PDA

View Full Version : US Troops Enter Syria, 8 killed.


Astor
10-27-2008, 01:07 PM
US Forces entered Syria without authorisation the other day, and killed 8 people - who may or may not have been terrorists (indeed, some reports indiciate four children were among the dead).

Any comments regarding the validity of these sources will be ignored - and I would really like it if we can keep the discussion on the raid.

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444199,00.html)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/27/syria.iraq/index.html)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm)
Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102716234134944.html)

How much longer can the world just sit by and let America do whatever the hell it feels like? What's the point of having international borders when US troops are willing to ignore them?

I agree that terrorism needs to be stopped, but actions like these are only going to draw more into their ranks - even if it's done in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-27-2008, 01:15 PM
US Forces entered Syria without authorisation the other day, and killed 8 people - who may or may not have been terrorists (indeed, some reports indiciate four children were among the dead).

Any comments regarding the validity of these sources will be ignored - and I would really like it if we can keep the discussion on the raid.

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444199,00.html)
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/27/syria.iraq/index.html)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm)
Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102716234134944.html)

How much longer can the world just sit by and let America do whatever the hell it feels like? What's the point of having international borders when US troops are willing to ignore them?

I agree that terrorism needs to be stopped, but actions like these are only going to draw more into their ranks - even if it's done in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.them's sound like fightin words to me http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=2196








http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=1820







this has been an accurate portrayal of us foreign policy since the bush administration took power thank you for reading.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 01:56 PM
Didn't we end up killing an Al Qaeda leader in the raid? Seriously, Syria has been letting Al Qaeda operate on their border, cross into Iraq and try to kill civilians as well as our troops.

Offhand, that could also be considered an act of war.

mimartin
10-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Yet, when someone suggests the same thing in Pakistan, they are considered by the right loony tunes. :rolleyes:

While I don’t like the idea of violating another country’s borders, if that county is allowing terrorist safe haven then I see no other choice. How much longer can the world just sit by and let America do whatever the hell it feels like? Quit loaning us money and it will stop rather quickly. What's the point of having international borders when US troops are willing to ignore them? Well we could ask the terrorist to stop crossing the borders when the U.S. is trying to kill them.

Web Rider
10-27-2008, 02:27 PM
What's the world gonna do about it? They don't do anything about anyone right now much less the US.

That said I certainly don't approve of these kinds of actions. Which is why I want this war over with ASAP. Obviously if we have the time to strike outside of Iraq, the Iraqi's have the ability to defend themselves. If we're gonna stay in the Middle East, lets get back to getting Bin Laden.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 02:41 PM
What's the world gonna do about it? They don't do anything about anyone right now much less the US.

That said I certainly don't approve of these kinds of actions. Which is why I want this war over with ASAP. Obviously if we have the time to strike outside of Iraq, the Iraqi's have the ability to defend themselves. If we're gonna stay in the Middle East, lets get back to getting Bin Laden.

Considering they don't have an airforce, I sincerely doubt they are currently ready to defend themselves.

Also while I don't exactly like these strikes into other countries, I do think in this case it was necessary. I'm going to suggest that the Syrian government should patrol their own border better so that Al Qaeda doesn't sneak across the Syrian border into Iraq all the time.

JediMaster12
10-27-2008, 04:23 PM
The sad truth of the matter is the world really can't do anything. Currently the US is the superpower in the world. You want an example? Well out of the six major telecommunication centers, four are based in the US. The other two are in Germany and Japan. The US has major interests in just about every part of the world.

Ever since WWII, the US has been involved in some sort of war and often times it has nothing to to with us though it was made out to be one. At the end of the Vietnam war, our military engagements have been done under the term of humanitarian works. This so called "war on terror" is nothing more than a powerplay and a costly one at fact that people agree on because of Sept. 11 events.

Here is a clip that probably gives some perspective as to why we the US think we can illegally move in countries like Syria.
Globalization (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qVNpbT24hc)

mur'phon
10-27-2008, 04:27 PM
Wonderfull, now it'll be much easier to persuade Syria to help fighting terrorism, and stop medling in Lebanon:rolleyes:

Aristotélēsticus
10-27-2008, 05:47 PM
Wonderfull, now it'll be much easier to persuade Syria to help fighting terrorism, and stop medling in Lebanon:rolleyes:

excuse me but I fail to see how killing 8 people "who may or may not have been terrorists" is a wonderful thing!

Syria has been letting Al Qaeda operate on their border, cross into Iraq and try to kill civilians as well as our troops.

I wont use the verb "letting" if I were you; this implies that it was in the Syrian Government's intentions to "let" terrorist cross into Iraq, whereas illegal immigrants are crossing the borders of almost every country in the world, so why does the US Gov think Syria has the full ability to prevent this? another important thing, Syria has recently suffered two terrorist attacks persumingly performed by Al Qaeda.

While I don’t like the idea of violating another country’s borders, if that county is allowing terrorist safe haven then I see no other choice.

again, you don't know if this is really what's going on, all what we have is Bush's words and history tells not to fully believe this man. Still I agree with you that no country has the right to violate another country's borders.

The sad truth of the matter is the world really can't do anything.

true, which ironically leads me to question the significance of debating over such issues, knowing that no matter how we speak, man will never learn to live with man.

mimartin
10-27-2008, 06:12 PM
again, you don't know if this is really what's going on, all what we have is Bush's words and history tells not to fully believe this man. Still I agree with you that no country has the right to violate another country's borders.
Agreed, but that is why I used the word if. :xp:

Astor
10-27-2008, 06:21 PM
Seriously, Syria has been letting Al Qaeda operate on their border, cross into Iraq and try to kill civilians as well as our troops.

I don't think that Syria is 'letting' Al Qaeda do anything - Al Qaeda don't exactly operate in the realms of law and decency, after all.

While I don’t like the idea of violating another country’s borders, if that county is allowing terrorist safe haven then I see no other choice.

I agree that the terrorists should be stopped, but there were plenty of options here, that didn't involve violating borders - why not approach the Syrian government for a joint operation? That surely would have been a better option that just flying into Syria and shooting at anything.

Quit loaning us money and it will stop rather quickly.

I'll phone Brown and see what he thinks :xp:.

mimartin
10-27-2008, 06:34 PM
I agree that the terrorists should be stopped, but there were plenty of options here, that didn't involve violating borders - why not approach the Syrian government for a joint operation? That surely would have been a better option that just flying into Syria and shooting at anything. Oh, I agree, this plan of operation is in my opinion is only creating more terrorist.

However, if after exhausting diplomatic solutions a country will not offer cooperation then I am not above operating behind another country’s borders. I would like more assurances from the military and the administration that they are doing everything possible to eliminate civilian casualties. I’m sure they are, but I would like to know what the administration considers acceptable civilian losses. I would hope it is closer to zero than eight.
I'll phone Brown and see what he thinks :xp:. You may want to call China’s leadership too.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 08:08 AM
Here is a clip that probably gives some perspective as to why we the US think we can illegally move in countries like Syria.
Globalization (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qVNpbT24hc)

You do realize that they were at the very least turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda using their border as a staging ground, and more likely they were actively helping Al Qaeda attack Iraqi Civilians and US troops, so at the very least we're looking at more of a gray area here.

I'm wondering why the heck they gave Al Qaeda sanctuary in their country, that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

mur'phon
10-28-2008, 11:25 AM
Because when someone capable of turning your country into a bloddy mess and kill you and your entire family, tells you "leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone" it's clear what is the easier decision.

@Arist: the :rolleyes: is there for a reason:)

JediMaster12
10-28-2008, 01:18 PM
Of course it could be just wishful thinking that supposed Al-Qaida terrororists were unknonw terrorists to the Syrians. However it could be a matter of as mur'phon pointed out that the gun was pointed at Syria's face and they found it easier to comply. Doesn't justify the US's wanton roaming in the Middle East though. Reminds me of the whole thing on WMDs, the ones that didn't exist...

Aristotélēsticus
10-28-2008, 01:43 PM
Because when someone capable of turning your country into a bloddy mess and kill you and your entire family, tells you "leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone" it's clear what is the easier decision.

@Arist: the is there for a reason

so let me get this straight; your reply is based on a personal issue that has nothing to do with our current discussion, am I right? please correct me if Im wrong.

I'm wondering why the heck they gave Al Qaeda sanctuary in their country, that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

again we dont know if they are allowing Al Qaeda to operate from within their borders, and frankly I cannot find this accusation rational. still there is no reason that may justify such an action, the US governments and all governments alike should learn to respect other countries.

Of course it could be just wishful thinking that supposed Al-Qaida terrororists were unknonw terrorists to the Syrians.

I understand that mostly none of us read the whole posts, but I presume that you know that Syria suffered two Al Qaeda attacks last months-- as I have stated in my previous post. I know what you're at but I was just referring to the absurdity of such wishful thinking.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:34 PM
again we dont know if they are allowing Al Qaeda to operate from within their borders, and frankly I cannot find this accusation rational. still there is no reason that may justify such an action, the US governments and all governments alike should learn to respect other countries.


Well considering we've tried to get them to go after Al Qaeda in their own country for a while now, it's safe to say they knew Al-Qaeda was there.

Ztalker
10-28-2008, 03:37 PM
Well considering we've tried to get them to go after Al Qaeda in their own country for a while now, it's safe to say they knew Al-Qaeda was there.

You never KNOW. You can only suspect. If the country doesn't stand up, they don't see a reason to do so. Why run in and do it yourself?

If every nation would enter countries based on suspicion...not good.

Plus: Statement to the terrorist is, imo, VERY clear. Don't mess with the US.

Jae Onasi
10-30-2008, 02:32 PM
There's quite a bit of intelligence noting Al-Qaeda is operating in Syria--we've been dealing with them crossing back and forth across the Iraqi border for years now. We've been trying for years through diplomatic channels to urge Syria to deal with the terrorists.

Salzella
10-30-2008, 03:46 PM
I thought this editorial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/29/usa-bush-syria-elections was quite interesting with regards to that, though I don't know enough about it myself to comment.

Corinthian
10-30-2008, 03:50 PM
When words fail, give your faith to the gun. The Syrians can't clean up their own mess, so now, we're doing it for them.

Aristotélēsticus
10-31-2008, 04:28 AM
When words fail, give your faith to the gun. The Syrians can't clean up their own mess, so now, we're doing it for them.

this suffices in a movie, not in real life. you have to pursue diplomacy, and like I've noted two times before, Al Qaeda has recently attacked Syria twice, which leave us to questioning the accusations against Syria.

like Ztalker has said,

If every nation would enter countries based on suspicion...not good.

this is the rule, no matter how bad the situation is. and if one is blaming Syria for "letting" Al Qaeda to cross its borders, well blame Spain, the UK, and even the US for Al Qaeda's most major strikes, then come to realize that a small and not too powerful country like Syria may not be able to accomplish what stronger countries failed at.

Corinthian
10-31-2008, 04:49 AM
Diplomacy is overrated. Besides, in the real world, diplomacy is the silk glove. You wear it alongside the iron gauntlet. We tried diplomacy with them - see Jae's post - and they failed to properly deal with the issue. So now, we're taking the issue out of their hands.

If non-coms died, that's unfortunate, but this is war. Just War is not applicable in modern warfare. Never has been, never will be. That's the nature of war. Collateral damage happens, and like it or not, if we want to win this war or any other, you have to value your own nation's strength, security, and citizens above those of other nations. We gave Syria a chance to deal with this on their own. They failed.

Aristotélēsticus
10-31-2008, 06:41 AM
Diplomacy is overrated. Besides, in the real world, diplomacy is the silk glove. You wear it alongside the iron gauntlet. We tried diplomacy with them - see Jae's post - and they failed to properly deal with the issue. So now, we're taking the issue out of their hands.

Diplomacy isn’t overrated when it’s performed probably, with all due respect to Jae, the US government has not tried diplomacy with the Syrian Government and failed, what they have done was merely throwing accusations unattached with proofs, and in many times they tried to intimidate the Syrian Government of global isolation if they “choose to stick to their policy in supporting terrorism”. Now, verily this is not diplomacy, simply because they’ve marked Syria as an enemy and started from there. besides its not your territory to be free to take it out of their hands. Respect the others


If non-coms died, that's unfortunate, but this is war. Just War is not applicable in modern warfare. Never has been, never will be. That's the nature of war. Collateral damage happens, and like it or not, if we want to win this war or any other, you have to value your own nation's strength, security, and citizens above those of other nations.

No its not unfortunate, it’s a disaster. A Syrian citizen in a humanity scale equals an American citizen, or an Iraqi, a European, an African... you can’t just say we’ve mistook a terrorist with a citizen passing by.

We gave Syria a chance to deal with this on their own. They failed.

Now if they failed—in your opinion—then its their problem to suffer, and they’ve suffered—remember the two terrorist attacks? .Your problem is to withdraw your soldiers from a foreign country and get them back to their country and to their families where they belong.

One last thing, try to be delicate please, “we” is the US government not people which I think you belong to, and “Syria” is the Syrian Government not the people.

Corinthian
10-31-2008, 07:11 AM
Respect the others? Why? What's our interest in respecting Syria's borders? It is not just MY opinion that the Syrians failed to contain the Al-Qaeda presence inside their borders, it's the entire military chain of command believes that, and I'm inclined to trust their judgment.

And it's not 'their problem to suffer'. They're striking across the Syrian Border. If they can't take care of it, we will. And have done so.

The global stage runs on one commodity - Enlightened Self Interest. Respect, joy, and good will towards men really doesn't come into play, it's who's got the bigger muscles when the pushing contest starts. Life isn't fair. Did you think that changed when it's governments instead of individuals?

Aristotélēsticus
11-01-2008, 05:57 PM
Respect the others? Why? What's our interest in respecting Syria's borders?

because respect should abound, this is how nations should deal with one another, Syria isnt the enemy. however one should try the current cow boy policy the us government is using in case they wish for a world war. the us are not the only nation on earth, and its not the only nation that seeks its interest. now if all nations chose to seek their interests in favor of balance there will be war.

It is not just MY opinion that the Syrians failed to contain the Al-Qaeda presence inside their borders, it's the entire military chain of command believes that, and I'm inclined to trust their judgment.

I understand you're inclined to trust their judgment, but not all of us are, especially if its the judgment of the same men who have been chasing the likes of Ben Laden and Al Zawaheri since 6 years with no avail, and they're the same men who have asserted that Iraq have nuclear weapons and turned out to be lairs.

And it's not 'their problem to suffer'. They're striking across the Syrian Border. If they can't take care of it, we will. And have done so.

demand cooperation and do not strike in a land which is not yours, this is totally wrong and no political law, nor moral law justify it-- unless you seek war like I've stated above. again, the relevant question should be, why the us soldiers are still in Iraq?!!

The global stage runs on one commodity - Enlightened Self Interest. Respect, joy, and good will towards men really doesn't come into play, it's who's got the bigger muscles when the pushing contest starts. Life isn't fair. Did you think that changed when it's governments instead of individuals?

I'm not too politically naive to suggest good will toward the all, this doesn't suffice you've enlightened no one, nevertheless the "who's got the bigger muscles" policy isn't good as well, you're not living alone in this world, and by no means you have a privilege to condescend other nations. this policy wasn't that efficient for the us as well, look at the facts after 6 years of the so called "war on terrorism":

1. chaos never ceased in Iraq since the liberation/ occupation.
2. the number of the innocent dying in Iraq is constantly increasing.
3. Al Qaeda's main leaders are still free.
4. the number of the dead us soldiers are increasing.
5. the global image of the us is heavily damaged especially after horrible incidences like Abu Ghraib.

do you still think its in the us's own interest to carry on this policy?

Corinthian
11-01-2008, 06:44 PM
His name is 'Bin Laden', not 'Ben Laden'. And they would be liars, not 'lairs'.

As for your final question, yes, I do. The Middle-East despises us, probably for our support of Israel. That is not likely to change, although it might be getting worse. Fear is better than love, though, so that's not a big problem. They should be terrified of us.

Aristotélēsticus
11-01-2008, 08:42 PM
Spelling isn’t the subject of our discussion so I’ll skip your irrelevant notation, no offence meant though.

As for your sayings, you’ve only projected one out of five—the least important I might add. Even though you’re wrong when you chose to limit the “region of hate” to the Middle East only, because in fact most of the world hates the current “US Government” – and not the people, please note.

In my turn, I’ll ignore the chaos in Iraq and its horrible results, as well as the failure of the american policy in stopping or at least reducing terrorism. I’ll skip these points to the one dealing with the dead american soldiers, do you think your government cares about them or maybe they think of them as a “necessary sacrifice”?

Corinthian
11-01-2008, 08:57 PM
It's war. I'm sure the government cares, but still thinks of them as a necessary sacrifice.

Also, I haven't noticed any terrorist attacks in the United States since the War on Terror started. Have you?

And what's your point? I don't really care if every nation on Earth despises the United States (Hardly the case anyway). Other people's perceptions of us should not be our guide.

Litofsky
11-01-2008, 09:05 PM
It's war. I'm sure the government cares, but still thinks of them as a necessary sacrifice.
I agree with the last part of your statement (the government thinking that it's necessary), but I don't believe that (most) of them give a damn.

Also, I haven't noticed any terrorist attacks in the United States since the War on Terror started. Have you?
That's a faulty association, Corinthian. It's like saying that, because I've started smoking, my foot pains have gone away.

And what's your point? I don't really care if every nation on Earth despises the United States (Hardly the case anyway). Other people's perceptions of us should not be our guide.
It should guide parts of our decision- if we alienate every other nation on this planet, who will help us when that time comes?

Aristotélēsticus
11-06-2008, 01:58 PM
And what's your point? I don't really care if every nation on Earth despises the United States (Hardly the case anyway). Other people's perceptions of us should not be our guide.

public image isn't something to care about or not, its a matter of national security, simply because those who hates you will eventually fight you, and overrating your powers while underestimating your opponents powers --- though constantly increasing in numbers--- isn't a proper strategy.

mimartin
11-06-2008, 02:16 PM
It should guide parts of our decision- if we alienate every other nation on this planet, who will help us when that time comes?The terminal affliction of the short-sighted, we don’t need anyone else's help, we’re America. :(