another domino about to fall?

[Hippie3]

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. investigators have found "converging evidence" of Lebanese and Syrian involvement in the February killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a released report has concluded.

Shortly after the United Nations called on Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon, five senior officials -- including the brother of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad -- allegedly plotted to assassinate Hariri, a key mover in getting the U.N. resolution passed, according to the U.N. report.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly told reporters that she was disturbed by the report and said the international community must hold Syria accountable. (Full story)

In an October 12 interview with CNN, the Syrian president denied reports -- recounted in Thursday's document -- that he had threatened Hariri. Al-Assad had demanded that the former premier support an extension of the term of Lebanon's president, Emile Lahoud, a staunch Syrian ally.

The president told CNN that any Syrian involved in the plot "would be considered as a traitor and most severely punished."

"It is treason," he said.

On Friday, Lahoud denied a claim in the report that he received a mobile phone call from a suspect named in the report minutes before the bomb blast that killed Hariri.

Lahoud's office, in a statement, called the claim "baseless" and said it is "part of the continuing campaigns that target the presidency and the president himself and the national responsibilities which he holds and will continue to hold during this delicate time in Lebanon's history."

The assassination sparked a wave of protests in Beirut that helped lead to Syria's announced withdrawal from the country in April.

Copy of report

CNN was able to obtain a copy of the report given Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Security Council members, which lists the names of the men accused of planning the February 14, 2005, bombing that killed Hariri and 22 other people.

The names were not in copies of the report released for general distribution.

In addition to Maher Assad, the Syrian president's brother, those investigating Hariri's death accused Assef Shawkat, the president's brother-in-law; Jamil al-Sayyed, head of Lebanese intelligence; Hassan Khalil, former head of Syrian intelligence; and Bahjat Suleyman, a personal friend of the Syrian president, as participating in planning the assassination.

A witness, who is Syrian but lives in Lebanon, and who claims to have worked for Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, told investigators that about two weeks before Security Council Resolution 1559 was passed, the officials decided to assassinate Hariri.

"He claimed that a senior Lebanese security official (al-Sayyed) went several times to Syria to plan the crime," the report says, and one of the meetings was at the Presidential Palace.

"At the beginning of January 2005, one of the high-ranked officers told the witness that Rafik Hariri was a big problem to Syria. Approximately a month later, the officer told the witness that there soon would be an 'earthquake' that would rewrite the history of Lebanon," the report says.

Resolution 1559 called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon, disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, extending Lebanese government control over its territory, and free and fair elections without foreign interference. It also called on Lebanon to disband guerrilla groups.

In Washington, a State Department official told CNN the United States is "analyzing the report and talking about next steps with other members of the Security Council."

The official said the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, is meeting with the coordinator of the report, German prosecutor Detleve Mehlis, Friday morning.

Bolton will also meet with representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council to discuss options.

"The bottom line is, the council asked for this investigation and this is a clear judgment what went on," a U.S. official said. "We expect an appropriately serious council response."

Mehlis' investigative report states that "many leads point directly towards Syrian security officials as being involved with the assassination," and it calls on Damascus "to clarify a considerable part of the unresolved questions."

Syrian denial

Syrian officials have denied any involvement in the assassination. But given Syrian domination of its allied government in Lebanon, "it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge," Mehlis concluded in the report delivered to Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Mehlis' report found that Syrian authorities cooperated "to a limited degree" with the investigation, but several witnesses "tried to mislead the investigation by giving false or inaccurate statements."

"Obviously this shows a very serious and troubling connection between senior officials in Lebanon and Syria. While this isn't definite proof, the cited lack of cooperation by Syria underscores the importance of ensuring we do everything we can to ensure Syria complies with 1559 and provides backing to us to allow us to do that," the U.S. official said.

The report said the assassination came at a time of "extreme political polarization and tension."

"Accusations and counter accusations targeting mainly Mr. Hariri over the period preceding his assassination corroborate the commission's conclusion that the likely motive of the assassination was political," it said.

"However, since the crime was not the work of individuals but rather of a sophisticated group, it very much seems that fraud, corruption, and money laundering could also have been motives for individuals to participate in the operation."

Hariri served as Lebanon's prime minister five times, and political sources close to the former leader said he was planning to stage a political comeback by publicly supporting the growing opposition to Syria's role in Lebanon.

Syrian troops entered Lebanon in 1976, in the early days of that country's 15-year civil war. They remained for nearly 30 years, until pressure from Lebanese protests and the international community following Hariri's killing forced Damascus to pull its troops out in April.

The investigation already has led to the arrests and indictments of four pro-Syrian Lebanese security chiefs allegedly linked to the assassination. All four were interviewed by U.N. investigators during the probe, with their lawyers present, and denied any involvement, the report states.

The indictments were issued for Brig. Gen. Jameel al-Sayyed, former director of the Lebanese police; Gen. Ali al-Hajj, former former head of the country's internal security forces; Gen. Raymond Azar, former head of military intelligence; and Gen. Mustapha Hamdan, Commander of the Republican Guard Brigade.

In addition, Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan was reported to have committed suicide the same day of al-Assad's denial -- just hours after calling a Lebanese radio station to challenge allegations that he was involved in Hariri's killing. He was one of several senior officials U.N. investigators questioned in August.

Investigation 'not complete'

The attack took several months to prepare and required detailed monitoring of Hariri's movements, and "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials," the report found. In addition, the report states, it could not have been carried out "without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services."

The U.N. probe concluded that the bomb used to kill Hariri was detonated above ground and used at least 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of military explosives. But investigators have not yet determined how the bomb was detonated.

The convoy Hariri traveled in used jamming devices to prevent bombs from being detonated by remote control, so a suicide bomber may have set off the explosion. But investigators said further investigation was needed to determine how the bomb was set off.

The report recommended that Lebanese authorities pick up the investigation from this point, with assistance from the international community.

During the four-month investigation, the report said, investigators interviewed more than 400 people and reviewed 60,000 documents.

"Yet, the investigation is not complete," the report said.

some reports indicate american special ops forces have already begun operations inside syria itself.

[spartan]

the us doesn't have enough troops to finnish

IRAQ .....other than sayin syria stop sending

fighters over to iraq...IRAN stop sending fighters over your border...thats about it.

[l33t]

yeah no surprise to hear of special ops boys in syria..

maybe its just a temporary stop after their vacation in Lebanon earlier this year?


regardless, I firmly believe that most if not all assassinations are orchestrated by people in power, or people with money, who are usually one in the same.

Anyways, these investigations are pathetic, and hip I'm sure you agree on that... there's no possible way to get an objective view of a crime committed within the upper echelons of the elite. We'll just have to see who it benefits most to decide where the order may have come from.

[Hippie3]

i thought the UN was the darling of the left-
damned inconvenient to see them
backing the claims of the bush admins eh ?

[Hippie3]

Bringing Democracy to Syria and Iran


October 22, 2005
The Telegraph
Opinion

Not all the arguments against invading Iraq were couched in idealistic terms. Many hard-bitten Foreign Office types argued that the intervention would "destabilise" the region. They now look vindicated. Precisely as the cynical Arabists predicted, neighbouring states have been "sucked in". America blames Syria for allowing insurgents to cross its border, while Iran stands accused of arming the Shia militia who have been harrying British forces in Basra.

Then again, stability isn't everything. The point about "sucking in" is that it works both ways. Some 300,000 Iraqis live in Syria, and perhaps 150,000 in Iran. For the second time in less than a year, the peoples of those two unhappy autocracies have had to watch the Iraqis who live among them queueing up to vote - a sight no doubt destabilising for the dictators, but stimulating for everybody else.

We have just been reminded of quite how beastly the Damascus and Teheran regimes are. Syria has been indicted for its murder of the popular Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, while Iran, as The Sunday Telegraph has revealed, is receiving clandestine shipments of missile technology from North Korea.

That is the problem with dictatorships: their domestic stability, so valued by FCO mandarins, is bought at the expense of international aggression. To borrow a metaphor from chaos theory, they drink order from their surroundings. They may be immobilist at home, but they are revolutionary abroad.

Both Iran and Syria have been involved in state-sponsored terrorism: not just on their immediate doorsteps, but as far afield as London and Buenos Aires. Iran's nuclear ambitions go beyond the merely regional. Two years ago, the mullahs deployed Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, with a range of 800 miles. On current trends, they will have the bomb by 2008.

The two totalitarian states may have little else in common. Syria is one of the most secular states in the region, Iran the most theocratic. In the event of a civil war in Iraq, they would back opposite sides, Syria inclining towards its fellow Ba'athists, Iran towards its Shia co-religionists. What unites them is the determination, as Lenin would have put it, to export their internal contradictions. If short-term instability is the price of bringing democracy to Iraq's totalitarian neighbours, then it is a price we should be prepared to pay."

[maynardsdick]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

i thought the UN was the darling of the left-
damned inconvenient to see them
backing the claims of the bush admins eh ?

lets assume what is said is true. how does this involve the US?

[mr_dimple]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

i thought the UN was the darling of the left-
damned inconvenient to see them
backing the claims of the bush admins eh ?

You flamebating, Hippie?

[l33t]

Originally Posted by maynardsdick

lets assume what is said is true. how does this involve the US?

US has been handed a pretext to invade Syria on a silver platter.
Or they handed it to themselves, either way, whats done is done.

They've been marinating our brains on this for a bit I think. Every major
news outlet has been mentioning Syria for a while, how insurgents are
spilling over the borders.

But what is interesting is that there have been
equal amounts of insurgents coming in (to Iraq) from all directions,
but the majority of the blame is being focused on Syria.

sound familiar?

Originally Posted by Hip

i thought the UN was the darling of the left-
damned inconvenient to see them
backing the claims of the bush admins eh ?

hardy har...
the UN actually did have me fooled for quite awhile, you got me there..
playin hard to get then givin it up like a coked out prom queen
I'd say they the left still considers them their darling, little do they know.

The plot thickens..
what appeared to be a half-baked and clearly failing mission now seems to
be merely a front for the real scheme, which is unfolding exactly as planned

ladies and gents prepare to live in a new world courtesy of the US gov't.

[Hippie3]

seems unlikely that the coalition would opt for a full-scale invasion of syria,
the regime is already pretty shaky,
isolated and economically dying.
the king is barely in control of his own administration,
seems something more along the lines of the afghan operation
might be in order,
small teams of special ops training local indigenous forces
to rebel and over throw the baathists and their king.
who needs kings any more ?
a farewell to kings
is long overdue.

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by maynardsdick

lets assume what is said is true. how does this involve the US?

because this is one world,
and we are one people.
their business is our business.
welcome to the new world order.

[spartan]

THE us doesn't have enough troops for thetwo wars it has going on now.....

most of the american people now think the IRAQ
WAR was not worth it.

[maynardsdick]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

because this is one world,
and we are one people.
their business is our business.
welcome to the new world order.

the logical end of your line of reasoning eventually leads to world domination by the US, anyone's business is our business. not sure what i think about this....

[Hippie3]

the usa already has world domination,
has had for several decades.

and since when did the opinions of the masses
decide affairs of state ?
people naturally recoil at the costs of war,
most don't bother to educate themselves enough
to offer an informed opinion.

nevertheless the deed has already been done,
the dogs of war are afoot...
and the heads of kings
are in peril yet again.

[maynardsdick]

by world domination i meant the US would have complete control over the affairs of other countries. for example, telling china to dismantle their nukes n such. this is not the case currently but if we keep going the way were are, it will be.

[Hippie3]

i certainly hope so.
a one-state world is needed badly.
one power with nukes is all this world can afford.

[maynardsdick]

do you think its possible for one country to persist to the end of humanity? for example, lets say the US.

[Hippie3]

not 'as is',
no.
but i could see
a united states of america
that evolved into
a united states of earth
over a span of a couple centuries.
the roman empire lasted a thousand years,
with a culture very backward by todays standards.
a political entity that used modern methods
might easily last several thousand years.
as for the end of humanity,
who knows ?
you think kings and communist dictatorships are a better choice ?

[maynardsdick]

right. my only concern with such a scenario would be the immense consolidation of power the govt would have over the people. if the govt strayed from the ideas of what a govt should be/do, people would have an inalienable right to revolt, but how likely would it be successful? not much i think.

just like with our branches of govt, i think there must be checks and balances amongst countries so that no one country has absolute power. when i think of one massive, all power country, i think of big brother and that shit aint comforting (at least for our descendants).

[Hippie3]

but one must factor in that every government we've ever known was distorted by the presence of other governments that acted against them.
a one-state world would have no external enemies,
no one to go to war against.

[spartan]

Iraq is one state......no fighting going on there among themselfs?

The former drug zar Barry Mcaffy said yesterday
the us has now found it self in the middle of
a civil war.

[Hippie3]

get real.
iraq isn't the only state,
everyone knows that stuff coming in from iran, syria, arabia
so yer example is inapproriate.
you're out of your league, friend.
and
what's so civil about war ?

What is so wrong with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc., supporting their neighbors? They share a common border and have much more right to 'interfere' than the USA does. It's their backyard.

Imagine how silly it would sound if Iraq had invaded the US and installed a pro-Iraqi puppet government, then when we rose up against them and got help from Canada and Mexico, Iraq issued a statement that they had no right to 'interfere' in America, and threatened them with war?

Incidentally, Iran would like nothing more than for the puppet government dubya installed to fly. They're both Shiites. Iran is arming the shia militias who are getting ready for the civil war that is now a certainty. Syria and Saudi Arabia are lending support for the other side. Israel doesn't want us to bomb Syria, because they fear if Assad is overthrown, the next government will be worse for their interests. I wish I had the answers. I seriously fear dubya has started WW-3, and please don't anyone say 'they' started it on 9-11. There is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. However, de-stablilize the middle east and the whole world will end up getting drawn into the fray in conquest of the oil that will be going up in smoke. That includes China, the EU, Russia, the US, etc., all possibly taking different sides.

The 'right' wing only calls the UN 'left' because it supports the rule of international law, human rights and the Geneva Conventions. We need the UN now more than ever to help contain the mess.
RR

[Hippie3]

the UN has recognized what you call a puppet government
as the legitimate government of iraq.

[spartan]

Everytime I turn on the tv IT's five more

americans killed by roadside bomb.

YOU CALL THAT PROGRESS?

what are you smoking?

[Hippie3]

you judge everything by what you see on tv ?
what are you huffing ?
isn't this thread about syria, not iraq ?

[vrooota]

roadside bombs happen to be in style but they aren't anything most of the people of america will even remember in 5-10 years. Good media ratings compared to the neverending hurricanes but not serious military action. The 'insurgency' seems like it would have less of an effect if CNN didn't give them such good publicity.
I don't know how well the world can handle full scale war though. There's alot more humans on this lil rock of ours than there was in 1942 and a lot more nuclear powers. If the kind of armageddon-esque scenario RR paints comes to pass I seriously doubt that very much of the world will recover from it. Even WW2 forced nations to completely restructure their economies and power structures in order to survive. What happens when we can't build cars for 5 years because every ton of steel and aluminum the country produces builds war machines and we have to ration gas that costs a lot more than 2.75 because all of our resources are being poured into a 'war effort' By the measures of $ and american lives the war in iraq is not historically bad, if the ripple effect it creates leads to WW3 though; some of you may wish you voted

[Hippie3]

i suspect rodger's scenario is rather far-fetched,
china and russia and the eu
all have better reasons to back the coalition
than to fight alongside the jihadists.
the jihadists are no friends to any of the major powers,
all of which are currently fighting their own jihadists.
there is no islamist super-power,
pakistan's the closest thing they've got to one,
and india could beat them in a matter of weeks,
as they've done three times already.
no, the interests of all the industrial powers
is to keep the oil flowing and peace between themselves.
no one kills a cash cow,
and that's what the usa is for them,
if we go down so do they.

[vrooota]

perhaps, but as you say its one world now, we all effect each other and disorder and war in the Mid east is bad for all of us. especially those of us who live in places in the world that consume the majority of the fossil fuels.

[Hippie3]

one needs to take a larger perspective,
of course 'war is bad'
but sometimes war beats the alternatives.
sometimes a war is needed to topple dictators and kings,
to stop genocide, to end oppression.
sure, it's painful and distressing
what the middle east is going thru now,
the old order is crumbling,
people are fearful, confused.
but millions of iraqis shrugged off the
terror, the bombings, the beheadings
and went to the polls yet again.
in iran the persians watched dumb-founded
as iraqi exiles dwelling there cast absentee ballots
in a real election,
knowing that in their own country there was no choice,
the ayatollahs hand-picked every candidate for every office.
the people in syria saw the same,
iraqi exiles voting in a real election,
a thing unseen in their own country in their lifetime.
muslim people from morocco to bangladesh watched
as 'people power' chased the syrian army out of lebanon
after decades of occupation, extortion, and oppression.
in afghanistan women now sit in the halls of government
while the taliban cower in the mountain caves.
egypt and even saudi arabia are holding elections,
albeit limited but still a move in a direction
heretofore unseen.
america has brought its' revolution to the people of the world,
bypassing their rulers.
the genie is out of the bottle now,
and no car bomb can put it back in.
and that is why we feel the fury of the jihadists,
their medieval world is dying all around them
and they correctly blame the West for it.
but history and time is on the peoples' side,
some day soon we will bury the very last king on earth.
it's only a matter of time.

The end to kings. The next step will be to end religion.