Alleged secret Syrian reactor

[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.

Well, might I suggest that perhaps in future if something doesn't scan you should take another look, instead of trying to be a smartass, which is

about as 3rd grade as you can get.

 

[Bamspeedy]

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.

And that is why Egyptian newspapers were commenting about the "synchronized silence of the Arab world"?

Other than Syria and North Korea, who squealed about it?

Turkey was pissed about it, but only because the Israelis used Turkish airspace.

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

No accuracy is the exact definition of 'indiscriminate'. Read Princeps report he posted earlier and you will see Hezbollah was condemned and heavily criticized for using these rockets because they took no effort at all in aiming for military targets instead of civilian areas.

While not the focus of this report, Human Rights Watch has separately and simultaneously documented violations of international humanitarian law by Hezbollah, including a pattern of attacks that amount to war crimes. Between July 12, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight, and July 27, the group launched a reported 1,300 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing 18 civilians and wounding more than 300. Without guidance systems for accurate targeting, the rockets are inherently indiscriminate when directed toward civilian areas, especially cities, and thus are serious violations of the requirement of international humanitarian law that attackers distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Some of these rockets, Human Rights Watch found, are packed with thousands of metal ball-bearings, which spray more than 100 meters from the blast and compound the harm to civilians.

Meh, 'not the focus of this report' suggests to me that they were only supposed to focus on Israeli actions, thus Hezbollah was supposed to be given a free pass again.

Furthermore, by reading more of the report, Hezbollah did put their own civilians at risk....

Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties.

And Hezbollah was accused by UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland of "Cowardly hiding behind women and children".

Although of course they say this is 'occassionally' (and Princeps says 'rarely' or 'a few times'), yet when it comes to the Israeli's actions, then the 'rare' or few times becomes 'all the time' or 'majority'.

With 105,000 shells fired with weapons far more accurate than the Katyusha, if the Israelis were aiming for civilians the death toll would have been far higher.

The Israeli civilian death toll would have been higher if it was not for bomb shelters and warning systems.

Hezbollah seem to set these things up and fire them in the vague direction of Israel just in the hope that the IDF will overreact in the most criminally negligent way possible. And the IDF do so. Every. Single. Time.

And Hezbollah knows this, thus I would say they are guilty of instigating the Israelis to fire, thus guilty of putting their own citizens in danger. Princeps doesn't seem to grasp this and still thinks Hezbollah never puts it's own citizens in danger.

Al-Jazeera reported at the time: "Foreign journalists based in Lebanon also reported that the Shia militia chose to fight from civilian areas and had on occasion prevented Lebanese civilians from fleeing conflict-hit areas of south Lebanon. Al-Manar, Hezbollah's satellite channel, also showed footage of Hezbollah firing rockets from civilian areas and produced animated graphics showing how Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli cities from inside villages in southern Lebanon."[132]

Not exactly Fox News reporting this, yet the various 'human rights' organizations say "there is no proof of this"

 

[brennan]

And Hezbollah knows this, thus I would say they are guilty of instigating the Israelis to fire, thus guilty of putting their own citizens in danger.

Oh I agree, but the Israelis know this perfectly well and still decide to fire. The correct response to terrorism is not terrorism; the Israelis hold all the cards, they have the reources to respond in an appropriate manner, yet they choose not to.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, might I suggest that perhaps in future if something doesn't scan you should take another look, instead of trying to be a smartass, which is

I wasnt being a smartass. I merely stated a fact, to wit: helicopters dont drop bombs.

If correcting you is what makes someone a smartass, then apparently there are a great many smartassess out here....

 

[brennan]

I wasnt being a smartass.

Oh I agree: you didn't quite manage 'smart'.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh I agree: you didn't quite manage 'smart'.

Wow, more insults. I bet your hell on replying to peer reviews too.

 

[brennan]

Wow, more insults. I bet your hell on replying to peer reviews too.

My hell on replying to peer reviews what? Oh, look, you missed an apostrophe...and and 'e'.

I recommend 'Spot the Dog'.

 

[MobBoss]

My hell on replying to peer reviews what? Oh, look, you missed an apostrophe...and and 'e'.

I recommend 'Spot the Dog'.

Now you act the part of the oh-so petty Spelling Nazi. Perhaps you should peruse your own posts with such accuracy. I see more than a few errors to be corrected in your own posts...

 

[brennan]

Now you act the part of the oh-so petty Spelling Nazi. Perhaps you should peruse your own posts with such accuracy. I see more than a few errors to be corrected in your own posts...

You misunderstand me old chap, I merely misread what you had written and the resultant confusion led me to re-read your post in search of better understanding.

 

[JollyRoger]

Now you act the part of the oh-so petty Spelling Nazi.

How is that materially different from the Sentence Structure Nazi?

 

[brennan]

Maybe it was a Material Breach?

How is that materially different from the Sentence Structure Nazi?

How about: it was correct?

 

[Bamspeedy]

 

[brennan]

Spoiler :

Maybe we should get back on track?

 

[MobBoss]

How is that materially different from the Sentence Structure Nazi?

Please show me where I say anything about his sentence structure in my original reply.

I only said 1 thing and 1 thing only. Helicopters dont drop bombs.

Now, after brennan started flinging insults about learning to read and comprehension is when I responded he could have written it better.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I'm pretty sure that understanding that sentence wrong required some effort. I speak English as second language and understood perfectly well what Brennan meant.

However, debating pages and pages about that is quite pointless.

 

[RalofTyr]

A Syrian ruse.

Surely they would have known the Israelis would target their reactor.

So if you're going to have a nuclear program, have a decoy out in the open while the real program is somewhere else.

Oh, darn Israel. You sure did stop our nuke program...

 

[brennan]

Are these Syrian nuclear pictures faked?

The CIA published three aerial photographs last week purporting to show a Syrian nuclear reactor, bombed by Israel last September. But are the pictures all that they seem? Doubts about their authenticity have been raised by Professor William Beeman, head of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, who has had a long involvement with the Middle East.
He posted on a Los Angeles Times website a note received from a "colleague with US security clearance" pointing out "irregularities". The unnamed colleague said a picture taken before the bombing looked as if it had been digitally enhanced, noting that the lower part of the building, the annexe and the windows pointing south appeared much sharper than the rest.
He also questioned why the alleged reactor had no air defences, no military checkpoints and no powerlines. Turning to two shots of the bombed building, he noted that the first showed a rectangular building and the second a square one. Were they the same building?
His note has produced lively and detailed exchanges, involving photo technicians, graphic artists and military analysts past and present, including a specialist in aerial reconnaissance. The basic divide is between those who think it is unpatriotic to question the Bush administration and those suspicious that it is a rerun of 2003, when the administration put out misleading intelligence before the Iraq invasion.
Bloggers supportive of the CIA acknowledge that the first picture was digitally enhanced but say that the CIA never claimed last week that it was untouched. As for the discrepancies between pictures two and three, they suggest that the differences between the rectangular shape and the square can be explained by having been taken at different angles.
Beeman told the Guardian he did not know one way or another whether there had been a nuclear reactor in the desert, but he had been concerned last week when the administration put out the pictures. "It was so sloppy and obviously doctored," he said.
"My friend who watches this material carefully in his capacity as an analyst said, 'This does not add up.'"

The Guardian. (Left Wing Hacks).

 

[Den Valdron]

So, it is now clear that the photographs were digitally modified or computer enhanced. But this was not disclosed or reported initially?

Seems to me that this raises credibility problems in two ways. First of all, a modified or enhanced image is not necessarily invalid, but it is suspect, the case is weaker. Second, failing to acknowledge or report the modification ventures into the area of deceit, concealing the weaker case.

Not definitive, either way. But on the other hand, we've been down this road before. In the immortal words of the Crawford Coward:

"Fool me once, fool me... fool me... er- won't get fooled again."

 

[Sharwood]

So, it is now clear that the photographs were digitally modified or computer enhanced. But this was not disclosed or reported initially?

Seems to me that this raises credibility problems in two ways. First of all, a modified or enhanced image is not necessarily invalid, but it is suspect, the case is weaker. Second, failing to acknowledge or report the modification ventures into the area of deceit, concealing the weaker case.

Not definitive, either way. But on the other hand, we've been down this road before. In the immortal words of the Crawford Coward:

"Fool me once, fool me... fool me... er- won't get fooled again."

I don't personally see that as fact. Notice that the article mentions a note from an "unnamed colleague." Not exactly reliable and transparent.

 

[Den Valdron]

Hmmm. Looked again. Good point.

The question as to whether the photographs have been digitally modified has been raised. But has not been conclusively answered.