YankmeCrankme: "First, just because someone BELIEVES they are under deadly threat from someone or something does not mean they are. By extension, if I believe you present a deadly threat to me does that mean I can pre-emptively kill you?"
You are confusing several constructs in these two sentences - what people are permitted to do according to rules we establish to make life easier and less violent - and what people actually do - following their desire to survive. When people violate the rules designed to reduce violence - then their enemies will do what they need to do in order to survive - and understandably, violence is often the result. This event is a good example of that.
The point is that if someone
believes they under deadly threat - they will do something to remove or reduce that threat if they can. This has nothing to do with international rules. It is human nature. We are deigned by evolution to do that - as are all higher animals. Those of our ancestors who did not do that - or who did it poorly - generally did not survive as well to reproduce and their genes are generally not found in our nervous system today. It is the
belief of the threat that controls behavior - not the reality. A belief is someone's interpretation of reality. Perhaps Mr. Spock would act differently but humans don't.
YankmeCrankme: "Second, why does Syria have to clear every planned construction project through Israel? Does Israel own the world now?"
Who said they had to do that? I said, if the facility had an innocent purpose then they would be smart to let Israel know somehow to prevent the possibility of an attack. They could have reduced the potential for Israel to see it as a threat. As I said, if you say you're going to kill someone and then act in threatening ways - don't whine if they hit you first.
YankmeCrankme: "Thirdly, why should they have to invite the IAEA in to inspect every construction project to prove its not a nuclear building? Does Israel invite the IAEA to come in and inspect their nuclear sites? NO! They don't allow any regulatory agency to inspect their secret projects or nuclear facilities."
Of course Syria doesn't "have to" do that - although the NPT specifies that any construction that could have any nuclear purpose must be described beforehand and open to IAEA oversight and inspections. As in the above response - I said it was just smart to do so - as in their own interest. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and the IAEA has no jurisdiction over Israeli nuclear projects. Syria is. In addition, Israel has never attacked an Arab state except in defense and has never threated to do so. Israel has been attacked repeatedly by Arab states including Syria with the stated attempt to destroy the state of Israel. (This statement only applies to objective observers. You should probably ignore it. Please don't try to refute it. It's not worth my time to respond.)
Added on edit: I suspect the reason Syria did not take these steps is that they "believed" that the billions they spent or Russian anti-aircraft systems would prevent the IDF from getting a good look at the installation or successfully attacking it. Their belief turned out to be unfounded and they paid the price for that.
Syria signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1969. It took this step to obtain the political and technical benefits that come from signing the treaty. In the aftermath of its losses in the Six Day War, Syria felt that it needed broader support from the international community to guard against Israeli acts of aggression. Additionally, the government wanted to take advantage of technical assistance from the IAEA and its member states that is only available after a state signs the NPT.
In 1979, Syria established its Atomic Energy Commission (AECS) largely to manage IAEA assistance programs and to plan for the eventual development of a nuclear power program. In 1983, the IAEA assisted Syria in establishing an analytical laboratory that was equipped with systems for atomic spectrometry and various other experiments. Five Syrian scientists were trained in Hungary, the United States, Yugoslavia, and Austria as a part of the project. Also in 1983, Syrian and Soviet scientists carried out a joint study on the construction of a nuclear power reactor in Syria. This study was part of an IAEA cooperative assistance project to help Syria understand the requirements for developing and maintaining a nuclear program.
Although Syria has probably never attempted to indigenously build nuclear weapons, there have been rumors that it might be interested in obtaining such weapons to deter an Israeli nuclear weapons threat. In fact, in 1986, when questioned on his opinion of the Israeli nuclear arsenal, Syrian Chief of Staff General Hihmet Al-Siabi suggested that Syria would strive to achieve strategic equality with Israel including nuclear parity.<1>
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Nuclear/index.html Hopefully this post will answer all the responses to my first post.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
