US Embassy in Syria attacked

You wonder what Bashar Assad is thinking.  Nothing happens in Syria that does not have at least his silent consent.

You wonder what Bashar Assad is thinking. Nothing happens in Syria that does not have at least his silent consent.

Are you absolutely sure? That's a very cynical response. Do you combine that with the logical side-belief that everything in the US happens with at least the government's silent consent? If anything the last few years have shown that governments have very little control over resident fundamentalists - the brutal Saudi regime for one has been utterly ineffectual.

I'm going to wait for a bit more evidence before blaming Syria, particularly when one of their own policemen was killed in the attack. I'm sure we'll find out over the next week or so what the go was.

Do you combine that with the logical side-belief that everything in the US happens with at least the government's silent consent?

Are you stating that the US is a Dictatorship? Or are you denying that Syria is?

Your "logical side Belief" defies logic and the facts.

Bomb blasts in 3 different places in Malegaon district in Maharashtra India took place,mainly aimed at the mosques killing around 40 people.
A lot suspect it was an attack to hurt Muslim sentiments and invoke riots,which thankfully did not happen,but what if they do????

Dr. Guy, I think that Cactoblasta's point was that there are fringe groups in every country that are outside the control of government's consent.

Take for example, Timothy McVeigh. Granted he wasn't attacking a foreign country, but I think he exempifies a violent fringe interest operating without government consent. Not the best example, but my point is that there are all sorts of violent freaks working their own agenda.

If an foreign embassy were to be bombed in the US (as improbable as it is), my first thought would be that it was done by such a fringe group without any government support. Yet, with the reputation that the CIA has, I think people would be skeptical. Call me cynical, but I think there are such yahoos in every country in the world. Whether Syria is prone to supporting violence or not, there's no sense saying the government gave tacit approval until such a claim is proven.


I don't get how you leap to the idea that cactoblasta is calling the US a dictatorship. Did I miss something in another blog?

I don't get how you leap to the idea that cactoblasta is calling the US a dictatorship. Did I miss something in another blog?

He equated Syria to the US. By Implication, since it was a one to one comparison, he was saying that we should know everything in a free society, as the thugs who rule Syria know everything. There is a reason that Iraq did not have the violence of the Saddam years. A totalitarian dictatorship that repressed the people to the point that you could not sneeze without the authorities knowing about it.

it is possible, but highly unlikely, that Bashar was in the dark about this. Just as they were supposedly in the dark about the Lebanese assassination. However, Authoritarian rulers do not stay in power with that kind of intelligence failure (obtaining the explosives and then transporting them). That is what I am saying. The plot never had a chance to succeed, because it did not succeed. But Bashar is sending a message to the US. In his own petulant way. And to despots like Bashar, human life is just a tote on a ledger, and nothing more. I doubt he even thinks twice about the Policeman's life.

He equated Syria to the US. By Implication, since it was a one to one comparison, he was saying that we should know everything in a free society, as the thugs who rule Syria know everything. There is a reason that Iraq did not have the violence of the Saddam years. A totalitarian dictatorship that repressed the people to the point that you could not sneeze without the authorities knowing about it.

I think that he was actually implying that the thought that Syria had that sort of ironclad control was as incorrect as believing that America has that sort of ironclad control.

And there was only fringe violence (enough of it to threaten Hussein) in Iraq because Saddam would outright kill/gas/genocide his enemies, not because he knew what was going on. He would do that even without specific knowledge or proof.

However, while it is possible that the government didn't back this attack, it's also possible that they turned a blind eye, sure. Of course, you have to look at the fact that it was Syrian security forces that were credited with foiling the attack, that one of them lost their life and two others were wounded. WWW Link Of course, then you could extrapolate that the Syrian government knew about it and stopped it to try to garner goodwill from the US... I think we're reaching here.

Dr. Guy, I think that Cactoblasta's point was that there are fringe groups in every country that are outside the control of government's consent.

Exactly. We don't know yet whether Syria was behind them. It's impossible to know everything that's happening in a country, and only even vaguely possible in a totalitarian dictatorship - but even that doesn't work too well, as Hitler found out. Syria doesn't have that kind of regime - it's a dictatorship, sure, but it rules through the indiscriminate use of force rather than by keeping track of every citizen's actions. Until we know for sure that the Syrian government is behind it I think it's overly cynical to assume they were involved, particularly when most terrorist groups don't acknowledge secular governments like Syria.

Authoritarian rulers do not stay in power with that kind of intelligence failure (obtaining the explosives and then transporting them).

They do actually. Saudi Arabia has been around for ages and has spent a great deal of that time under terrorist attack. They don't seem capable of stopping it despite having some rather ruthless secret police.

And to despots like Bashar, human life is just a tote on a ledger, and nothing more. I doubt he even thinks twice about the Policeman's life.

That's likely, but it doesn't mean he's responsible. You're getting cynical in your old age. Next thing you'll be joining the 33% of Americans who believe 9/11 was a hoax!

They do actually. Saudi Arabia has been around for ages and has spent a great deal of that time under terrorist attack. They don't seem capable of stopping it despite having some rather ruthless secret police.

You are equating a monarchy with a ruthless dictatorship now. That is your Opinion, and I do not agree. However, Saudi Arabia has nothing when it comes to control, as does Syria.

That's likely, but it doesn't mean he's responsible. You're getting cynical in your old age. Next thing you'll be joining the 33% of Americans who believe 9/11 was a hoax!

Cynical? Rafik Hariri is Cynical? perhaps. But there is a big difference between Bashar and the kooks of America. No, I dont buy into the kook theories. But I am a realist. If a gnat poops in Syria, Bashar either approved it, or knows about it.

I'm inclined to side with the Doc in one area: That Assad is a sneaky SOB with a hint of the gangster about him. His father was not as ruthless but just as cunning. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Syrians were responsible for Hariri's death. Remember that at that time Assad wanted to rule Lebanon from his lair. Hariri was considered a dangerous opponent of Syria.

However, as for the perpetrators of the Embassy attack, I would consider them as petty gangsters with an axe to grind. Not in Assaad's league. Assaad, cunning as he is, would have concocted ways and means to upset the Americans in other ways ---ways in which no finger could be pointed at him directly. We cannot predict what goes on in Assaad's mind ---he may even hunger after ties with the USA--but he remains a significant player in the Middle East conflicts, and he is not to be under-estimated.

The real tragedy in Syria today is that we have a diplomatic contingent there at all. It's time to start treating these nations for what they are, our enemies in a war. I see no purpose whatsoever in this facade that has kept us fighting proxy wars for decades, first against the Soviet Union, and then against Islamic fascists.

RW, congrats on the feature!

I don't trust Syria, but I also don't believe they could think this attack would be in their best interest at this time. Assaad strikes me as a man that wants the people to believe he is in full control. I think he would feel it is beneath him to pretend he didn't know about this happening at his doorstep. Syria, lately for the most part, doesn’t crap where it eats...at home (now other places, through proxies, sure). They want the world to see the US and Israel as "imagining" terrorists behind every tree, but not proving them correct. I think this has hurt the little credibility they might have with some fence sitting nations on the harboring terrorists issue.

RW, congrats on the feature!

---Dr Guy

Thanks, Doc! My first feature!

Golly, and all I did was post what I heard on the radio. I'll have to listen to the radio more often............

Syria is a predominantly Sunni country with a secular government facing a rising tide of Shiite fanaticism. Yes, Syria has supported the fanatics with money and supplies. But did that buy them friendship?

The terrorist groups don't function in an orderly manner. They are small, independent groups. If someone thought it was a good idea to bomb the embasssy in Damascus, they could just do it.

Welcome to the Middle East, where today's enemy is yesterday's friend.

Welcome to the Middle East, where today's enemy is yesterday's friend.

That is a trueism all over the world.

can't we ever have peace?

can't we ever have peace?

---cutepablo


Sure, after the liberal apologists and anti-American traitors have allowed them to win, the Islamists will be happy to impose their peace on the world.

their peace on the world.

Sorry, their piece on the world.

Sorry, their piece on the world

  We're already getting that.

Cacto, I just came across this.  While not a confirmation of my suspicions, it appears I am not the only one thinking that Bashar had an agenda.

Diplomats at United Nations headquarters in New York are privately expressing skepticism about the Sept. 12 attack on the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria. According to NewsMax’s U.N. correspondent Stewart Stogel, some diplomats are wondering whether the Syrian government had advance knowledge of the terrorist attack, but did nothing to thwart it until the last moment, hoping to gain some influence in Washington. The attack left one Syrian security guard and three attackers dead and one attacker wounded in front of the embassy in what had been considered a highly secure area of the capital city. It is common knowledge within diplomatic circles that the Syrian leadership makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any "independent" terrorist cell to operate within its own borders, let alone wage an attack in downtown Damascus, Stogel reports. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a tempered "thank you" for the efforts of the Syrian government, NewsMax has learned that the Syrians did not agree to a Central Intelligence Agency request to interview the captured attacker. Syrian officials later said the captured attacker had died before he could be interrogated.

ccording to NewsMax’s U.N. correspondent Stewart Stogel, some diplomats are wondering whether the Syrian government had advance knowledge of the terrorist attack, but did nothing to thwart it until the last moment, hoping to gain some influence in Washington.

I'm sure NewsMax is a fine agency, but it has an appalling reputation. I wouldn't be too quick to assume it has particularly good contacts in the UN, particularly considering its reputation as a group that reports rumours as fact. Note the writer doesn't identify any of his informers and uses the phrase "common knowledge" (a celeb column standard).

I'm not inclined to believe it but you can if you like.

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a tempered "thank you" for the efforts of the Syrian government, NewsMax has learned that the Syrians did not agree to a Central Intelligence Agency request to interview the captured attacker.

That doesn't surprise me. CIA agents aren't given permission to interview captives in most countries. It's not about being rude, it's about not letting potentially hostile foreign agents into secure facilities. I would be more surprised if CIA agents were allowed access.

I'm sure NewsMax is a fine agency, but it has an appalling reputation

I am not touting Newsmax as a great source, or the article as gospel. Only that I am not the only one that has suspicions about Bashar. As I said, I am may be wrong, but as a betting man, I put my money on Bashar having an agenda. As for the CIA and stuff, hey! I would have been surprised if he allowed them to! I said he had an agenda, not that he was stupid.