Comments on: Marines in Action in Syria?

By: noah

noah — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:14:10 +0000

Actually I think American public opinion would support action against Syria which most percieve as part of the problem of the ‘insurgency’ which has caused so much loss of life both coalition and Iraqi.

This would the much needed notice to Syria. Next…airstrikes.

By: Green Grunt

Green Grunt — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:17:31 +0000

Syria is most deffinetly a problem that needs to be addressed, however the clearance for a cross border incursion would need to come from the National Command Authority and i feel with all of the problems on the presidents plate right now this type of action would be highly unlikely. I remember the Cambodia incursion in 1970 and the similarities would be to great.

By: Hafiriti

Hafiriti — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:52:27 +0000

Syria is not safe from american retaliation. This time Debka is wrong. American special forces are still mapping the borderlands for decisive action. When it comes, it will come with armor and air support.

By: Salamantis

Salamantis — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:12:49 +0000

The first commenter asserted that Debka was like Israel’s Drudge Report; I think of Debka as Israel’s version of the Northeast Intelligence Network – often ahead of the curve, but occasionally off the mark.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/home.htm

By: moptop

moptop — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:12:59 +0000

A lot of times, even Debka’s stories that don’t pan out get you to think about important angles of a situation. Life is about probabilities and outcomes, not certainties and “just so” reasons for things.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:51:29 +0000

I don’t doubt that mainstream media reporters are not in position to report on battles near the Syrian border. However, when Pravda is the only confirmation of a story, that’s almost worse than no confirmation.

One wonders what the alien invasion fleet Pravda reported on last week would think of Debka’s reliability…

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:47:59 +0000

Debka places a premium on firstness, and may thus bollox a report every so often. But it’s very rare. It’s an excellent source, by and large—much more valuable than our Pravda, the NYTimes.

By: JDZ

JDZ — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:57:41 +0000

Since no further confirmation has been forthcoming on this one, I’ve been feeling distinctly uncomfortable about having forwarded it to Glenn myself, especially since this item is NYM’s first Instapundit link.

Still, with the Pravda article as well, it’s hard to see as viable the choice of not reporting this story.

By: Jon Lester

Jon Lester — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:39:53 +0000

Debka is right more often than not, in my experience, and sometimes I realize they’re right about particular items well after they’re reported.

Granted, being that it’s basiclaly two reporters working their myriad sources all the time, they might not always put the pieces into the correct puzzle, but it’s always worth a look. Definitely at least as dependable as the American MSM.

By: bb

bb — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:37:21 +0000

Debka is an interesting but unreliable site as you noted. I made the mistake a few years ago of sending an email to Glenn Reynolds with a link to Debka without pointing out that fact and he posted the story, that turned out to be false, and link and I always regretted that I wasn’t more careful to give a warning to Glenn about the nature of the site.

I was turned on to it by an Israeli friend who takes it as gospel but over time I found that there is a lot of wishful thinking and conspiracy theorizing that goes into the postings.

It makes for interesting reading though.

By: JDZ

JDZ — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:02:21 +0000

I think Drudge is more reliable than Depkafile, but we couldn’t overlook the possibility this report was true.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:39:06 +0000

DEBKAFile is the Drudge Report of Israel!