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.

 

WAR: Syria's Role in Iraq War

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
This is an article about Syria's continued role they are playing in the war with Iraq. It chronicles the story of a Syrian smuggler who has worked, since the war began, to smuggle insurgents into Iraq. Though we may never know all the reasons, it does offer some insight on why these insurgents - and helpers of the insurgency - are doing what they are doing.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
ALEPPO, Syria -- When the Americans led the invasion of Iraq, the men of Abu Ibrahim's family gathered in the courtyard of their shared home in the far north of Syria. Ten slips of paper were folded into a plastic bag, and they drew lots. The five who opened a paper marked with ink would go to Iraq and fight. The other five would stay behind.

Abu Ibrahim drew a blank. But remaining in Syria did not mean staying clear of the war. For more than two years, by his own detailed account, the slightly built, shabbily dressed 32-year-old father of four has worked diligently to shuttle other young Arab men into Iraq, stocking the insurgency that has killed hundreds of U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis.

The stream of fighters -- most of them Syrians, but lately many of them Saudis, favored for the cash they bring -- has sustained and replenished the hardest core of the Iraq insurgency, and supplied many of its suicide bombers. Drawn from a number of Arab countries and nurtured by a militant interpretation of Islam, they insist they are fighting for their vision of their faith. This may put them beyond the reach of political efforts to make Iraq's Sunni Arabs stakeholders in the country's nascent government.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


One of the things that stuck out in the begining of the article was;

In the first days of the war, fighters swarmed into Iraq aboard buses that Syrian border guards waved through open gates, witnesses recalled.

Our main priority upon entering Iraq should have been to secure the borders preventing that from happening.

Another thing that stuck out;

"Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."

I'm positive things like this happen all the time. The coalition bombs an entirely legit target, but false complaints/lies/propaganda is spread, which fuels more anger toward the coalition, which in turn garners more volunteers for the insurgency.

There's no stopping any of this. Not until these people's mindset changes. They won't change their mindset until America.......does what? The easy answer is when America butts out of their business. However, with the world the way it is, that's not happening. So what must America do?

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Provocateur State: Who's Really Behind the Insurgency?
TA-ANALYSIS: Escaped Iraqi Baathists in Syria Controlling Resistance Forces

[edit on 8-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

[edit on 8-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Intro section needs fixing. Its meant to be the "just the facts ma'am" section of the article. Any references to how "great" the article are should be posted in the concluding section of the post.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Did ANYONE take note of the fact the SYRIA test fired SCUD missiles over Turkey a few days ago? Weren't these SCUDs some of the WMDs we were looking for originally? Wasn't there a "theory" that these WMDs were smuggled into Syria during the beginning or slightly before this conflict? I wouldn't call this PROOF, but it sure is awfully suspicous...


[edit on 8-6-2005 by BadMojo]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Did ANYONE take note of the fact the SYRIA test fired SCUD missiles over Turkey a few days ago? Weren't these SCUDs some of the WMDs we were looking for originally? Wasn't there a "theory" that these WMDs were smuggled into Syria during the beginning or slightly before this conflict? I wouldn't call this PROOF, but it sure is awfully suspicous...


Syria already had SCUD missiles for years.

www.globalsecurity.org...
Syria obtained Russian Scud-Bs, but it is unclear whether it received Russian Scud-Cs. As of 1992 it was estimated that Syria had 18 Scud-B launchers, as well as 18 of the second-generation Soviet SS-21s, a highly mobile, but shorter-range, missile capable of striking targets in northern Israel. It is widely believed that in late 1991 Syria bought 150 Scud-Cs [an extended-range versions of the Scud-Bs] from North Korea. Syrian Scuds are claimed to have a variety of warheads available, including cluster chemical, unitary VX chemical and unitary high explosive.


And I wouldn't credit the WMD smuggling idea with the term "theory". "Wild speculation" or "grasping at straws" would be more fitting descriptions. Maybe even "puerile propaganda".

[edit on 2005/6/8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Yeah Syria has had SCUDs already, and they aren't considered WMDs...




And I wouldn't credit the WMD smuggling idea with the term "theory". "Wild speculation" or "grasping at straws" would be more fitting descriptions. Maybe even "puerile propaganda".


If the insurgents being CIA/MOSSAD agents or all the wild conspricies concerning 9/11 can be considered "theories" and not "puerile propaganda", I'm sure smuggling WMDs (which, after investigations, was reported to be false) into Syria can surely classify as a theory.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Yes we did notice Syria test fired a scud. Yes one accidentally broke up over Turkey and the Turkish government had sorted the incident out. Isreal decided to attempt to trump up the incident to demonize Syria in the international press.

NEWS: Israel: Syria Test Fired Scud Over Turkey



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
omg, this is getting annoying...

Someone please tell me what in the introduction to fix (is that a taboo or something, telling who submitted an article?).
If I get one more U2U saying to fix the intro, I'm going to personally find out who voted that way and.....I don't know.....send them to Gitmo or something.
(someone also voted bias...but this is the Washington Post not prisonplanet
. Though the WP has been known in the past to lean a little left, I didn't see any of that in the article...)

I think people are just seeing subz first post (for which I corrected the intro) and are just going by that. Unless I'm missing something.


-1 para
-Own words
-Spelling correct
-Grammar correct

wtf?


/rant done



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

This is an article about

That should not be in the introparagraph. We can clearly see its an article and its not a fact that needs to be said. The intro paragraph should be concise and relevant to the story. You dont need to comment on the integrity of the article in any way, shape or form.


This is an article about Syria's continued role they are playing in the war with Iraq. It chronicles the story of a Syrian smuggler who has worked, since the war began, to smuggle insurgents into Iraq. Though we may never know all the reasons, it does offer some insight on why these insurgents - and helpers of the insurgency - are doing what they are doing.


Maybe write the following:

"Syria continues to interefere in Iraq's insurgency with Syrian smugglers aiding would-be insurgents across the border. The Washington Post has interviewed a Syrian people smuggler, Abu Ibrahim, who tells of his continued efforts to help the mostly Saudi Arabian insurgents across the Iraqi border."

Just some advice.


I voted "yes" for your efforts and for some encouragement. Keep up with it, youre doing fine


[edit on 8/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I voted yes, but reviewing your intro, I can see a few grammar mistakes that some of the pedants here may be picking out. Not glaring mistakes, but they're there.

Try this:
===============
The following is an article concerning the continuing role Syria plays in supporting insurgency in Iraq. It chronicles the story of a Syrian smuggler who has worked since the war began to smuggle insurgents into the country. Though we may never understand all of the reasons, it does offer some insight into why these insurgents - and those who assist them - are so dedicated to their cause.
===============

[edit on 2005/6/8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
blah

picky picky people



You know I was going to edit, but upon thinking about it further.....(for lack of a better phrase) screw it. Who cares about the intro? This is all about Syria and their role in Iraq. Which is why I wish you can submit articles without all the extra crap. The focus needs to be on the article.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
No that would be called plagiarism. Dont give up, just edit your intro paragraph and all will be well.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

No that would be called plagiarism. Dont give up, just edit your intro paragraph and all will be well.

Actually, it's not. Nor is it copyright infringement.
I belong to several other message boards where we copy and paste whole articles.
The key is giving credit to where credit is due. Without a link to the source, then you're walking on thin ice, however with proper sources cited, it's perfectly legal. According to the newspapers (including the Washington Post) we have been in contact with concerning that.
Good rules that won't get you in trouble:
-no editing the article (without saying you've edited)
-no distribution for a fee
-all sources must be cited

Legal stuff (the main justification):
(I'm not sure how many people here have access to Lexis or Westlaw)
US Code - Title 17, Chap. 1, Sec. 107


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Wow, a truely lost topic. Hidden by editorial debate. :shk:

This is getting out of hand, more discussion about how to post than what's posted.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Found a better link for the above:
www.copyright.gov...


**
Anyway, back to Syria:
What should we do with Syria? It's clear they're helping. How long will continuing to put pressure on their government work? I seriosuly doubt we'd have any major military campaign there but if there were a few airstrikes, I wouldn't be surprised (I don't see even that happening anytime soon however).





Edit: Partly my fault intrepid, that's why I'm trying to put it back on track.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Since when does the actions of a limited number of civilians require military retaliation on the whole nation? (probably since Afghanistan)

There is still no proof that Syria (the nation) is interfering in Iraq. If you want to use this logic then the first country to require a military retaliation would be Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of the foreign insurgents fighting against American forces in Iraq are Saudis.

Would you not think that giving Syria a role in helping Iraq get back on its feet in the spirit of mutual national growth would be more appropriate than widening the conflict? Has the lessons of the quagmire that is now Iraq been completely lost on some people? Why on god's green Earth would you want to widen this conflagration?

This constant demonization of every single country the Bush administration doesnt like is tearing this World apart.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
There is still no proof that Syria (the nation) is interfering in Iraq.


That's because you keep looking the other way. Even local Iraqis who have been in Damascus have stated that foreign fighters are getting supports by the Assad regime since 2003. Assad is doing nothing to secure the borders. I had a discussion with a Marine who just came back from his second tour, mostly in the Iraqi-Syrian border, that Syrian authorities are doing nothing to stop the flow of foreign insurgents from crossing into Iraq, which often forced the American and Iraqi border security forces to do the heavy duties that the Syrians are unwilling to do.


Originally posted by subz
If you want to use this logic then the first country to require a military retaliation would be Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of the foreign insurgents fighting against American forces in Iraq are Saudis.


Keep it up, subz. I just love sending off your anti-Saudi messages to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in D.C. by email. They loved your "invade Saudi Arabia" idea!



Originally posted by subz
Would you not think that giving Syria a role in helping Iraq get back on its feet in the spirit of mutual national growth would be more appropriate than widening the conflict? Has the lessons of the quagmire that is now Iraq been completely lost on some people? Why on god's green Earth would you want to widen this conflagration?


Hardly. Syria have no interests in helping Iraq to get back on its feet. A down Iraq is a boon for Syria. Don't buy into the usual Syrian diplomatic bulls.


Originally posted by subz
This constant demonization of every single country the Bush administration doesnt like is tearing this World apart.


Constant partisan conjectures made by people like you are tearing the world apart.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
It's kind of a misleading title.

It is not "Syria's" involvement in the war, but rather individuals who happen to be Syrian. It's a huge difference.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Was not the quote about syrian border guards waving busloads of fighters through into Iraq without checking anything evidence enough of official Syrian involvement?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

There is still no proof that Syria (the nation) is interfering in Iraq. If you want to use this logic then the first country to require a military retaliation would be Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of the foreign insurgents fighting against American forces in Iraq are Saudis.


One might ask where the Saudi citizens are getting access to Iraq. From what I have read, it isn't directly from Saudi Arabia, but through the borders of other countries. If that is truely the case, then a strong case can be made that the Saudi citizens are acting on their own, without the knowledge or sanction of their government. Thus retaliation against Saudi Arabia would be very wrong. The situation at Syria's borders; however, clearly indicates official complicity on the part of the Syrian government. The situations therefore are not similar and parallels should not be drawn between them.

Isn't this exactly the type of article that ATSNN aspires to present and discuss? Post this to NEWS even if someone needs to fix it first. Change those links. They make the article look suspisously like something a fanatic would write.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Keep it up, subz. I just love sending off your anti-Saudi messages to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in D.C. by email. They loved your "invade Saudi Arabia" idea!

Wow, is that some kind of veiled threat? Do you really think I give a damn what the Saudi Arabian embassy thinks of me? If they want my email address, U2U me and I'll gladly talk to them directly about their intereference in World affairs.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Hardly. Syria have no interests in helping Iraq to get back on its feet. A down Iraq is a boon for Syria. Don't buy into the usual Syrian diplomatic bulls.

You know this to be a fact I suppose? How does a "down" Iraq become a boon for Syria? I'd be just as much inclined to buy into the usual Syrian diplomatic bull than the United States diplomatic bull.


Originally posted by the_oleneo
Constant partisan conjectures made by people like you are tearing the world apart.

On the contrary and im not a member of American partisan politics. Im not a democrat so youre way off the mark. Im sure Hitler used that old chestnut of rationale to stiffle criticism of his own regime.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join