

Considering the long line of sparkling credentials the Baath party brings to the table, I'm inclined to believe them. The worldwide conspiracy against Baathists must end. Death to america.

 

[Den Valdron]

Unfortunately, they're right about Colin Powell's claims being bogus.

 

[MobBoss]

Learn English MB. It'll help you out; this is not the first time you've read me all wrong is it? Remember that time you failed to spot a question mark...?

I know English brennan...I also know nobody says 'helicopter-in' when referring to a military operation either. Maybe in addition to your english, you should learn some appropriate terminology as well...

 

[brennan]

I know English brennan...I also know nobody says 'helicopter-in' when referring to a military operation either. Maybe in addition to your english, you should learn some appropriate terminology as well...

*yawn*

hel·i·cop·ter

Audio Help/ˈhɛl

ɪˌkɒp

tər, ˈhi

lɪ-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hel-i-kop-ter, hee-li-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 3.to convey in a helicopter.

Verb Infinitive
to helicopter
Third person singular
helicopters
Simple past
helicoptered
Past participle
helicoptered
Present participle
helicoptering

to helicopter (third-person singular simple present helicopters, present participle helicoptering, simple past and past participle helicoptered)

1. To transport by helicopter

1. 
   
   To read it your way would require you to think I was talking about an IDF Helicopter being in a special forces strike team. Which wouldn't make much sense as a container of helicopters. And then the sentence would lack a verb; requiring you to read the first part of the sentence as "does the (IDF helicopter) (in a special Forces strike team)". Which makes no sense at all as a sentence. Let's replace the IDF Helicopter with a Jeep shall we? Does "Does the Jeep in a special forces strike team." make sense as a sentence? no.
   
   Learn to fudging read.

 

[MobBoss]

To read it your way would require you to think I was talking about an IDF Helicopter being in a special forces strike team.

Special forces units retain their own inherit helicopter assets. Apparently you didnt know/realize that. A special forces strike team of course could be comprised of helicopters as well as the personnel they are transporting.

Which is why your sentence isnt written very well.

Learn to fudging read.

Again, I read just fine. The problem seems to be your ignorance of things military. Just send me a pm next time prior to posting and I will help you out.

 

[RedRalph]

No MobBoss, you are wrong. Gramatically you failed to understand him, its as simple as that.

told ya Bren

 

[MobBoss]

No MobBoss, you are wrong. Gramatically you failed to understand him, its as simple as that.

told ya Bren

RRW, this has been an A and B conversation so by all means C your way out of it.

Besides, knowing you, even if I were right as rain, you would still say I was wrong. /meh.

 

[Patroklos]

Yes, Hezbollah are terrorists and they are not nice people. In order to distinguish themselves from Hezbollah, does the IDF helicopter in a special forces strike force to surgically remove the threat? No, it just bombs it and calls the resultant dead civilians 'collaterol damage' - one of the most repugnant phrases in the English Language.

Yeah, first we will send our resourcers out and collect some ore, and then refine it into credits. Then we will research "special forces." Lucky those have 24 attack points and Hez irregulars only have 15 defense points! Luckly the Lebanese built their country into a convienent hexegon grid, and you can't fit a Hex unit and a civilian unit into the same hex, thats on page 23 of the manuel! We have to wait until the next turn though.

PUT THE VIDEO GAMES DOWN!

These Katyusha launchers can't accurately target a small town from what i've seen, let alone 'civilians'.

Are you serious? Towns are the ONLY thing Katyusha rockets are good for precisely because they can't attack a tank of a bunker. They are area attack weapons, and they always pick areas covered by a town.

 

[RedRalph]

RRW, this has been an A and B conversation so by all means C your way out of it.

Besides, knowing you, even if I were right as rain, you would still say I was wrong. /meh.

Its much simpler than that. You said

nobody says 'helicopter-in' when referring to a military operation either

and he unequivocally proved you wrong. End of.

 

[MobBoss]

Its much simpler than that. You said and he unequivocally proved you wrong. End of.

Sigh. No he didnt. A dictionary can often be a rather poor source for the common use of a term.

Again, and even his link doesnt list 'helicopter in' as one of its uses.

"to helicopter' isnt the same as 'helicopter in'.

 

[RedRalph]

Sigh. No he didnt. A dictionary can often be a rather poor source for the common use of a term.

Again, and even his link doesnt list 'helicopter in' as one of its uses.

"to helicopter' isnt the same as 'helicopter in'.

Yawn. Yes he did. and no, sorry Mobboss, while I'm well aware you hold your views in high opinion, nobody holds them above a dictionary when it comes to meanings of a word. you are making a fool of yourself, claiming that you understand the usage of a word better than a dictionary. Even for you, this is a new low. you utterly fail, as you pretty much always do.

Lets see.... to drive something in, to fly something in, to bus something in, to walk something in, to cycle something in, to ship something in, to helicopter something in. Thats how it works. you are not as literate as Brennan. He's right; you are wrong. Simple as that. Have a bit of dignity and hold your hands up. you made a mistake, anyone could.

 

[MobBoss]

Yawn. Yes he did. and no, sorry Mobboss, while I'm well aware you hold your views in high opinion, nobody holds them above a dictionary when it comes to meanings of a word.

But we arent discussing the meaning of a word, but its common usage.

Again, no one with knowledge of things military refers to an airlift operation and/or an insertion as 'helicopter in'. Its not common usage in how such things are described and as I pointed out, factually I might add, helicopters can indeed be part of a special forces unti/team ergo it could very well be seen as a helicopter dropping a bomb in the manner in which he wrote it.

He clarified, which is fine, but you and he both seem insistant on insulting me over my ability to read - which is about as 3rd grade as you can get.

you are making a fool of yourself, claiming that you understand the usage of a word better than a dictionary.

I never claimed any such thing. What I do claim is brennan could have made his point a lot clearer and largely without having to insult me in the process.

Even for you, this is a new low. you utterly fail, as you pretty much always do.

You know precisely what you can do with that statement. If you need detailed instructions please pm me.

to helicopter something in.

Could be better expressed in a lot of ways. For example: to airlift, to insert, to fly in, to drop off, to deliver, etc. etc. etc.

Again, given the fact that helicopters are indeed PART of special forces units, his usage of the term was unclear.

Thats how it works. you are not as literate as Brennan.

Where did I ever say I was? I merely pointed out that how he wrote the comment to me looked like he was saying the helicopter delivered a bomb.

Plus I think its a totally stupid thing for you to allege that any user is more literate than any other user. Its specific and insulting. Is there a particular reason you demand to be a jerk about this?

He's right; you are wrong. Simple as that. Have a bit of dignity and hold your hands up. you made a mistake, anyone could.

If anyone could make the same reference that I did (because its not a mistake) then perhaps I am right about the phrase I am referring to. Thanks for pointing that out. Have a nice day.