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.

 

Syria Warns Against International Troops

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Syria says it doesn't want international troops along the Lebanon-Syria border, and if international troops are deployed along their border, they will consider it a hostile act. Syrian President Bashar Assad also claimed this was an infringement on Lebanon's sovereignty.
 



news.yahoo.com
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Syria's president has said in TV interview that he would consider the deployment of international troops along the Lebanon-Syria border a "hostile" move toward Syria.

Meanwhile, Israel's foreign minister called the situation in Lebanon "explosive" and urged the international community to work quickly to deploy peacekeeping troops there. Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora urged the United States to help end Israel's sea and air blockade, and said his country was making "every effort" to secure its borders.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has rejected the U.N. deployment along Syria's border with Lebanon, saying such a move would create animosity between the two countries.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I do recall Syria's government calling for the UN to place troops in Lebanon along the Lebanon-Israel border to stop the fighting. Now the UN is trying to gear up to get more UN -International Troops into Lebanon to act as a buffer between the borders of Lebanon and Israel.

Well, the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria all "touch" at one point. But NOW Syria is just starting to figure that out, that the International Troops that will be the buffer zone will also be along their border due to the proximity of these countries borders.

I just don't understand WHY they would consider the deployment of an International Peace Keeping Force in Lebanon, maybe along some of Syria's border, (due to the proximity to Israel's border), a hostile act. And HOW can this be an act against Lebanon's sovereignty when they also have requested that a peace keeping force be put in place in their country along their border and Israel's.


[edit on 23/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
This is an easy one...
they dont want interceptions of the reinforcements and supplys provided to hezbollah...
UN troops are a bit harder to bribe or sneak past...

they would only consider it an "act of war" if it prevented one of their war options...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
You beat me to it, that is exactly what I was going to say.

We all know Iran send arms and $ to Syria and to Hezbolla terrorits.

Is Syria and Iran actually willing to go to alout war over un troops preventing them from rearming the terrorits?


I think not!!!


Unlike the terrorists, Syria has military bases, planes and tanks that can and would be distroyed by the IDF.

Lets not forget what happened the last time Syria tried to attack Israel.\

Can you say bakaa valley.
72 Syrian migs went up and 72 Syrian migs were shot down W/O 1 loss to Syrian airforce!!!
Syria lost SSOO many radar/radar missile sites to Israeli "wild whesle" planes, they shut down ALL the remaining radar sites.
If that is not giving up and hiding,m I don't know what is????



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
What is Syria going to do about it? Attack them and set the world against them? Attack Israel? All they have is Hezbollah. What can Syria do about it? What can Iran do about it? All they can do is give Bush more reasons to attack Syria and Iran on his list.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
What is Syria going to do about it? Attack them and set the world against them? Attack Israel? All they have is Hezbollah. What can Syria do about it? What can Iran do about it? All they can do is give Bush more reasons to attack Syria and Iran on his list.


What they can do is rearm and set the hezbolla terrorits at Israel again.

This would be done to open multiple fronts for Israel, which does noty allow them to put the full force of their military at Syria directly.

As sad as I see it, Syria would not have the world against them for attacking Israel, only reasonable countries.

All muslium countries/russia and china would be cheering-f'ing animals


What can Iran do, the dsame as it has been doing.
Arm and fund terrorits.

They have made a defence p[ac with Syrian (Iran) so that if Syria starts a war with Israel over preventing arms and $$ from going to terrorits) Iran can join in saying it has defence pact.

Since SYria/Iran have not been able to start a war with Israel, yet, they are trying new moves.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Mr Monsoon, I think you and I agree that if Syria and Iran started anything with Israel they would be pretty stupid...Not because Israel would crush them, but because the US would get involved, and so would the UK. If Israel was attacked, Americans would support a war with Iran then, because Israel is our "only democratic friend in the region".

They would be mortally dumb to start anything.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Syria wouldn't dare do anything,
all it is, is "tough talking". nothing more.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Seeing as how the international force is supposed to be securing Lebanon's southern border and not it's eastern border, I'm not sure how this has become an issue. I wasn't aware of any plans to deploy UN troops on Lebanon's border with Syria beyond the Shebaa farms area.

The job of the international force is not to disarm Hezbollah or to block their supply lines - the job of the international force is to enforce the ceasefire along the Israeli-Lebanese border.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Yes it is true they do not want to lsoe the supply lines to Hezbollah. Of course the US is going to aid our Middle Eastern territory, why wouldn't we? But the poor British will be sucked into another one of our wars, and I do not believe they are enjoying it the least bit.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
But the poor British will be sucked into another one of our wars, and I do not believe they are enjoying it the least bit.


It isn't only our wars, it is the British wars as well. Just because the US is the leader does not mean it is ONLY our war.

What about the American people? Do you think we are enjoying this? We aren't.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
unless we can get more people from the "contributing nations" to offer troops, then it may not even happen...

It suddenly seems like no one wants to play UN anymore...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The only reason Syria made such a "bold" statement is, there was never any plan to put UN or other International forces on the Syria/Lebanon border. Lol!



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
First of all, I still can't see how a UN peace deployment would be creating a hostile condition between Lebanon and Syria, or how it can be considered a hostile act at all?

Finlands Foreign Minister has met w/ his counterpart from Syria who told him,

ABC News International

"They will close their borders for all traffic in case U.N. troops will be deployed along the Lebanon-Syria border," Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said after meeting Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem in Helsinki. Finland holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.

This closing of the border would certainly have negative consequences for the people living in the region," Tuomioja told reporters after his meeting with Moallem.


I don't know why they would want to seal themselves off from Lebanon either. But this will really hurt the Lebanese people because Israel is still imposing a blokade on Lebanese shipping and Lebanon only has land borders with two countries, Israel and Syria.
Apparently they feel threatened for some dumb reason (maybe Iraq's president is whispering sweet nothings in Syria's ears).

In the first article Syria also mentioned

First Article in this post

"This is an infringement on Lebanese sovereignty and a hostile position," Assad said in an interview with Dubai Television


How is a peace keeping force that will be protecting Lebanese people and that the Lebanese government wants as a means to stop the violence an "infringement of Lebanon's sovereignty?" None of what he is saying or claiming makes any sense.



[edit on 23/8/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
How is a peace keeping force that will be protecting Lebanese people and that the Lebanese government wants as a means to stop the violence an "infringement of Lebanon's sovereignty?" None of what he is saying or claiming makes any sense.


Not unless you take into account the theory that this is all just an elaborate ploy to take over what's left of the Middle East. I mean, what better way to do it than to entice Syria into a conflict with Israel/Lebanon and then by default the US. As soon as that happens, Iran will jump in, in support of Syria, and Russia as well as China will have to have words on this as well. Next thing you know, WW3 finally kicks off on a global scale, and we all suffer from it.

That's just the way I see it happening anyway. I hope this doesn't happen, but I don't see much way of it not now. We'll just have to wait and see.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
U.N.Peacekeeping forces always had their hands full just keeping waring parties apart.A u.n.invasion force??PLEASE!!B.T.W.Israel can blow those syria,lebanon,hizbolla supply routes 2 hell which they probly will do if u.n.force doesnt stop hiz.missles.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I've uncovered a little more detail on why this is coming up: Israel is apparently now saying they will not lift their air and sea blockade of Lebanon unless UNIFIL patrols the Lebanese-Syrian border. This is despite the fact that it was clear from day one that it was not UNIFIL's job to disarm Hezbollah or interdict their supply lines.

As usual, it's the Israelis throwing roadblocks up to block a negotiated serttlement.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
As usual, it's the Israelis throwing roadblocks up to block a negotiated serttlement.


I see it as Israel's way of insuring that no more rockets get fired at their country anymore. Although, if I was Israel, I'd wait and see what the peacekeeping force could pull off. If so much as one rocket hit my country though, I'd rain Holy Hell down on whomever fired that rocket, killing any and all in the vicinity. True, it's a harsh response, but something needs to happen to make the violence stop.

Now don't get me wrong, I want peace as much as the next guy, but how long should we expect any of the peoples over there to have to take this kind of warring crap for before they go bonkers and start taking care of it themselves, regardless of whether a peacekeeping force is there or not?. That's the major problem with this world; no one's willing to accept responsibility for what they know they did wrong. No one wants a solution; they simply want to maintain the problem by pointing their finger at the next guy. No advancement can come from stagnation like this. We all must, at one point or other, break free from this warring attitude. However, it may take lots more war before that happens. I sincerely hope that it doesn't, but I'm afraid that it will.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join