Brink of civil war in Lebanon

[Ace Pilot]

If the windows of that car are heavily tinted (as they appear to be in the photo), how would you confirm that your target was neutralized?

[Imperial Grunt]

Simple...fire a burst of automatic fire to clear a hole through the glass and disable/supress the occupants...then fire aimed shots into the target's head.

Less than 2-3 seconds. Even faster with something like a MP-5.

[Nidan1]

The vehicle in the picture is also modified, the glass on side windows of most normal cars shatters into a million shards at the slightest impact. The windows in this BBC picture appear to be shatterproof glass. Obviously this guy was living with threats, or maybe all Lebanese governemnt officials travel in modified vehicles.

[Peter Cairns]

But this makes no sense for the Syrians....

Hezbullah maybe,

Iran given the way the Israeli invasion took the heat off them, a possible,

AQ ( odd no ones mentioned them yet) have been the main beneficiaries of chaos in Afghanistan, and Iraq, so starting a sectarian Civil war is certainly up their strret,

and well although I doubt it Israel might be quite happy with one too, and they could easily have contacts and move a team into a christian area.

Before you blame Syria give me a good reason why.

Peter.

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You guys are all arguing about nothing. Kinda like arguing someone's dad is tougher than someone else's dad. It is clear that this latest assassination was extremely well planned and well executed. As Imperial Grunt outlined, it was also extremely brazen. Who cares which took more nerd power than the other? If I was in charge of the operations and I thought I could do it up close and personal, therefore ensuring my team hit the target, you bet I'd opt for an attack like today vs. a bomb attack. It wouldn't bother me a bit that some guys on a wargame forum would find it "unsophisticated".

The facts are facts. Someone wanted this guy dead and acheived that goal, including getting away clean. It was highly sophisticated and not amateurish in any way, shape, or form. It is also the type of assissination that is inline with dedicated professional killers, not militant religious fanatics. Whether it was actual Syrian operatives or Hezbollah's own elite killers TRAINED by the Syrians, we can't say which at the moment. But there is no way dout in my mind that Syria wasn't directly or indirectly involved in this. They want back into Lebanon and the only way in is with a Hezbollah take over of the government. Plain and simple.

Steve

Steve, I don't think anyone's intent was to compare dicks over who pulled the best hit. People are implying that the attack was too sophisticated to be a sectarian killing and must have been carried out by the elite forces of a foreign nation. Not surprisingly, given the political climate, there seems to be a great deal of willingness to conclude that only Syria must have executed the attack, even though we know hardly anything about it. People want for Syria to be fingered.

[rudel.dietrich]

Word is a machine pistol was used.

It explains the low damage done to the target and why the rounds did not get through the door even though they only had a automobile windshield to go through.

That would make sense, easily concealed.

You could probably even do a three person job.

One person drives a car and smashes target car.

Another person poses as a pedestrian and with a concealed machine pistol walks up to the stalled car and sprays the target through the window.

Both the gunner and the driver exfiltrate in the confusion and the crowd and no one gets a good look at them.

A few blocks away and meet up with the third member and a waiting car.

They drive off to a safe house and in 90 seconds you have just completed a professional style assasionation with a few weeks of planning and less than $100,000

I really need a new job. No wonder I cant get dates

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

The vehicle in the picture is also modified, the glass on side windows of most normal cars shatters into a million shards at the slightest impact. The windows in this BBC picture appear to be shatterproof glass. Obviously this guy was living with threats, or maybe all Lebanese governemnt officials travel in modified vehicles.

Glass does not shatter these days and has not for decades.

A automoble windshield is two pieces of glass with a sticky plastic sheet between them that keeps the glass from shattering onto the driver and passenger and cutting them.

A bullet would punch right through like in the picture and not shatter the glass.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Before you blame Syria give me a good reason why.

Because they want Lebanon back into their hands, one way or another. A stable democracy is absolutely not going to give them anything. Especially the current shakey form, which is decidedly anti-Sryian. Syria doesn't necessarily want to destablize Lebanon, though that might be fine with them. What they want is their pals in control. Last week it was made clear that wasn't going to happen democratically. The timing of this assassination is most likely linked with the rejection of Hezbollah's demands.

Also, remember that Hezbollah is trained and basically controlled by Syria. Even if Hezbollah was directly responsible for the killing, it was in some way facilitated by Syria. Hezbollah's leadership is in Syria, its forces are trained in Syria, and Syrian officials are embedded within Hezboallah within Lebanon itself. Syria is therefore, in no small way, responsible for anything that Hezboallah does. And if Syria disagrees with this point of view, then it would have to kick Hezbollah out of its country and cease aiding them in every way. Short of that, they are involved.

AKD, see above comments. There is pretty much no way to separate Hezbollah from Syria, Syria from Hezbollah. The nature of the hit looks more like Syrian special forces, not run of the mill religious fanatics. The level of sophistication is not an issue here. From a sophistication standpoint the poisioning of Putin's most vocal critic could have been done by an angry housewife from a technical standpoint, but nobody is seriously suggesting that is the case.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Imperial Grunt,

I was thinking more in terms of the kinds of massive protests, and by no means just in Lebanon, which drove Syria out of Lebanon in the first place and made it look really bad before the world. Clearly, it worked before, and Syria responded to that overwhelming pressure.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

But the timeing is all wrong, sure they want to control their neighbour, but the last assination cost them dear, and they were humiliated when they were made to withdraw. Add to that the threat of sanctions and the loss of income from the tens of thousands of Syrians who were working in the Lebanon as it boomed and the last few years have been pretty much a disaster.

Then we have the war with Israel which sees hezbullah rise in prominance and power, and gain wider respect even from Christains, and we have the UK and US courting them over Iraq, with a visit from the Iraq PM and the restoration of diplomatic links after 30 years.

The last thing Syria needs now when it is just climbing out of a hole, is to be pushed back in with a bag of rattlesnakes for good measure.

For syria to be behind this they need to be about the dumbest regime on earth.....

I don't like them or their methods, but they are not stupid, and by and large they are cautious about what they do.

They have reasons for wanting influence in the Lebanon, but how on earth anyone in Damascus could think this would increase it is beyond me.

Peter.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

The vehicle in the picture is also modified, the glass on side windows of most normal cars shatters into a million shards at the slightest impact. The windows in this BBC picture appear to be shatterproof glass. Obviously this guy was living with threats, or maybe all Lebanese governemnt officials travel in modified vehicles.

Glass does not shatter these days and has not for decades.

A automoble windshield is two pieces of glass with a sticky plastic sheet between them that keeps the glass from shattering onto the driver and passenger and cutting them. </font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by acrashb:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

The vehicle in the picture is also modified, the glass on side windows of most normal cars shatters into a million shards at the slightest impact. The windows in this BBC picture appear to be shatterproof glass. Obviously this guy was living with threats, or maybe all Lebanese governemnt officials travel in modified vehicles.

Glass does not shatter these days and has not for decades.

A automoble windshield is two pieces of glass with a sticky plastic sheet between them that keeps the glass from shattering onto the driver and passenger and cutting them. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

They have reasons for wanting influence in the Lebanon, but how on earth anyone in Damascus could think this would increase it is beyond me.

Their timing is excellent. Israel is in turmoil and humiliated over the failed assault on souther Lebanon. The US and Britain are completely out of the picture due to the mess in Iraq and the problems with Iraq. The formal investigation into the Hariri killing has not yet commenced, so it can be stopped. With the departure of 6 pro-Syrian ministers the coallition currently in power must go to elections if they lose 2 ministers. No, scratch that... 1 minister since yesterday they lost one. No exceptions for assissination. I wouldn't be surprised if another one were to be killed.

Syria is in a strong position today to do something about Lebanon. Tomorrow it might not be. Carpe diem.

And as I said before, there is no way (none) that Syria was not in some way responsible for the assassination. Either they did it with their own agents or it was done by agents they trained, with or without a direct command from Assad's government, almost certainly with its knowledge.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Someone should do a wargame with Syria as the setting

say a year or so in the future

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

But collapsing the government only made sense when the post invasion sentiment would see pro Syria hezbullah parties gain power in an election.

This act will unite the anti Syria parties and almost certainly make a pro Syrian government less likely, indeed it might even weaken their position and return a lebanese government with the will to disarm Hezbullah, the opposite of what Damascus wants.

If you think you will form a new government if this one falls then fine, but if bringing it down by assasination means it will be reborn stronger, it's a pretty daft thing to do.

Peter.

[Thomm]

The window was certainly not an ordinary one, because if it was it would look like this one:

Best regards,

Thomm

[akd]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

The window was certainly not an ordinary one, because if it was it would look like this one:

Best regards,

Thomm

Passenger side, same car:

http://i.today.reuters.com/misc/genImage.aspx?uri=2006-11-21T152129Z_01_L21814193_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE0.jpg&resize=full

[Battlefront.com]

News reports I heard was he used an ordinary rental car. He switched them every 48 hours because he suspected his life was in danger and that his armored car was too high profile a target.

This would seem to indicate, even more, that the assassins were extremely good. They not only had to know where he would be, but they had to also know what he would be driving. In my mind this explains why they used the up close and personal assassination method. It is far easier, from a logistics standpoint, to execute on short notice in an improvised setting.

Oh, and a reminder about the Hariri killing... that was not a precision bomb strike. IIRC it killed more than two dozen people and heavily damaged a city block. This tells me that they knew Hariri would be in a certain place at a certain time, but not specifically where his vehicle would park or even what his vehicle was. The bomb used was therefore designed to destroy everything in the area to ensure the target was hit. In other words, a hammer to kill an ant.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

But collapsing the government only made sense when the post invasion sentiment would see pro Syria hezbullah parties gain power in an election.

It makes no sense for Syria and Iran to be actively destabilizing Iraq, yet they are. So if you want to argue "sense" you'll have to first explain this away.

This act will unite the anti Syria parties and almost certainly make a pro Syrian government less likely, indeed it might even weaken their position and return a lebanese government with the will to disarm Hezbullah, the opposite of what Damascus wants.

First, no way will any government in Lebanon have the power to disarm Hezboallah without its consent. There would be civil war first, and I suspect Hezbollah would win. So this is a non-issue for the Syrians. Second, without risk there is no gain. If Syria and Hezbollah did nothing, the investigation into Hariri's death would certainly go forward. It is also probable that the current Lebanese government would become stronger and the people less likely to turn to radical alternatives. Radical groups do not thrive in stable democracies, they whither and die. If you think Hezbollah wants to die out, think again.

Therefore, it is a choice between an inevitable erosion of Syrian influence and support for Hezbollah (the do nothing approach) or taking some sort of action to undermine the current government. You might see the short term effects as being contrary to Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah goals, but they're taking the long view. The current path Lebanon is on is not going in their direction. Either they redirect events or they will be on the losing end. What they are doing now might not pay off, but it might. It's the chance that it will that is behind this.

If you think you will form a new government if this one falls then fine, but if bringing it down by assasination means it will be reborn stronger, it's a pretty daft thing to do.

The key word here is "if". "If" the current government collapses and loses its ability to fend off Hezbollah's attempts to gain sole control of the government, then Syria benefits. "If" Lebanon goes into civil war Hezbollah will likely come out on top, which benefits Syria. "If" the current government manages to survive this attack, and come out stronger, then Syria has lost nothing but time since that is the direction Lebanon is already moving towards.

I see the assassinations as quite logical and, in fact, desperate. But desperate moves sometimes pay off. Unless you have a crystal ball, and can prove me wrong on that point, then you must concede that this might wind up giving Syria what it wants.

Oh, and I see you still haven't addressed my point that Syria is in some way behind this, even if not directly. I assume this is because you know its a point that can't be refuted. So whether Syrian nationals in the direct pay of the Syrian government pulled the trigger or not is not relevant to assigning blame. Unless Syria takes some action to distance itself from its prodigy, then it is to blame for whatever it does. And of course it could be that Syria did the hit themselves.

Steve

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And as I said before, there is no way (none) that Syria was not in some way responsible for the assassination. Either they did it with their own agents or it was done by agents they trained, with or without a direct command from Assad's government, almost certainly with its knowledge.

Steve

Syrian nationals like me aren’t surprised at Steve’s stance and conjecture towards Syria, nor the similar stance of most members of this forum.

The motto around here has been: when in doubt, there is no doubt, Syria is the villain, assassin, instigator, perpetrator and facilitator, says Steve. “No way (none)” says the admin, after all, this is a country of mine he chose to invade through our PC screens, yet he denied it its most precious defense, civilian human shields and Toyota pickup trucks.

In the absence of hard evidence and convincing motives, at least let logic prevail. And logic would dictate Syria was not involved in the clipping of Pierre Gmayel for one simple reason, it was winning the war.

To perpetrate such a high profile assassination at a time when the Saniora government was reeling and about to collapse means managing to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, the act is senseless.

This assassination in effect prevented Syria and its Lebanese allies from going for the real kill, it has re-instated vigor and oomph in the Saniora/Harrri/Jumblat government and energized a hitherto comatose Christian Lebanese street.

This assassination turned the tables; whilst the pro Syrian forces were preparing and scheduled to hit the streets and finish the Saniora pro American government, it is the followers of the latter who usurped Beirut’s streets post assassination.

Syria’s desire to maintain a low profile at this juncture has also international implications. After its proxies eviscerated and humiliated Israel in Lebanon, and after Syria and Iran strategically defeated the US in Iraq, the US president was about to kiss the ass of Syria’s president. James Baker III had convinced Bush to pucker up, for the US is at a loss what else to try with Syria, none of its cowboy threats worked.

Then came the assassination, and Bush’s ass kiss now seems a bit distant along with everything else that was almost at hand. If the aim was to create chaos in Lebanon, I was in Beirut last week and the situation couldn’t have been more chaotic, assassination or not.

Inter-Christian factions assassinations aren’t alien to Lebanon, especially amongst prominent ruling families of the Maronite sect. The surreptitious machinations and brutality of this Christian sect are world renowned. After all, all these Christian leaders who kiss American ass today were yesterday’s warlords and assassins. They’re the assassins of the 70s, 80s and 90s, only now they’re out of their assassination fatigues and in Armanis.

Just like you cherchez la femme, cherchez la motive and benificiary of a crime. Syria, Hizbullah and their Christian ally, General Aoun are the biggest losers because of Pierre Gmayel’s slaying today. And Jumblat, Jaajaa (two well known assassins), Israel and France are the beneficiaries because they bought more time for a western puppet government in its last throws.

To have lost Lebanon today to the Syrian-Irano camp would’ve had disastrous implications for the Euro forces stationed in the south of the country, especially the French contingent.

When Abraham sacrificed Isaac, it was for the greater good of Christianity. Lebanon’s Christians felt the same on this one, they assassinated the son to give the rest of the flock a chance to survive and maybe prosper.

Happy Thanksgiving Day.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

The investigation will go ahead in some form whatever the Syrians do, so trying to stop it by force won't do them any good, it will only make matters worse.

You seem to have missed out Irans involvement with Hezbullah, it was them that provided the bulk of the rockets and support for the conflict in Israel as well as a lot of training, and they would have no need to fer the consequences of this attack.

As to not being in their interest to destabilise Iraq, get real, are you honestly saying that two nations earmarked as the "Axis of Evil" by the US want Iraq to be a pro-western Democracy armed and equipped by the US with perminant US bases in it.

A stable Iraq is about as good news for them as a nuclear Cuba is to the US. Iran wants Iraq to be as much as possible a shia dominated client state mirroring itself, it's got every reason to undermine it right now.

Syria in contrast has benefited hugely from the regeneration of the Lebanon in the last decade, it's a route round sanctions and a conduit to the west and capital, the prospect of a civil war that would see it reduced to rubble would be ruinous to an already struggling Syrian economy.

When the US decided to remove Saddam, it didn't expect it to cost what it has, and would have probably not done it if it had, the Syrians know from experience just what a civil war in Lebanon will cost, and they can't afford it.

A week ago, Syria was close to gaining power by default within a year or two on the back of Hezbullahs perceived success in the conflict with Israel, now it's back in the international dog house.

If no Syrian government can disarm Hezbullah, then why risk civil war. If as you say ( and this I agree with) it is currently going Syria's way, then why take the risk.

The Syrians have no need to adopt a high risk strategy Hezbullah is the voice of near two thirds of the population, and as a radical movement it might evolve and if it can hold support it can survive, the Iranians seem to be doing okay, as were the taleban till the invasion, Saddam and the Chinese got by okay too.

Over time they lost there radical edge, like the PLO, but I doubt anyone in Syria or Hezbullah is saying we must create chaos to keep ourselves radical, rather than take over the state and become an islamic republic.

If the want to keep their radical edge they can always fire ockets in to Israel.

As to the Syria must be involved because they arm and train Hezbullah, does that make the US responsible for Iraq's invasion of Iran, or what about the Falklands war, the US supported and armed the Argentinian junta.

If Syria has done this it is pretty close to incompetence ( which is possible), but I just don't like it when I can't see the logic of an action, it makes me uneasy, and almost every way I look at this Syria was stronger before this than after.

At the end of the day if I was Syria I wouldn't have done it, and I get the impression that if you were Syria you would have, as you seem to think it was a good move worth the risk......

Peter.

[ November 23, 2006, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and a reminder about the Hariri killing... that was not a precision bomb strike. IIRC it killed more than two dozen people and heavily damaged a city block. This tells me that they knew Hariri would be in a certain place at a certain time, but not specifically where his vehicle would park or even what his vehicle was. The bomb used was therefore designed to destroy everything in the area to ensure the target was hit. In other words, a hammer to kill an ant.

Steve

Steve,

Hariri's moving convoy was targeted with a very large, prepositioned 1000 Kg.+ TNT charge. In the words of the UN commission:

7. It is the Commission’s view that the assassination of 14 February 2005 was carried out by a group with an extensive organization and considerable resources and capabilities. The crime had been prepared over the course of several months. For this purpose, the timing and location of Mr. Rafik Hariri’s movements had been monitored and the itineraries of his convoy recorded in detail.

That was a very precise and carefully timed hammer.

[Battlefront.com]

LoneSyrian ,

I'd like to be the first to welcome you, as our first confirmed Syrian, to the Forums. Always remember that we draw a very hard line of distinction between the people of a country and its government. As an American living at a time with one of the worst US governments of modern times (as perceived by pretty much the whole world, including our allies) I would be a hypocrite if I didn't feel this way. I don't want to be judged as a Human based on my government any more than I am sure you don't want to be based on the government in your homeland. Most people likely feel the same, more or less, all around the world. Now, with that out of the way...

Syrian nationals like me aren’t surprised at Steve’s stance and conjecture towards Syria, nor the similar stance of most members of this forum.

The problems in the world today are caused by governments and religions, not individual people. The problems in the Middle East are the result of many governments and many religions trying to pursue their own agendas without taking into consideration what benefits the region as a whole. The governments of both Assads are certainly guilty of this as are many other governments. But when we look at Lebanon specifically, Syria has more responsibility than most for the problems that are happening there.

In the absence of hard evidence and convincing motives, at least let logic prevail. And logic would dictate Syria was not involved in the clipping of Pierre Gmayel for one simple reason, it was winning the war.

Governments and logic often do not go hand in hand. Was it logical for the US to arm Iran with high tech weapons in exchange for the hostages it held? Hardly, but it did it just the same. And some of those weapons, incidentally, were used against Israel in the recent incursion into Lebanon. So don't be so sure about logic, as you see it, trumping other factors.

As I said, Hezbollah is principally trained and supplied by Syria. Therefore, Syria is responsible in part, or more, for whatever Hezbollah does. Just like the US is held responsible, in part or more, for whatever Israel does. Iran is also a key player here (no Peter, I have not forgotten this), but since all aid to Hezbollah from Iran comes through Syria, once again that puts Syria in a position of responsibility. If it can not control Hezbollah, that does not make it any less responsible for its actions.

In the US if you abuse your dog and make it vicious, then you don't keep it away from other people, you are legally responsible for any attacks that dog may do unto others. It's a simple principle that applies equally here.

To perpetrate such a high profile assassination at a time when the Saniora government was reeling and about to collapse means managing to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, the act is senseless.

Not necessarily, as I outlined above.

This assassination in effect prevented Syria and its Lebanese allies from going for the real kill, it has re-instated vigor and oomph in the Saniora/Harrri/Jumblat government and energized a hitherto comatose Christian Lebanese street.

The assassination of Hariri was, in hindsight, a terrible mistake from the Syrian and Hezbollah perspective, and all indications are that they were responsible. Never, ever underestimate the ability for a government to act incompetently and short sightedly. Just look at Iraq if you have any doubts.

Syria’s desire to maintain a low profile at this juncture has also international implications. After its proxies eviscerated and humiliated Israel in Lebanon, and after Syria and Iran strategically defeated the US in Iraq, the US president was about to kiss the ass of Syria’s president. James Baker III had convinced Bush to pucker up, for the US is at a loss what else to try with Syria, none of its cowboy threats worked.

Very true. This is the strongest argument against Syria's direct involvement I've seen so far. But that doesn't rule it out. Again, incompetence is a hallmark of governments and Assad's regime is not immune from miscalculations. However, remember what I said about Hezbollah... if they were involved, Syria is at least partly to blame.

Inter-Christian factions assassinations aren’t alien to Lebanon, especially amongst prominent ruling families of the Maronite sect. The surreptitious machinations and brutality of this Christian sect are world renowned. After all, all these Christian leaders who kiss American ass today were yesterday’s warlords and assassins. They’re the assassins of the 70s, 80s and 90s, only now they’re out of their assassination fatigues and in Armanis.

I would not rule out an inter-Christian assassination, though it is illogical too. They have more at risk than anybody else. If Hezbollah gains control of Lebanon, the fate of the Christians there will be (at best) unknown. So why risk making things worse? But then again, I find all acts of violence in the pursuit of political goals to be illogical because, sooner rather than later, it fails to achieve the desired end result.

The fact is this was a deliberate assassination. Someone thought that such an act would further their cause. However, it is an incredibly risky move for any side to have done this. The future is always uncertain, but when you have chaos already, more chaos usually makes things less certain instead of more certain.

What you have not mentioned is Hezbollah's possible benefits from the assassination. As I outlined above, this could have been perceived as the way to kick the opponent when he is down. Logic and good common sense do not have to apply here, especially since logic and common sense are not universal truths. What is logical to one way of thinking is illogical to another. I can easily see how Hezbollah could think that, logically, they could benefit from this act. I can even see how Syria, weighing everything together, could come to the same conclusion. It could also be that a rogue element within either decided to do this on its own. History is full of such examples, so I wouldn't rule it out either. However, if the assassination has anything to do with either Hezbollah or Syria, then the Syrian government is in no small way responsible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

The investigation will go ahead in some form whatever the Syrians do, so trying to stop it by force won't do them any good, it will only make matters worse.

The trial of Saddam was going to happen regardless, yet judges and lawyers were assassinated. As I said above, do not presume that logic is at work here.

You seem to have missed out Irans involvement with Hezbullah, it was them that provided the bulk of the rockets and support for the conflict in Israel as well as a lot of training, and they would have no need to fer the consequences of this attack.

I have not forgotten this at all. It could very well be that Iran is involved too. It is also true that if Hezbollah did this act, on its own, Iran shares responsibility as does Syria. But without Syria's direct support, Hezbollah would be cut off from Iran for the most part. Those weapons you spoke of were flown from Iran to Syria and them moved over by land. Iran's responsibility for Hezbollah is major, no doubt about it, but Syria's is critical.

As to not being in their interest to destabilise Iraq, get real, are you honestly saying that two nations earmarked as the "Axis of Evil" by the US want Iraq to be a pro-western Democracy armed and equipped by the US with perminant US bases in it.

Any expert on the Middle East will tell you that an unstable Iraq is not in the interests of either Syrian or Iranian governments. What each wants is a stable extension of their own policies. Radicalizing and militarizing these areas absolutely runs counter to this.

Syria in contrast has benefited hugely from the regeneration of the Lebanon in the last decade, it's a route round sanctions and a conduit to the west and capital, the prospect of a civil war that would see it reduced to rubble would be ruinous to an already struggling Syrian economy.

Logically the Syrians would not be going into further debt to arm themselves with military equipment they logically would never be able to use effectively. Yet they are going ahead and getting the stuff anyway and their domestic economic problems be damned. The Middle East boils down to a big game for these states. Logic is often bent to fit. I will demonstrate this point...

When the US decided to remove Saddam, it didn't expect it to cost what it has, and would have probably not done it if it had, the Syrians know from experience just what a civil war in Lebanon will cost, and they can't afford it.

Wrong. The US got its ass kicked in Vietnam and half a dozen failed Nation Building exercises. Bosnia and Kosovo also showed it how difficult, and long term, nation building is even in an area that is largely similar to the cultures doing the occupying. The US military, not surprisingly, recommended several hundred thousand troops over many years would be needed to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. The Middle East experts also warned that the US forces would be seen as occupiers and not liberators. Reconstruction experts also emphasized the importance of getting locals to do the rebuilding work, for both unemployment and empowerment reasons (not to mention they do it for less cost).

ALL of this was known BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, in addition to the knowledge that the case for war was fiction more than fact. Yet the war was waged anyway. Why? Because it was logical to the small group of people that wanted the war in the first place. Logic, in their mind, was an unfounded belief that their own abilities and their own intelligence would be enough to get what they wanted. And they were very, very wrong.

If no Syrian government can disarm Hezbullah, then why risk civil war. If as you say ( and this I agree with) it is currently going Syria's way, then why take the risk.

There are no guarantees in life, yet everybody seeks them. It is quite possible, and even logical, that Hezbollah/Iran/Syria figured that they were in a position of strength and that this assassination would strengthen their hand. It makes no difference if it turns out that way, because as I've already clearly demonstrated it only matters what they thought at the time they did it.

As to the Syria must be involved because they arm and train Hezbullah, does that make the US responsible for Iraq's invasion of Iran, or what about the Falklands war, the US supported and armed the Argentinian junta.

Yes and yes (though to a lesser extent). The US government gave Iraq the political and military backing to engage Iran in combat. So yes, it is absolutely culpable. As it was, ironically, for the invasion of Kuwait and whatever pretext there was for the OIF. The US is also largely to blame for the Iranians pursuing and securing nuclear technology, since it was actively involved in setting the Shaw up with the same capability. As for the Falklands, it's not as strong since most of the support was quite aged by the time the war happened. France had been the prime supplier of the weapons used against the British.

If you look up the definition of Responsibility in the dictionary, you will see that there is no way a nation can arm another nation and then claim no culpability in the actions that follow. There are greater and lesser degrees of responsibility, for sure, but it is still there. In the case of Syria, since it is currently and vigorously arming, training, and funding Hezbollah the ties of responsibility are extremely strong.

If Syria has done this it is pretty close to incompetence ( which is possible),

The word "incompetence" is used quite liberally and accurately here in the US as applied to the Bush Admin and the nearly out of office Congress. I fail to see how a 3rd rate dictatorship is somehow exempt from overplaying its hand or otherwise doing something stupid.

At the end of the day if I was Syria I wouldn't have done it, and I get the impression that if you were Syria you would have, as you seem to think it was a good move worth the risk......

No, I think it is possible for the Syrians to see it this way. I personally think the only logical way for Syria to go is to create a democratic society and to seek to better its neighbors instead of controlling them. But that logic certainly is lost on the Assad government.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Hariri's moving convoy was targeted with a very large, prepositioned 1000 Kg.+ TNT charge.

The sophistication came in knowing where the convoy was going to be and roughly when. The other part was getting such a huge amount of explosives in place and undetected. The rest is easy. Iraqi Insurgents hit and kill moving targets in Iraq pretty much every day, and their level of sophistication is often as crude as it gets.

Steve