It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Breaking News: Lebanese Troops Circle Syria's Beirut Intelligence Offices

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
CNN.com is reporting that Lebanese armored vehilcles have taken up positions around Syrian intelligence Headquarters in Beirut. CNN TV is reporting the same. TV has a few video clips. No real details are in the report yet.
 



www.cnn.com
Lebanese troops and armored vehicles have taken positions around the Syrian intelligence headquarters in Beirut. The move comes hours before Syrian President Bashar Assad is expected to announce a redeployment and partial withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Internal and external pressure is mounting to force Syria out of Lebanon. No details yet on the circumstances of this new development.

Related News Links:
www.reuters.com




posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I take it that the Syrians kind of ordered the Lebanese army to do this or are we witnessing the start of a riot ?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Hmm, confrontation is a dangerous thing. Is it even that tho? Are these troops there to contain the invaders or to protect them from the cedar revolution?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Lebanese army briefly deploys near base



Units from the Lebanese army briefly took up positions near the Beirut headquarters of Syrian army intelligence on Saturday afternoon and later withdrew, an AFP correspondent witnessed.

Eight armoured personnel carriers had moved into position close to the offices, located near the Hotel Beau Rivage and the seafront in southern Beirut, and a number of troops were seen on foot.

source:
english.aljazeera



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Seems that time is running out for Assad and Syria, in regards to its continued occupation of Lebanon.

These may be of interest to this topic?


The Lebanese told the officials that Lebanon has no further claims against Israel and that they do not understand why Hezbollah insists on continuing hostilities over the Sheba Farms region.

Assad: Syrian troops to withdraw to Lebanon's Bekaa


DAMASCUS - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told parliament on Saturday that Syrian soldiers will withdraw to positions in Lebanon's Bekaa, adding that a withdrawal of forces from Lebanon is in Syria's interests.

And:
Syria to redeploy Lebanon troops

Interesting that Assad/Syria is withdrawing only back to the Bekaa Valley area, huh? Being that the Bekaa Valley has been said to be the home of some of Saddam's moved WMDs? Coincedence or incidental?


Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
Russia Hid Saddam's WMDs
Iraq Unloading WMD Into Syria.
2 Russian generals given awards in Iraq on war eve
WMD's Not In Iraq: Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
!!! WMDs FOUND IN LEBANON !!! (this is hilarious)
Russian Foreign Inteligence Sevice (SVR): No Comment on Iraq Cooperation
Did Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction?
IRAQ'S WEAPONS IN SYRIA: SENIOR SYRIAN JOURNALIST
Russian Special Forces Smuggled Saddam’s Weapons from Iraq to Syria
Syria's WMD locations.
Iraqi Weapons in Syria
Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria'
WMDS + Bekaa Valley

Still coincedence or merely incidental?




seekerof

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
the beginning of the next great war???

could this thing escalate that big???





posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
If Seekerof is right (and he very well could be), and the US knows it, then we would have to be insane to not find some pretext to drive the Syrians out of Bekaa immediately. Finding those WMDs would be a major political event. Those nations which have sometimes been called "the axis of appeasement" would have some serious damage control ahead of them to cover something like this up.
So here's the question, how capable are Lebanese forces, how cooperative will they be the USA, and with only limited help from us, can they drive the Syrians out of Bekaa quickly? I really don't see us doing this on our own, but I'd bet there are at least some in the pentagon itching for vindication by such means.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If Seekerof is right (and he very well could be), and the US knows it, then we would have to be insane to not find some pretext to drive the Syrians out of Bekaa immediately. Finding those WMDs would be a major political event. Those nations which have sometimes been called "the axis of appeasement" would have some serious damage control ahead of them to cover something like this up.
So here's the question, how capable are Lebanese forces, how cooperative will they be the USA, and with only limited help from us, can they drive the Syrians out of Bekaa quickly? I really don't see us doing this on our own, but I'd bet there are at least some in the pentagon itching for vindication by such means.


Lebanese forces would have about zero chance against Syria. Either we go in or use the Israelis as a proxy force to do it force us (though that has about zero political popularity). I would imagine any conflict in Lebannon/Syria is going to be much more difficult than what we've dealt with in Iraq. First off, Hizbullah is well trained, battle tested and heavily armed. So in addition to Syrian regular military forces, you've got a large, substantial paramilitary/guerilla army that already knows the terrain, the civilian population, and is way more ready for urban conflict and guerilla war than the Iraqis. Bekka valley, in addition to maybe being the hiding ground for Iraq's WMD's, is, I believe, also supposedly a terrorist training hotbed (Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, etc.). Then you've got the flourishing drug trade in the Bekka Valley (an opium growing area I think). So you're going into a filled with Syrian military, terrorists and drug dealers all armed to the teeth. And that's just getting Lebannon under control. Nevermind that Hizbullah will attack Israel if we get involved, and they will probably use WMDs given to them by Iran/Syria, and Israel will get dragged into the mess.

And then there is the fact that Hizbullah would almost certainly begin terrorist operations in the US/Europe. They have more experience and are better trained than Al Qaeda types.

The fact that Europe seems to be behind us on this one is helpful, but with our forces taxed already, and with the Syrians actually possessing at least chemical and biological weapons of their own (if not Saddam's), and with them actually having working SCUDS, and with them getting all the help they'll want from Iran.....yeah, it's going to be messy. At it seems it will inevietabley lead to an attack on Iran as well. Which, I'm sure, is the plan.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rg73
Lebanese forces would have about zero chance against Syria. Either we go in or use the Israelis as a proxy force to do it force us (though that has about zero political popularity).

Interesting. If that's the case, it doesn't seem to me that we can afford a full on invasion at the moment if nobody else can pull the weight. Our only hope would be a muslim coalition chiefly comprised of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and perhaps Egypt, aimed strictly at the Bekaa Valley and not at entering Syria. Unfortunately, Syria would pull out of Bekaa with the WMDs before we could ever get in with a force like that, unless of course Turkey is willing to throw themselves at Syria Immediately, no questions asked.
So, since the neighbors probably aren't a viable option, I suppose that means if America can't do it with a division or less and HEAVY airpower, we probably wont do it at all (at least not in the timeframe needed to get the weapons out of Bekaa).
Truth be told, America probably could take Bekaa with a division, that depends on three things, 1 of which is NOT going to happen, 1 of which will only happen if Assad is a moron, and the last of which probably would happen.
1. America would have to make swiss cheese our of the cities. When in doubt, call for artillery; that's how you win a fight the easy way. We don't do that. (Mind you i'm not calling for carpet bombing either.)
2. We would be counting on Syria to do what everbody else does against us- defend his capital or some vital terrain in his own nation. If they counter-attacked us when we went in with a light force, if nothing else they'd test our limits. He'd have to be an idiot to not do this, but so far everybody we fight (mainly Saddam) makes this mistake, so you never know.
3. We would be counting on Iran to stay out of the fight. I think they would as long as we didn't invade Syria itself. Iran's only goal in defending Syria is to keep a buffer between the Med and Iraq so that Iranian command of the Persian Gulf continues to threaten the security of Iraq- thereby deterring American action against Iran.

Of course all of that is pretty much a moot point. I doubt America will go if there isn't a neighbor we can use. America may not be interested in getting just Bekaa, although we should be. I think we want all of Syria, and taking Bekaa would only weaken the case for that attack.




The fact that Europe seems to be behind us on this one is helpful, but with our forces taxed already, and with the Syrians actually possessing at least chemical and biological weapons of their own (if not Saddam's), and with them actually having working SCUDS, and with them getting all the help they'll want from Iran.....yeah, it's going to be messy. At it seems it will inevietabley lead to an attack on Iran as well. Which, I'm sure, is the plan.


The problem isn't that we haven't got the forces to do more. The problem is that we wouldn't have enough troops for a rotation plan if we went anywhere else. We could simultaneously attack Syria and Iran right now and tell our troops they are in for the duration, but we'd need to start a draft so that we could keep up the tempo after the first year. The SCUDS and chemicals aren't the problem either in my mind, since scuds are fairly inaccurate and tend to get shot down anyway, and a bio/chem attack would only give America license to nuke the area the launch came from as preemption against a launch on civilian populations.

The only thing that scares me about fighting this war is that Iran could perhaps invade Iraq. All is well as long as they can't get across the Tigris, but if they do, then things get messy, as you put it.
My guess on this war (which I really don't see happening- America isn't this much of a butcher- we'll look for a way around it) but my guess would be that best case scenario, we run over Syria in about a month and don't fully secure the cities, then move on to Iran, which has just had it's attack stall on the banks of the Tigris. We'll cross the river and destroy most of Iran's forces in Iraq and at the foot of the Zagros range, then it'll take us a month or two to secure the rest of Iran. Final casualty count somewhere between 500-5000.
WORST case scenario, Iran's enterance to the war is a complete surprise because the pentagon screwed up. We lose most of our naval forces in the gulf instantly. We get caught up in urban warfare in Syria and NATO refuses to help us with Iran. Iran finds a way across the Tigris, probably at Mosul, then attacks Baghdad from two sides, eventually taking it. We finish Syria, push through Iraq to retake it, then fight through Iran and secure it after a protracted war involving a substantial draft. Final casualty count- 100,000+



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join