digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

North Koreans Taped at Syrian Nuclear Site

voanews.com — U.S. intelligence officials will meet with congressional lawmakers about North Korea's alleged nuclear cooperation with Syria Thursday on Capitol Hill.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Kizilbash, on 04/25/2008, -31/+16There is no Syrian nuclear site. This has been debunked a long time ago. The North Koreans are setting up missile defense systems. Here's an article Seymour Hersh wrote about it in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/0802 ...

    "A senior Syrian official confirmed that a group of North Koreans had been at work at the site, but he denied that the structure was related to chemical warfare. Syria had concluded, he said, that chemical warfare had little deterrent value against Israel, given its nuclear capability. The facility that was attacked, the official said, was to be one of a string of missile-manufacturing plants scattered throughout Syria—“all low tech. Not strategic.” (North Korea has been a major exporter of missile technology and expertise to Syria for decades.) He added, “We’ve gone asymmetrical, and have been improving our capability to build low-tech missiles that will enable us to inflict as much damage as possible without confronting the Israeli Army. We now can hit all of Israel, and not just the north.”

    Whatever was under construction, with North Korean help, it apparently had little to do with agriculture—or with nuclear reactors—but much to do with Syria’s defense posture, and its military relationship with North Korea. And that, perhaps, was enough to silence the Syrian government after the September 6th bombing."
    • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -7/+15Well the video shown seems to say otherwise.
    • orca94, on 04/25/2008, -4/+12Umm, so because someone in the Syrian government said it wasn't, it wasn't? Not that I trust my own government (U.S.) to supply me with information that's any more correct, it's just I wouldn't trust either.
    • Picaroon, on 04/25/2008, -4/+14Oh, well if the Syrians said so.
      • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -12/+5right now they have a lot more credibility than the US government.
        • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9Yep. Gotta always trust those friendly dictatorships over all those Evil-give-your-people-liberties-kind of democracies.
        • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Of all the things the US has done at least we don't crush and massacre our own people or send tanks into our own cities

          Read about the Hama massacre in 1982 in Syria.
    • jmpeagle, on 04/25/2008, -4/+15well considering your ID is the name of a militant shi'ite group....I am going to take your conclusions with a grain of salt
    • Asianwaste, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Israel said they didn't have nukes too.
    • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Oh, well, in that case, I guess the Syrians are the good guys.
      “We’ve gone asymmetrical, and have been improving our capability to build low-tech missiles that will enable us to inflict as much damage as possible without confronting the Israeli Army. We now can hit all of Israel, and not just the north.”
      Low tech missles, fired into heavly populated areas = purposly aiming towards civilians.
      Inflicting "as much damage as possible" on another country's civilians, "without confroting the Israeli army", still keeps you the bad guys.
    • plunderphonics, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Ah yes, The New Yorker, a reliable news source.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3any news source with New York in it can be considered not credible.
    • worldchanger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3why is it that you remind me of the Iraqi Information Minister?

      "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 04/25/2008, -16/+34Hey, if the United States government says it's so, that's good eno ... oh, right, never mind.
  • MrErr, on 04/25/2008, -13/+28For some odd reason I am unable to trust that particular intelligence report
    • jmpeagle, on 04/25/2008, -2/+10this is what sucks about Bush....how are we ever to believe when a real threat does come along? It's like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe Syria is developing nuclear weapons but how can we believe Bush after all the $hit he's pulled.
    • NEUTRINO50, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1This is probably true, Israelis have a decent record of blowing ***** up that amounts to something they don't randomly "export democracy" just for the hell of it.
      Too bad they couldn't make it public back in 2003 and we don't know what else is being kept under wraps at this very moment. But yea, Middle East is no threat to anyone, we should just leave them alone, go Ron Paul. /sarcasm
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1you fail at making a coherent statement.
        • NEUTRINO50, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1you fail at reading comprehension ..and life. lol.
  • eFiniTi, on 04/25/2008, -9/+32From the words of our great president,

    "Fool me once, shame on- shame on you. Fool me- you can't get fooled again." - George W. Bush.
  • Stevanoski, on 04/25/2008, -14/+20You have trouble trusting that report because it interferes with your preconceived notions?
  • monsieurginger, on 04/25/2008, -18/+11Dictators helping dictators. Syria, Iran and North Korea need some regime changing.
    • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7the first country that needs a regime change is the US.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4For what, regime changing? A little bit hypocritical?
      • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Aren't we having one this election season? Why doesn't Kim Jong Ill or Bashar Assad go up for election?
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2regime change to what?
  • Berkana, on 04/25/2008, -6/+34Don't piss off America... or we'll bring democracy to your country!
    • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3we love being greeted as liberators. it's not bush's fault the iraqis don't know the difference between flowers and roadside bombs.
    • paulmer2003, on 04/25/2008, -5/+6Hrm. I don't think many North Korean's would mind a regime change.
      • Shuukyoku, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Sure, but who we gonna send to do it? The military is bogged down, and they've conscripted our National Guard "not ready for prime time fighters", so unless we're planning on invading them with the Coast Guard and the LAPD....
      • worldchanger, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2actually, being that they're cut off from all outside influences and only hear the propaganda that their country spews... they probably wouldn't appreciate it either.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2with the dwindling rice supplies they will all starve soon enough.
    • heystoopid, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Looking at examples like Panama , Iraq and Afghanistan , it would appear that US variant of Democracy is your freedom comes with the price of a gun stuck up your posterior permanently making it worse then an enema and your home is in a military free fire zone !
  • VacaN, on 04/25/2008, -7/+32Nothing to see here America! You Americans have very large penis.
    • Asianwaste, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Dinosauric!
    • soupdawg30, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Yea we know but what does our penis size have to do have North Korea and Syria?
  • tastypaste, on 04/25/2008, -7/+11Is this one of those invisible WMDs?
    • cheezintern, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5I'd like to quote Bush Jr, pre-iraq war........"They got 'em"
      • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5Rumsfeld's comment on March 30, 2003: "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
    • soupdawg30, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3No these are the real ones.
  • plunderphonics, on 04/25/2008, -5/+26They got nukes, and they're super Syrial
  • DarkReign16, on 04/25/2008, -11/+14And this concerns us how? Buried as pro-war propaganda.
    • soupdawg30, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2Pro Iraq? This has nothing to do with Iraq.
    • datastorageguy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Hmm I don't know..perhaps it's because Syria having nuclear weapons is a bad idea for you and the people you care about?
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3it matters to israel which is why they bombed it.
    • plunderphonics, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3If only I could go back to the days where I had my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears, believing that nuclear war was fantasy perpetuated by the Terminator series.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3the cold war was pretty ***** scary.
  • Picaroon, on 04/25/2008, -14/+23Guys, just because you don't like Bush, it doesn't mean that Syria and North Korea are nice countries. Give me a break.
    • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -9/+8considering syria is bordering a nuclear armed rogue nation, i'de say they have every reason to have some deterrence.
      • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -5/+6Oh come on. Rogue nation? I wish Israel was a rogue nation. Truth of the matter, Israel doesn't do anything without the US's concent. Even when it comes to defending their own people.
        • soupdawg30, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Which is why they aren't a rogue nation. WTF was your point?
          • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3That Israel isn't a "a nuclear armed rogue nation" as pintomp3 says?
          • PolishLogic, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2If you have to ask, then you probably wouldn't understand it even if he said it again.
      • worldchanger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Definitely. Since, after all, Israel is the one that's been openly training and supplying suicidal maniacs to go into another country and slaughter innocent civilians for years, right? *rolling eyes*

        Get your head out of the sand. Israel has nukes because if they didn't the Arab countries around them would all too happily destroy them. It's called life insurance.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5and have tried and failed miserably to do a couple times.
    • Sogui, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Impossible, Bush being an idiot and other countries being evil must be mutually exclusive!
    • theholyraptor, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8Just because countries disagree with us doesn't mean we have to bomb the ***** out of them and invade them either... There is a huge list of countries that aren't friendly with us, but we only see a few specific names being listed over anything that might bring us to attack them....errrr preemptively defend ourselves.
      • LvsSocer, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Those countries happen to be state sponsors of terrorist organizations. (N. Korea excluded, although there are fears they would engage with terrorists for financial reasons)

        The key here is that an opposing country may have conflicting interest with you, but they can be dissuaded from engaging in violence/war with you b/c they are just as easy of a target as you are (well defined leadership, economy, populace).

        Terrorist groups do not follow the classic model of deterrence whatsoever, hence making any terrorist group that gets their hand on serious weapons exponentially more dangerous due to the lack of accountability.
      • datastorageguy, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Yeah disagreeing with Nazis and bombing the ***** out of them was a bad idea I guess. It isn't always a bad idea to bomb the hell out of someone unfortunately.
      • PolishLogic, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4I don't see us bombing the ***** out of, nor invading Syria, North Korea or Iran now or in the next few years, unless something pretty goddamn major goes down. So calm down.

        Ever heard of posturing?
    • ejan, on 04/25/2008, -7/+4I'm not sure about the truth behind this, but I think Syria might be crazy enough to actually use nukes.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Based on what?
        Only ONE country has EVER used nukes in war - how quickly you forget...
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4and it was pretty damn effective.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/25/2008, -10/+13In other news, Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons aimed at Lincoln, Nebraska.
    • Spartycus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7We have reports that he built his WMD facilities in heaven...
      - obligatory South Park reference
    • PolishLogic, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3In other news, Iran, Syria, and North Korea are all wonderful countries. In fact, we should begin helping them with their nuclear weapons technology immediately. What could possibly go wrong there?
  • nastronomical, on 04/25/2008, -12/+7Dictators helping dictators. Syria, Iran and North Korea need some regime changing.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1You mean BushCo helping the rogue Israeli Likkudniks? Yes some regime changing is in order.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4because our support for israel started with Bush. god damn its mind boggling how many ***** there are like you on digg.
      • Tangaroa, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3The current Israeli regime is the Progressive party since 2001. They took over from the Socialists. The "Likkudniks" have been out of power since 1999.
  • nastronomical, on 04/25/2008, -11/+5Dictators helping dictators. Syria, Iran and North Korea need some regime changing.
    • tuxerware, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Iran is not a dictatorship.
    • Spartycus, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6I agree that they do need to change, but perhaps it should be up to their people to initiate the change?
      • sandbags, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2they have (in iran) but the bloody americans keep ousting there chosen leaders and putting dictators in!
  • slightlygifted, on 04/25/2008, -9/+8we give aid and benefits to north korea to stop them from building nuclear weapons? ***** that. dont let them take advantage of us cause they are threatening us. tell them if we detect anything with our geiger counters we'll turn your crappy little country into a radioactive wasteland.
    • sandbags, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1YEEHAW!! Im righteous AND stupid!
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I dont agree with nuking them, but we shouldn't be giving them any aid.
  • cheezintern, on 04/25/2008, -9/+11I'd have to see this allegedly convincing video. Until then, it's all bull *****, let's go to war and defend Israel propaganda, in my book.
  • schuder, on 04/25/2008, -5/+10Trust but verify. Both ways on this one. I wouldn't put faith in the fools who vehemently deny that Syria is capable of this, but I wouldn't but faith in anyone who says it is a certainty. The video seems convincing, but time will tell. And bravo Jimmy Carter, seriously guy needs to die already. He f-ed up the deal in Korea for Clinton and now he's screwing up the Middle East even more with Hamas (not that Fatah isn't a terrorist group either.... what a world).
  • tuxerware, on 04/25/2008, -7/+12So North Korea helped Syria with it's covert nuclear program. That sounds awfully like what the US did with Israel, but yes there is one big difference. Israel is the US butt buddy!
    • Sogui, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4Well at least Israel hasn't wiped any other countries off the map *knocks on wood*
      • jmpeagle, on 04/25/2008, -6/+11palestine.....
        • Spartycus, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7Palestine was never a country..... It was a province of the Ottoman Empire, and ultimately ended up as a British protectorate after WW2. There were no "Palestinian people" as we refer to the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank today.
          And, while Israel has a strong army now, this was not the case when the country was formed. After the British withdrew, they left their military strongholds and much weaponry in the hands of the Arab inhabitants of the region, who promptly attempted to force the Jews out violently. They were ultimately defeated and the UN intervened to freeze the borders that were established during the fighting and the two nations of Israel and Palestine that we refer to now were born.
        • zerocool1990, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1@Spartycyus: There were no "Palestinian people" ? WTF!! where the hell do you people get this from? So the jew from germany has the right for the land more than the arab that had been living there? what the hell kind of logic is that
          and FYI the british left the strongholds and weaponry to the jews. ook it up
        • Tangaroa, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3@Spartycus: Palestine was never a province of the Ottoman Empire. The area was split between the Vilayets of Beirut and Damascus and the Sanjak of Jerusalem. The British invented the modern notion of a clearly formed district of Palestine (before it had been the vague area of the Jewish homeland) and split it into Jewish and Arab sectors, which were renamed Israel and Jordan respectively. There was no "nation of Palestine" created by the UN, the border established by the fighting was between Israel and Jordan. The notion of Palestine being a separate area from Israel did not exist until 1993 when Israel started giving land to the Palestine Liberation Organization, an Arab-supremacist hate group responsible for decades of terrorism, in the hope that this would finally bring peace. Of course, it made things worse: the PLO's apparent willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel caused its popular and financial support to dry up, this support went over to Hamas which continued to call for the extermination of world Jewry, terrorism against Israel increased, the PLO launched a war in 2000 to try to seize more land than Israel was offering, and idiots on the Internet now think there was ever a "Palestine" to be oppressed by Israel.

          @Zerocool: We get the fact that there were no "Palestinian" people at the time from reading contemporary historical accounts. The people were Arabs, Jews, Druze. The "jew from germany" got the right to the land from buying it, "the arab that had been living there" sold it to the Jew, and the Arab's racist next-door neighbour lost his right to his land by starting a war with the Jews and losing.

          @jmpeagle: "palestine" is an archaic word for Israel. Read my comment to Spartycus.

          @tuxer: The Israeli nuclear weapons program was helped by the French. The US politically leaned towards Egypt at the time and would not have supported it.

          I am giving this whole damned thread an F in history.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6And Syria has knocked who off the map?
        On top of that out of the countries being discussed(Iran,Israel, Syria, North Korea & the US) Israel & the US are the only ones that have taken land by military force!
        • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6In 1948 the Syrians invaded Israeli land, taking a lot of it by military force.
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum ...
          Israeli troops were finally able to fight them back an retake the land, but the Syrians were the agressors, not the other way around.
          The Iranians have taken Iraqi land by force, though, like Israel, took that land only after being attacked.
          North Korea has been terrorizing South Korea for decades.
          • FairDinkumMate, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1I'm not talking about 'walking' on foreign land during a conflict! I'm talking about holding foreign land after a conflict
    • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7There really should be some sort of "Get your basic history facts right" before you're allowed to post a comment on digg.
      A. The US did not help Israel with it's nuclear program. In fact, it tried many times to stop Israel.
      B. When you're a country that is attacked by it's neighbors every 10 years, surrounded on all sides by arab nations that wish to wipe you off the map
      C .When almost half of the jews around the world were just wiped out by the Nazi regime, and now you have the arabs threating to kill off the rest of the survivors,
      you sure as hell go an develop a nuclear program, to make sure no one else ever thinks about trying to wipe your entire country out.
      • tuxerware, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3I don't dispute the right for Israel to have nuclear weapons, that i don't like is that Israel isn't held to the same standards as the rest of the world. Why shouldn't Israel sign the non proliferation treaty? hell they don't even admit to having nuclear weapons.

        And you other point(c), i agree. But that would apply for Iran to. When you have a country like the US constantly threatening to invade your country, nuclear weapons seams a logical way to deter attacks. Even more so now when the US attacked and invaded their next door neighbor.
        • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Mutual nuclear deterance is a good thing.
          That's what kept the cold war from becoming an all out war between the US and the USSR.
          Mutal nuclear deterance works pretty well when you have:
          A. Two sides capable of annihalating each other.
          B. Two sides who prefer self preservation over destroying your enemy.

          Sadly, B doesn't apply in the Iranian case. President Ahmadinijad, an Extreme Islamist, would consider himself and any other Muslim dying a Martyr, just as long as Israel is wiped out in the process.
          • tuxerware, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Well Ahmadinijad didn't exactly say that. He said that Israel as a nation should be wiped of the face of the earth. Weather or not he was intentionally misquouted in the western press i don't know. As i personal not i think he'se a populist facist who uses the iranian people for his own gians. But i would agree that fusion between the Palestinian state(i know that doesn't really exist) and Israel would be the best thing for all people in that region. Sadly that would never happen because both parties are to deadlocked in that dispute.

            Another thing about Ahmadinijad is that he hasn't very much popular support, it's just that when the US threaten Iran the people gather around their more extremist leaders. What i mean is if the US would normalize their relations with Iran, Ahmadinijad would soon be a thing of the past.
        • 140Suffolk, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Actually, a couple of years ago former Iranian President Rafsanjani said in a speech that as soon as Iran had nuclear weapons they should bomb Israel immediately. And that if Israel retaliated it was worth it because, at one stroke, they would wipe out half the Jews in the world.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3I've seen North Koreans taped at all kinds of sites... doing it. And all of those tapes are better than this one.
    • jemman, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3You mean North Koreans having sex. I've seen those tapes also. :)
  • Sogui, on 04/25/2008, -9/+19Not to beat the war drums or anything, but:

    1) A lot of Diggers were siding against the US/Israel on this one. Mostly because anything that US/Israel militarily is wrong, no matter what.

    2) While I don't like the idea of leaving everything in the hands of our government. The fact is that these strikes were based on a lot of intel that we will never see in our lifetimes. Not to say that we should just trust our intelligence, but we will never be able to understand how much quality intel was gathered on this site.

    3) I laugh at people who would assume the US/Israel's are lying because they have an "agenda", but the Syrians certainly have no reason to lie themselves. I'm sure that'd be a hilarious disclosure, "This morning an Israel air strike hit one of our secret nuclear enrichment centers that we were building with the help of North Korea. They really caught us with our pants down on this one, we totally didn't see it coming and just thought we'd fess up since you guys totally had your ***** together on this one."
    • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -7/+7"I laugh at people who would assume the US/Israel's are lying because they have an "agenda"" were you laughing when people questioned if saddam really had wmds? we're just going by the track record.
      • LvsSocer, on 04/25/2008, -6/+5Sogui is right on this one... the track record is far more than a single incidence of the current administration caught in propoganda.

        The Iraq argument was pushed by the White House, after heavily manipulating/fabricating available intel. This is, on the other hand, is the heads of intel communities reporting directly to congress. Notice Bush isn't directly in this equation.. big difference, no?
        • heystoopid, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3You forget who their real boss is , and all sub minions in intelligence irrespective , must obey the orders of their superior officers or it is treason , for you have forgotten the one very simple fact about the job and the assorted security clearance forms one must sign in the first place !

          If you need me to tell you what it is , then I would suggest go back to smoking a pack of magic mushrooms a day , it may clear your clouded mind !
          • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3"Must obey the orders of their superior officers"?
            The US Uniform Code of Military Justice states that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
            Lying to congress and displaying false intelligence pretty much qualifies as an "unlawful order".
          • sandbags, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1hey stupid. Magic mushrooms don't come in packs. I guess you can probably smoke them, but you would have to be pretty fukn dumb. FYI.
      • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -6/+2Foolish digger, without any understanding of the middle east, securiy, or global politics.
        Being that after Iran, syria is the biggest threat to Israel,
        Being that the syrians have plenty of WMDs in the form of chemical and biological weapons,
        Being that the syrian army is much larger than the Israel army,
        Being that the last time there was a direct conflict between syria and Israel, almost the entire tank force of Israel was wiped out,
        An Israeli prime minister ordering an attack on syria, at the risk of starting a war, would have to be strait out out of his f'ing mind, unless he had a really really really good reason to do so.
        Syria think about doing something so foolish.
      • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4But to be fair no one actually knew whether Saddam truly had WMD or not. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter made conflicting reports over the years, Ritter saying he had WMD back in 1998 and urged Clinton to do something about it.

        Likewise foreign intelligence never confirmed it either, most people opposed the war on humanitarian grounds not because they thought Saddam was innocent.
        • Tangaroa, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1To be unfair, nobody knowing whether Saddam had WMD or not means there was no legitimate casus belli =)
    • Sogui, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5It helps if you finished reading the sentence. It's fine to simply question our agenda, but to take what Syria and N.Korea say on face value while discounting what the US says is just ridiculous.
    • WikiEasy, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5If American policy were dictated by idiots that roam Digg, the country would be in ruins fast.

      Digg is open to the internet, and we don't have censorship in this country. You really don't know who is roaming on here. Many are probably not even Americans. Sure, let's let any country, big or small, get their hands on nuclear weapons. If I can have one so should you.

      Surprise... that ain't how the world works. Every nation acts in selfish ways to protect its own people, especially from those whose ideals and philosophy are very far from yours. If you don't like that, too bad.
  • gothicform, on 04/25/2008, -13/+8Dear Americans,
    What goes around comes around. You sold your nuclear programme to the Israelis, who sold it to Pakistan, who's head went rogue and sold it to the North Koreans, who sold it to Syria. The moral is simple - keep your secrets to yourself.
    • Tanktunker, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3It's a TEXTILE FACTORY!
      That's all it is!
      Why won't anyone believe us?!
    • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9A. It was the French who supplied Israel with a reactor, not the Americans.
      B. Israel sold to Pakistan? ha? what? are you plain stupid? Why would Israel sell nuclear technology to an enemy state?
      C. Pakistan sold to north korea? or was it perhaps the chinese and russians? hmm...
      • gothicform, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Read the following paper -
        THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
        ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
        Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
        The Counterproliferation Papers
        Future Warfare Series No. 2
        USAF Counterproliferation Center
        Air War College
        Air University
        Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
        September 1999
  • paulmer2003, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Pix or it didn't happen!
  • Thelaff, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7First, it was supposed to be video of North Koreans inside of Syria's alleged nuke facility. Then it turned out the "video" was really just the intel community's own presentation, which contained still photographs.
    Now Reuters seems to knock the story back another notch:
    " A U.S. official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss classified matters, said that among the intelligence the United States has was an image of what appeared to be people of Korean descent at the facility."

    "Appeared to be people of Korean descent"?

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191108.php

    • akamurph, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Wait, isn't there a picture of the North Korean and Syrian nuclear chiefs in Syria? That's a little damning...
  • BambinosKrib, on 04/25/2008, -8/+8So? Nukes in Israeli hands scares me more than the *possibility* of any other country building nuclear reactors or weapons could ever do.
    • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5That's because you're stupid.
      Israel allegdy has nukes for years. They've had many conflicts since, and haven't use them.
      In fact, during the first golf war, Israel was bombarded with scuds by Iraq, even though they were not part of the war. Even while Israeli citizens were being killed by Iraqi missiles, the Israeli goverment was restrained, did not fire even convetional weapons back, let alone WMDs.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I can't take anyone seriously that doesn't know the difference between a Gulf & Golf!

        During the first Golf War Tiger Woods & Vijay Singh both attacked Ernie Els even though he wasn't part of the war!
    • Lst01, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Seeing as to how the 1948, 1967, 1973, and the 2006 Lebanon war were all initiated by the Arabs, I don't think you have to worry about Israel starting any wars. Also, Israel has never stated that they want to annihilate another country unlike a certain Persian nutjob.
      • s2ao, on 04/25/2008, -3/+31948 is open to debate, but saying it was "started by the Arabs" is a strech
        1967 was unequivocally started by Israel, read history
        1973 was started by Egypt (whom Israel had invaded in 1967)
        2006 was started by Hizbullah, but you can't say that Israel was exactly restrained in it's response...

        So please say something constructive rather than just spouting Israeli propoganda.
        • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -1/+41948 - who started the war is controversial and neither side probably "started" it, it was escalating, however, the other Arab nations interfered in a war that should have just been between the Jews and Palestinians

          1967 - Israel launched pre-emptive strikes on the Egyptian/Syrian air force, but that is because the Russians told them to mass their forces on Israel's border and prepare for war, USSR intelligence started it by lying to them Israel was preparing a war

          1973 - Sneak attack by Egypt on Yom Kippur, a holiday where Jews are using no electricity or telephones, yeah that is real honorable in a code of conduct.

          2006 - Israel probably did go overboard in the Lebanon war, but at the same time it sent a message to the Lebanese government that you have to accept responsibility for a small private army in your country holding your entire country virtually hostage by operating outside jurisdictions of Lebanese law.
  • Osirus1156, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Oh no a Nuclear reactor! What are we to do!?...
    • 1337d00d, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2when you have a reactor you can use it to make weapons grade nuclear material
      • Osirus1156, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1So? It's called M.A.D. and it's a good thing, it'll keep people from starting a nuclear war, unless they really do want to destroy the earth.
  • mfc5200, on 04/25/2008, -1/+17You know how they can convince me? Put the video on youtube. I'm not kidding. I'm only 23, but I remember my dad telling me something that was interesting.

    He was saying he knew the Iraq war was ***** from the start. How? They wouldn't come forth with the evidence, saying it was "classified" and releasing that evidence would endanger our national security. He then told me about the Cuban missile Crisis. With that situation apparently. They released the U-2 spy satellite photos, and all of the information they had. Hence people stood behind Kennedy at the time. The information he had, we had. They didn't pull any gay lines like, "If we release these photos, they will know how we got them, and this will impair our ability in the future."

    If this really is a democracy, then we the people need to have access to this type of information, because theoretically we are voting people into power who will deal with these issues and who have different strategies and how to do so. So if its our job to vote in competent people, then we need to be informed, otherwise we will be an stupid and uninformed electorate incapable of voting in competent politicians. No more of this "classified" ***** unless its absolutely important.

    For instance, I could see the names of U.S spies working abroad as appropriately appropriately being "classified" information. I don't see how a nuclear site in Syria using North Korean technology isn't. This is NOT the kind of stuff they should be talking about behind CLOSED DOORS like they did today. Absolute bullcrap.

    You want to convince all of us this is true? Put the videos and all the other information online.
    • Spartycus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I agree with you on the point of real disclosure would go a long way towards building real support for a real cause. However, there are times where its important to keep data classified. For instance, in this case full disclosure might involve revealing pictures taken from an operative in the facility, who is still functioning in the field. Those images could compromise his/her mission or even result in his/her death. Photos taken from a spy plane/satellite do not carry these same consequences.
    • dkapuchino, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6It's classified, because the Israelis classified it.
      The only way one could get videos of the reactor inside syria, would be to employ a Syrian spy, using advanced technology. Releasing the exact material could:
      A. Give clues to the Identity of the spy.
      B. Give clues as to how the technology works, allowing the Syrians(Russians) to develop counter measures.

      Israel classifies this material, yet allows it's American ally to go over it. The Americans are obliged to keep this secret, just as they expect any ally to keep intel they provide secret.
      • Shuukyoku, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Well, they don't want the North Koreans to know we have the tape, right? I mean, if all they do is announce recklessly to the world that they've seen the N. Koreans talking to Syria, then the N. Koreans don't know whether we've got the proof or not! And they damn well know we'll come breaking their door down with dubious claims and synthesized evidence. Because thats how Freedom rolls!

        Huh, Israel classified it. Wonder what they might possibly have against the Syrians.

        In the end though, it doesn't really matter much seeing as our military is so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't have a single battalion that is ready to deploy to anywhere else, so if the Koreans are planning on cooking the West Coast...well...I wont be around to complain about it.
        • akamurph, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2You're lame and get all your facts from sites like digg: "so bogged down in iraq and afghanistan we don't have a single battalion that is ready to deploy..."
    • IrwinFletcher, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5And the Kennedy administration sat on the U-2 photos for a while before releasing them to the public in the U.N. because they didn't want to disclose the aircraft's capabilities to the Soviets (they knew it existed, but they didn't know how good the photos it took were). And those photos were released for a purely political reason after Kennedy asked the Soviet ambassador if they were installing missiles in Cuba and he was lied to (Kennedy already knew the truth, he just wanted to see what the Soviets would do). So you're dad's not wrong, but it wasn't as if as soon as they got the film back from development they put them on display. The stakes there–global thermonuclear war–were a little higher during the Cuban Missile Crisis than during 'Dubbya & Dick's Bogus Journey.' As you may recall, then Sec of State Colin Powell tried a similar tactic at the UN, showing photos of alleged mobile chemical and biological facilities on trucks to the UN to get them to take action (photos that later were revealed to be inaccurate).

      But yes, I agree with your dad that Washington should have disclosed more info before March 2003.
    • sgglynn, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately our government does not want us to make informed decisions.
  • andrewlevy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8i can't imagine being a spy inside a Syrian nuclear reactor, straight out of a movie (referring to the pictures taken outside/inside the reactor)
  • callampa, on 04/25/2008, -7/+7if any other country in the world other than Israel was caught stealing out military secrets there would be hell to pay, instead we continue business as usual
    • woodrow8292, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Yeah because the Russians and Chinese have never spied on us or stolen our military info......The great "zionist conspiracy" continues........ zzzzzzz
  • heystoopid, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3Why all of a sudden , the stench of B***S*** , the many rotting dead fish and stale loaves of bread left behind in the UN Building in New York on February 6th , 2003 by the then US Secretary of State has gone way off scale , becoming very overpowering and obnoxious to the nth degree ! Thankfully it will remain like a dead stinking albatross hanging around his neck for eternity in all the history books too !

    Something very bad in the stench of fool many again for as long as possible yet again , is cooking off in the oval office and it is not as it should be of roast lame duck for the January 9th , 2009 departure day celebrations !
    • akamurph, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3wtf? Put the pipe down...
    • erkokite, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Gotta love those dead stinking albatrosses...
      An albatross? Seriously? This whole quote is a riot. It reads like something that Google Translator spit out. I applaud you.
  • andy314159pi, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Are they citing Curveball again?
  • Shuukyoku, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3So I'm torn. On the one hand, I have a feeling that this is another tale of the President who cried WMD's.

    Of course, if I remember correctly, at the end the wolf does come and eat all the sheep.
  • tierpinho, on 04/25/2008, -6/+10just more BS so israel and the US can blow the ***** out of iran and syria - wake up people and see the truth
  • Mpwns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4old news. harold and kumar saw this coming already.
  • Mollives, on 04/25/2008, -9/+4***** off America. You aren't the police of the world.
    • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Criminals are always the first to tell the police to ***** off...
    • akamurph, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5***** off Mollives, go back to that ***** you came from.
  • FairDinkumMate, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3If you could bet your house on this being true - would you?
  • StaticThunder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4They are just in Syria to shoot a movie. The Syrians refused to play the role of Syrians, so the N. Koreans, having nothing better to do, volunteered.
  • zerocool1990, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Pics or it didn't happen
  • solid12345, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Why is anyone surprised? Regardless of the ***** Bush has done in Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria are no laughing matter. This is a family where Hafez Assad, Bashar's father sent his whole army into the city of Hama and artillery shelled it for 3 days straight killing thousands of civilians to get back at the Muslim Brotherhood trying to assassinate him.

    It is a criminal, mafia-esque family and the Syrians deserve better, they are probably the most secular and most modernized people in the Arab world and they do not deserve to have their country become friends to religious terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah.
  • beersnob, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Buried because the source is the VOA (Voice of America) which is funded by the government. You can't trust the VOA any more than you can trust GW Bush!
    • DestroyFascism, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I trust Bush!



      (To be a jackass)
  • savagesteve13, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1Have we forgotten that ISRAEL attacked Syria in an open act of war??? This is turning into the next OJ trial.
  • jpmulli, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4All you young people that continually condemn America and its policies need to wise up and realize that should our country ever be struck with a nuclear weapon, a draft will be inacted immediately and all you whiners will be on the front lines and engaged in one hell of a war. You should rethink your positions and consider supporting our preemptive efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of our enemies and unstable regimes friendly to terrorist organizations.
  • lebaige, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Ah yes, I remember now why I stopped reading comments on political digg articles ..
  • mempko, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1By default i call ***** on this one
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.