Israel attacks "terrorist training camp" in Syria

Sparks

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Is this the same Israel that threatened to nuke Iraq if it fired any scud missiles at them in 1991???

Is it the same Israel that dropped "hints" that if the western powers didn't aid them in the event of a war, that there were a few warheads with their names stencilled in on them?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Is it the same Israel that dropped "hints" that if the western powers didn't aid them in the event of a war, that there were a few warheads with their names stencilled in on them?

Obviously I'm not surprised but I wasn't even aware of that. Do you have a link?

mr_angry

I wouldn't put anything past the Israeli government at this stage - Sharon is a nutjob.

The Israeli people don't seem to be too interested in reigning him in either...

*waits for torrent of abuse from Biffa about how the Israelis are so defenceless*

Allow me to say "Yeah, whatever" in advance.

tricky D

I dont think Israel will ever use a nuke.

so why bother making 200, jailing anyone who says anything, not bothering to report to the Int Atomic Agency?

interestingly during the six day war the USS Liberty was purposefully attacked by the IDF, the US thought it was the Egyptians for various reasons and the nukes were primed and in the air heading for cairo.
more interesting is that they were willing to bomb the Egyptians for not attacking and risk war with the ussr yet not the IDF for actually attacking. - a clear demo of the double-standards rife in this issue.

lotsa articles....
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22uss+liberty%22+%2Bnuclear&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

dathi1

I notice a lot of people here have voiced great support for the Palestinian struggle. I recommend joining or supporting the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Sign up to their newsletter at least and or recommend a friend who might be interested. Even a little help goes a long way.
http://www.supportpalestine.org

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
Obviously I'm not surprised but I wasn't even aware of that. Do you have a link?

'fraid not - that little tidbit came from an interview on the panorama documentary on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by dathi1
I notice a lot of people here have voiced great support for the Palestinian struggle. I recommend joining or supporting the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Sign up to their newsletter at least and or recommend a friend who might be interested. Even a little help goes a long way.
http://www.supportpalestine.org

Of course all names will be reported back to Quantico, Virginia. and your name will be on a search list should you ever travel to America.
All nice and legal now under the Patriot Act.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
'fraid not - that little tidbit came from an interview on the panorama documentary on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

OH yeah, I actually saw that but must have missed that part. I actually dug up a transcript online at some point.

ronano

I read to page 3 and had to stop,Biffa Bacon it's not that i disagree with your viewpoint it's just you lie to get your point across/blindsight to one person actions while condemming another.I think i'll write up my opinion of the whole thing either later or tomorrow,take care peeps

swiss

Originally posted by ronano:

it's just you lie to get your point across

Where is your proof of this? Note, you are not just saying that Biffa Bacon is wrong, you are accusing him of deliberately lying to us.

I suggest that you either provide evidence that proves your claim that Biffa lied (saying "oh he lied - I'll write up about it later" doesn't cut it) or else retract the statement altogether.

Mentioning that someone is blind to actions by a particular group is fine, as long as you back it up with some evidence why this is the case. Otherwise, you are passing off speculation as fact, and just like the US government, we're not going to accept something as 'fact' just because you assure us of it.

This is getting a little emotional, and people are starting to make accusations and exaggerations (I'm not just referring to ronano here). Keep it back on topic, and stick to the facts you know, not to those you think you know.

dathi1

Of course all names will be reported back to Quantico, Virginia. and your name will be on a search list should you ever travel to America

Considering that there are many American equivalents and I've been in and out of the states many time....you're talkin crap.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by dathi1
Considering that there are many American equivalents and I've been in and out of the states many time....you're talkin crap.

I think he was joking.
Well, more collateral damage today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3179838.stm
Obviously they needed to fire a missile from a helicopter gunship into a refugee camp to destroy a network of underground tunnels.

Hobbes

Originally posted by dathi1
Considering that there are many American equivalents and I've been in and out of the states many time....you're talkin crap.

If you travel to America you get put on a list. If you have a bank account in the US or transactions totalling 10,000 dollars in a year with the US you get put on a list.

There are numerous other things as well which will get you put on the list.

Of course being on the list doesn't mean anything. However lets say you shared a flight with known terrorists on 2-3 occasions (you didn't even have to talk to them) then it gets you moved up the list.

Or withdraw money at the wrong time which matches money moving in another area, up the list.

The only scary part really is in the US now you can be tried as a terrorist by association, and you don't even have to know the person is a terrorist.

mr_angry

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1156083#post1156083

As if by magic, Israel have gone and proven my previous remark about their threats true. Thanks for the link Hobbes.

Vader

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

If you’re suggesting that that’s what the Israelis are doing I reject that utterly. You think they just fire rockets into a crowd of civilians at random? This is what makes me want to puke in all these discussions about the Middle East – the vile moral equivalence. There is no moral equivalence between injury caused by the aggressor to the victim and injury caused by the victim to the aggressor. There is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately target civilians and those who seek to minimise civilian casualties in as far as is humanly possible. Why is it so hard for people to see that?

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless whether they are killed by the good or the evil and how can you say that Israel is the victum when they treat Arbs like animals and scuttled every peace process in its infancy.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
If you travel to America you get put on a list. If you have a bank account in the US or transactions totalling 10,000 dollars in a year with the US you get put on a list.

There are numerous other things as well which will get you put on the list.

Of course being on the list doesn't mean anything. However lets say you shared a flight with known terrorists on 2-3 occasions (you didn't even have to talk to them) then it gets you moved up the list.

Or withdraw money at the wrong time which matches money moving in another area, up the list.

The only scary part really is in the US now you can be tried as a terrorist by association, and you don't even have to know the person is a terrorist.

What list are you talking about? I don't even think you know how my govenment works let alone anything else about my country's history, governance, and political systems.

If you transfer money by a single transaction, either wire transfer or cashier check (I think Europe calls it a bank draft), in excess of $10000, the financial institution has the responsibility to file form 8300. It is not cummulative and it is not based on how much your account has. It only has to do with the transaction itself. The form was developed in the 1980's to counter the money laundering from drug cartels and it is only one tool the IRS has. This form is only a reporting document only and sent to the IRS. The IRS has the most protective taxpayer protection authority in the world. There is no list by some black govenrment organization for which you are referring to. If it is reported as "suspicious" activity from the financial institution, then the CI (criminal investigation) of the IRS investigates the transaction. There are several distinct ways in which to identify suspicious activity, but your assertion is not correct. For example, if the bank cannot determine where the money is coming from, then it may be reported as suspicious activity.

There is also no govenment system to report money withdrawls from ATM's or even through bank accounts. There is no system in the world designed for that. That is pure science fiction, Hobbes.

Finally, the assertion that being on the same flight as terrorists is absolutely rediculous. This is not accessory to murder or accessory to terrorism. There is no such thing on the government judicial codes. I have seen you put forth the changes based on the US code, but I do not believe you even know what they are really changing. With BCIS, if you come from certain countries listed before hand at the BCIS web site, then you will have to register. This is not a list, but a reporting requirement. I had to do the same thing when I travel overseas to certain countries. This is not unique nor it is designed for what you think might happen. As with the Moussaoui, the government, through the judicial system, has to establish beyond a reaonable doubt, that he knowingly knew of the plot, participated in the plot, and was intending to execute the plot. The trial is far from over and the government has a very difficult task in proving so. Other countries like Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, and other countries are puruing terrorists for the sake of their own populace and governance. These countries are not being forced to do this by the US government but by those who want to defy the local laws established in the land.

Vader

Well Geromino seeing as it is your country will you share your informed knowledge with us on the details of the Patriots Act and similar new acts and powers and clearify how the are not as cooercive or perversive as one might think.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
If it is reported as "suspicious" activity from the financial institution, then the CI (criminal investigation) of the IRS investigates the transaction.

.....

There is also no govenment system to report money withdrawls from ATM's or even through bank accounts. There is no system in the world designed for that. That is pure science fiction, Hobbes.

So, after telling us about suspicious account activity being reported to the IRS for criminal investigation, you go on to tell us that such a system of reporting suspicious account activity to governments is pure science fiction that doesn't exist....

That logic kinda speaks for itself really.....

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
So, after telling us about suspicious account activity being reported to the IRS for criminal investigation, you go on to tell us that such a system of reporting suspicious account activity to governments is pure science fiction that doesn't exist....

That logic kinda speaks for itself really.....

jc

No Bonkey, I was telling you if it was reported as suspecious activity. I was not telling you of some secret organization within the government that will arbitrarily go off and investigate an individual. However, even I do not have precise info on the proceedures that CI uses when dealing with money laundering. I know you cannot even find such proceedures in your own country as well. The said agency has beein investigating money laundering since 1913 when the IRS was created. The form as been around since the early 1980's and long before the Patriot Act came into being. It was specifically created to combat the electronic meney transfers that may be seen as suspecious.

Finally, as one poster put it, please give opinion as to what you know not what you think you know.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
No Bonkey, I was telling you if it was reported as suspecious activity.

OK - but the logic is clear - if a government wanted to get additional information, they would simply need to redefine what constituted "suspicious", thereby requiring a greater degree of reporting to them.

If you state, for example, that any ATM transaction over a certain value has to be reported as suspicious, then its no different to having previously required - as you have so well illustrated - that wire transfers over a certain value were reported as suspicious.

Given that ATMs are inherently centred around inter-bank-connected electronic accounting systems, it also follows that the process of obtaining such data is little more than writing a query to search the daily transaction logs to generate an output file.

Such a requirement is no more difficult to implement technologically than, say, the requirements for Visa membership, and as you have already argued, the government has, in the past, placed requirements on the banks to notify them of information the government has decided is noteworthy.

(In case you're wondering about any of this, I've worked as a developer for Credit-Card systems in a major Irish bank, which also involved interoperability with the ATM networks. These systems are commonplace, and central to the way modern banks work).

So it would seem that the entire thing is not particularly difficult to envisage given whats already in place but you are saying that its science fiction.

However, even I do not have precise info on the proceedures that CI uses when dealing with money laundering. I know you cannot even find such proceedures in your own country as well.

The process of investigation, as carried out by the government, is not a factor in this, as we are discussing the ability - or lack thereof as you claim - of the banks to be able to provide this information to the government, not what is done with it once it is received.

Finally, as one poster put it, please give opinion as to what you know not what you think you know.

OK. I know there was an apparent contradiction in your post, which I pointed out.

I still believe there is an apparent contradiction in that the system you say is existant would appear to be capable of covering the requirements of what you say is science fiction. My knowledge of banking systems supports this.

jc

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
No Bonkey, I was telling you if it was reported as suspecious activity. I was not telling you of some secret organization within the government that will arbitrarily go off and investigate an individual. However, even I do not have precise info on the proceedures that CI uses when dealing with money laundering. I know you cannot even find such proceedures in your own country as well. The said agency has beein investigating money laundering since 1913 when the IRS was created. The form as been around since the early 1980's and long before the Patriot Act came into being. It was specifically created to combat the electronic meney transfers that may be seen as suspecious.

Finally, as one poster put it, please give opinion as to what you know not what you think you know.

Wow even you can be wrong. Im still waiting for you to explain the Patriot act to me

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Wow even you can be wrong. Im still waiting for you to explain the Patriot act to me

And what makes you think you have more precise info than I do. I deal with govennment regulations on a consistent basis.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
OK - but the logic is clear - if a government wanted to get additional information, they would simply need to redefine what constituted "suspicious", thereby requiring a greater degree of reporting to them.

If you state, for example, that any ATM transaction over a certain value has to be reported as suspicious, then its no different to having previously required - as you have so well illustrated - that wire transfers over a certain value were reported as suspicious.

Given that ATMs are inherently centred around inter-bank-connected electronic accounting systems, it also follows that the process of obtaining such data is little more than writing a query to search the daily transaction logs to generate an output file.

Such a requirement is no more difficult to implement technologically than, say, the requirements for Visa membership, and as you have already argued, the government has, in the past, placed requirements on the banks to notify them of information the government has decided is noteworthy.

(In case you're wondering about any of this, I've worked as a developer for Credit-Card systems in a major Irish bank, which also involved interoperability with the ATM networks. These systems are commonplace, and central to the way modern banks work).

So it would seem that the entire thing is not particularly difficult to envisage given whats already in place but you are saying that its science fiction.

When you add a dozen major bank holding companies and several dozen smaller bank holding companies, each with their own encryption codes and internal reporting, then the assertion starts getting into the wilder side.

The process of investigation, as carried out by the government, is not a factor in this, as we are discussing the ability - or lack thereof as you claim - of the banks to be able to provide this information to the government, not what is done with it once it is received.

The investigation process is very much a factor. Banks notifying the appropiate government agencies is only part of the process. Banks will notify the govenment agencies when and only when the transaction is completed or about to take place. Banks do not audit personal accounts to see where the money is going to or how often a person makes a withdrawal. It is practically impossible to do so with major holding companies and almost impossible with the smaller bank holding companies. You might do it with a single bank not owned by a bank holding company. However, SEC, FDIC, and state regulations prohibit auditing personal accounts. Internal and external bank audits only account if assets equal liabiltiy and equity, or in other words, is the bank solvent.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
When you add a dozen major bank holding companies and several dozen smaller bank holding companies, each with their own encryption codes and internal reporting, then the assertion starts getting into the wilder side.

No, it doesn't.

In any computerised banking system , all it would take is an extract routine to a specified format, followed by a data-transfer mechanism which does not necessarily need to piggyback on existing architecture - it can have its own dedicated connection and its own dedicated black-box encryption.

As I've said, inter-financial communication such as to the major CC companies (Visa, Mastercard, Amex), as well as inter-bank communication (e.g. ATMs taking multiple bank's cards) have all dealt with this issue before, and it is not technically difficult.

The investigation process is very much a factor. Banks notifying the appropiate government agencies is only part of the process.

Dead right - it is only part of "the process" - the only part of the process which was being referred to. Hobbes said your name goes on a list, not that you were investigated.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
What list are you talking about? I don't even think you know how my govenment works let alone anything else about my country's history, governance, and political systems.

Read the USA Patriot Act

I am not talking about the IRS. Your information is forwarded to the FBI (or what remains of the now defunt TIA office). They updated the money laundering act with the PATRIOT act. It does not have be suspious activity to be reported.

So you are partly correct.

There is no list by some black govenrment organization for which you are referring to.

The list refers to whatever the name they use to maintain information on foriegn nationals.

There is also no govenment system to report money withdrawls from ATM's or even through bank accounts.

They can just pull the records from the banks under the PATRIOT act. Hardly science fiction.

Finally, the assertion that being on the same flight as terrorists is absolutely rediculous.

You would think that, but there have been such instances that being on a flight with someone else can get you in trouble in the US. The funniest (if you have kind of sense of humor) where a man was refused a flight for having a name of Osama Bin Laden in the US. The guy was a doctor. Three others were also not allowed fly on the same flight as they were of middle eastern decent.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
Read the USA Patriot Act

I am not talking about the IRS. Your information is forwarded to the FBI (or what remains of the now defunt TIA office). They updated the money laundering act with the PATRIOT act. It does not have be suspious activity to be reported.

So you are partly correct.

The list refers to whatever the name they use to maintain information on foriegn nationals.

They can just pull the records from the banks under the PATRIOT act. Hardly science fiction.

You would think that, but there have been such instances that being on a flight with someone else can get you in trouble in the US. The funniest (if you have kind of sense of humor) where a man was refused a flight for having a name of Osama Bin Laden in the US. The guy was a doctor. Three others were also not allowed fly on the same flight as they were of middle eastern decent.

This is only one place where I get my information

If you look at page 4, you will notice a few interesting items of note. One is that it directs the Department of the Treasury, which the IRS is a part of, for money laundering schemes. The others I will let you discover for yourself.

You can also look at this.

And how about this.

Some of these are rather long, but I saw no evidence of any "lists." In fact, it does talk about strengthening the surveillance and wiretap proceedures, something that it a little controversial, but again, it mentioned no list.

Hobbes

When I am talking about list. I am talking general intel kept on every foriegn national that has a dealing with the US (England does the same for the US and shares the information).

Don't think such a list exists?

The only real difference now is that the FBI have a lot more freedom over what information they can and cannot take.

Think that being in the same place as a terrorist is nothing to worry about if your not a terrorist? Then why does the USA PATRIOT act allow the FBI to take as much information as they like.

For example. A bookstore/libarary needed only hand over information on a customer if there was a warrent relating to that person. Now they have hand over thier whole database once a warrent under the PATRIOT act.

Granted some are trying to get some or all of the bill killed, but you got to love the new additions Bush wants. For example the death penalty for anyone who gives money to terrorism.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
When I am talking about list. I am talking general intel kept on every foriegn national that has a dealing with the US (England does the same for the US and shares the information).

Don't think such a list exists?

The only real difference now is that the FBI have a lot more freedom over what information they can and cannot take.

Think that being in the same place as a terrorist is nothing to worry about if your not a terrorist? Then why does the USA PATRIOT act allow the FBI to take as much information as they like.

For example. A bookstore/libarary needed only hand over information on a customer if there was a warrent relating to that person. Now they have hand over thier whole database once a warrent under the PATRIOT act.

Granted some are trying to get some or all of the bill killed, but you got to love the new additions Bush wants. For example the death penalty for anyone who gives money to terrorism.

Hobbes,
Have you heard of the phrase, "living in a glass house?" This is exactly what you are referring to. The "list" you keep talking about are protocols and proceedures that intel ops units operate under and given under the authority statues described by their laws. For example, you gave the instance that sitting next to a terrorist on an airplane will automatically get you on the list like a possible suspect. However, this is far from the case. If you have ever read any police investigative books, you would know that police or investigative authorities would interview all persons that have seen, heard, or observed their primary suspect or suspects in order to get a clear picture of their intentions, motives, actions, or threats. This could include family members, former classmates, co-workers, and neighbors, but it will also depend on the exact circumstances and facts to get a more precise picture on how they will investigate. You also gave examples of how the FBI has more authority to pull records. In reality, the FBI now has proceedures that coincide with todays technology. For instance, the FBI can wiretap an individual not a specific phone line. The FBI sitll has to get permission from the judge and the judge still has to base the decision on the evidence presented. If the individual is caught, the defense team will automatically move to dismiss the evidence presented. These laws and the checks and balances for criminal defense are still in tact. It is not that Orwellian as you have described. And having traveled extensively in Asia, I guess I am on some "list" from China to Japan to Indonesia to the Philippines. But I do not fear those agencies since I pretty much know what to expect and what not to expect.

Now, here is something else for you to consider: everybody spies on everybody. Yes, that's right. There are probably hundreds of spies in Dublin and Ireland right now as we speak. Of courrse, the probability of us knowing this is remotely slim.

Finally, what you are also speaking of can possibly happen, but not probably. It is just as possible that you can get killed while crossing the street or staying on the sidewald while a driver ignors all the traffic laws. However, the probability of this happening is remotely slim. So, what are you going to do? Will you stay at home out of fear and not go out?

Victor

Getting back to the original topic.

[/paranoid on] I wonder if this camp was used by people forming up to go to Iraq to fight the Americans and if the camp was attacked at the behest of the Americans, who would need "plausible deniability".[/paranoid off]