'US helicopter raid' inside Syria

[Nieninque]

US military helicopters have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

The official Syrian news agency Sana said the attack took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

Damascus has condemned the strike as a "serious violation" of its territory.

The US has neither confirmed nor denied the incident. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.

Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions," a government official said.

If confirmed, the raid would be the first known attack by US forces inside Syrian territory, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus, our correspondent adds.

Crossing point

"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 1645 local time [1345 GMT] on Sunday," Sana said.

Map locator

"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters and "attacked a civilian building under construction and opened fire on workers inside - including the wife of the building guard - leading to [the deaths] of eight civilians", it added.

"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," Sana said.

The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages.

The village was named as Sukkiraya, 8km (5 miles) from the Iraqi border.

A US military spokesman was unable to confirm or deny the reports, saying it was a "developing situation".

But later the Associated Press news agency quoted an unnamed US military official in Washington as saying that American special forces had attacked foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official said.

The area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money travelling into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

Washington has in the past accused Damascus of turning a blind eye to the problem.

The Iraqi city's mayor, Farhan al-Mahalawi, told Reuters news agency that US helicopters had struck a village on the Syrian side of the border, after which Syrian troops surrounded the site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

Great...

[Moist Happenings]

Washington has in the past accused Damascus of turning a blind eye to the problem.


Pssht. They should know. They're experienced at that. Like when they turned a blind eye while our government gave Iraq the weapons they fought us with.

[Stanley Burrell]

It was a tactical error. Involving a coordinated raid inside the Syrian border. Sort of like, "I accidentally left my fingerprints inside of these rubber gloves and hair fibers in this plastic mask."

[Gelston]

I'll wait until the US or somebody other then Syria comes out with something more substantial.

[ElanthianSiren]

That was my feeling too actually.

Particularly mentioning the children right up makes it smell like propaganda. We shall see.

[Nieninque]

That was my feeling too actually.

Particularly mentioning the children right up makes it smell like propaganda. We shall see.

You realise that my post included a quote from the BBC not the Syrian officials?

Of course, no Western Government would ever point out that a terrorist or military attack on them had killed children or civilians. If they did, they would include it as a postscript, most probably...or definitely at the end of their report. Nowhere near the front. Oh no!

[Nieninque]

I'll wait until the US or somebody other then Syria comes out with something more substantial.


The US has neither confirmed nor denied the incident.

That's pretty telling, right there.

[Gan]

Pictures of dead babies or I'm calling bullshit.

[ElanthianSiren]

You realise that my post included a quote from the BBC not the Syrian officials?

Of course, no Western Government would ever point out that a terrorist or military attack on them had killed children or civilians. If they did, they would include it as a postscript, most probably...or definitely at the end of their report. Nowhere near the front. Oh no!

I do, but the death count came from Syrian officials, including the children bit, as far as I read. I actually saw this on the news yesterday, and again, the children were the first thing mentioned.

You will notice in my original post that I never said America was incapable of terrorism or propaganda, nor did I say that the Syrians were wrong. I'm simply reserving judgement until more information emerges.

[TheEschaton]

'Neither confirmed nor denied' is a tricky phrase. Traditionally, not asking can also be construed as "neither confirmed nor denied" because they were never asked.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if this is completely true, as the U.S. has a long, and sordid history of doing illegal things in other countries to protect their own interests.

-TheE-

[Gelston]

That's pretty telling, right there.

Its really not. The media sometimes says this when the Government doesn't answer. Such as them asking someone that doesn't know or an investigation occurring to see if US Forces did this or not.

[Gelston]

You realise that my post included a quote from the BBC not the Syrian officials?

Of course, no Western Government would ever point out that a terrorist or military attack on them had killed children or civilians. If they did, they would include it as a postscript, most probably...or definitely at the end of their report. Nowhere near the front. Oh no!

The BBC recieved their info from the Syrians, unless they for some reason decided not to cite other sources.

[Moist Happenings]

The BBC recieved their info from the Syrians, unless they for some reason decided not to cite other sources.

The BBC doesn't exactly have the pentagon and the whitehouse bugged either. Whatever information they have it's secondhand, whether it's from a source in the US or a source in Syria, and unfortunately at this point secondhand information is all we're going to get from any source. If it comes from Syria, it'll be tailored to sound worse than it probably was, and if it comes from the US, it'll probably be tailored to look like whoever got killed was the enemy, regardless of what the actual truth is. Just do what I do. Look at both sides, smash them together in your brain and average out the result to find out what actually most likely happened.

[Gelston]

US military helicopters have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

[Deathravin]

Those 3 year old kids were holding 50 cals and comin right for us!

[Gan]

However, I wouldn't be surprised if this is completely true, as the U.S. has a long, and sordid history of doing illegal things in other countries to protect their own interests.

-TheE-

So has the Catholic Church; however, I've yet to see you treat them with as much disdain as you do the US.

[Moist Happenings]

Those 3 year old kids were holding 50 cals and comin right for us!

It didn't say young children period. It said people died and their three children. The report even says it doesn't note the ages. Unlikely by American standards that the children are actually adults, but in other cultures, especially those less economically stable, it isn't completely unheard of for one family to live under one roof throughout life.

With that said, I have a hard time believing that *all* of the individuals were adults, but I think they might have used the word "children" in order to stir up shit, because the article does sort of read like propaganda. I'm sure the US's eventual response will read pretty much dead opposite as that, but that's why I mush them together and come out with the average.

[Deathravin]

I was being facetious.

[TheEschaton]

Believe me, I hold the Catholic Church in a great deal of disdain. However, we don't have any real diehard "The RC Church is the bestest!!!" folks on here since Latrin decided to go AWOL, and you just don't see that side of me.

[Moist Happenings]

I was being facetious.

I know. I just felt it was a good opening to make a point I was gonna make anyway.

[Deathravin]

Neff is comin right for us!
http://www.docjelly.com/Blog/content/binary/Southpark_ep103_1.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military conducted a "successful" strike into Syria on Sunday to kill a suspected al Qaeda facilitator, a U.S. official said Monday.

The American official, who would not be identified but has access to U.S. intelligence, identified the intended target of the attack as "Abu Ghadiya," an Iraqi whose family he said has been active in smuggling money, weapons and foreign fighters across the Syrian border into Iraq.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the classified nature of the operation, also confirmed that U.S. helicopters and military special operations forces carried out the attack.

Syrian officials lashed out at Washington on Monday for a "sheer violation of international law," saying the U.S. attack killed eight people and wounded one.

Syria's state news agency SANA said four U.S. helicopters crossed the border and struck a farm about 5 miles inside Syria before returning to Iraqi airspace. The raid occurred about 4:45 p.m. local time on Sunday, the agency said.

It said the helicopters hit a civilian building under construction on the farm, killing a father and his four sons, a married couple and another man.

However, local officials said seven men were killed, according to an Associated Press report.

And an AP journalist at the scene in the village of Sukkariyeh on Monday reported seeing the bodies of seven men at funerals in the village.

Villager Jumaa Ahmad al-Hamad told The AP he saw four helicopters in the area on Sunday. Two landed, he said.

Ten minutes of shooting followed, al-Hamad told The AP, after which he walked to the scene and found the bodies of his uncle, Dawoud al-Hamad, and four of his uncle's sons.

Another witness told the AP he saw two men taken away by U.S. forces.

"The U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, so this is an outrageous crime for a country who is responsible for maintaining peace and security in the whole world to act this way," Jihad Makdissi, a spokesman for the Syrian Embassy in London, told the BBC.

The attack occurred near Al-Bukamal, a town home to a Red Crescent camp for Iraqi refugees. The town is across the border from the western Iraqi city of Qaim, a major route for Sunni Arab fighters battling U.S. troops in Iraq.

Syria has said it has made efforts to secure the 600-kilometer desert border, but Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the U.S. commander in western Iraq's Anbar province, told reporters last week that much of the border is "uncontrolled."

"We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement, not much, through Anbar because of our activities out there," Kelly said. But he said Iraqi intelligence believes al Qaeda operatives and others "live pretty openly on the Syrian side, and periodically we know that they try to come across."

Syrian Embassy spokesman Makdissi said the United States cannot take matters into its own hands.

"They should come to Syrian authorities and share their information instead of applying the law of the jungle," Makdissi told the BBC.

After Sunday's attack, Damascus, Syria, demanded that Iraq's government "immediately investigate this serious violation," SANA reported. And the Syrian government summoned U.S. and Iraqi diplomats to the Foreign Ministry in Damascus to condemn the attack, according to a Syrian diplomat in Washington, who asked to remain anonymous.

The diplomat said Syrian officials insisted that Iraq must not be a staging ground for attacks on Syrian territory.

I got this article from (our) CNN, which is pretty conservative, considering most people have no idea what Global CNN is -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/27/syria.iraq/index.html

So yeah, Syria's pretty close to Pakistan, so I'm glad we just captured Bin Laden. Stop. Fucking. Shitting on our stars and stripes military planners with the IQ of a horseradish.

[Gan]

Syria's state news agency SANA said four U.S. helicopters crossed the border and struck a farm about 5 miles inside Syria before returning to Iraqi airspace. The raid occurred about 4:45 p.m. local time on Sunday, the agency said.
Broad daylight. Thats pretty ballsy.

[Gelston]

I'll definitely go with what the US report said. Even with the two reports from others saying it was 7 men. Illegal or not, the weapons the guys smuggle in kills people. If Syria isn't going to stop/prevent this from happening, then somebody needs to.

[Ogreslayer]

Broad daylight. Thats pretty ballsy.

Sending in special forces and helicopters in broad daylight posed risk, and it suggests there was more to this operation than just killing bad guys or sending a message. Predators do that job quite well and don't risk our soldiers' lives.

I suspect we intended to capture Abu Ghadiya, and maybe we did.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942VOVO4&show_article=1&catnum=0

[Moist Happenings]

I'll definitely go with what the US report said. Even with the two reports from others saying it was 7 men. Illegal or not, the weapons the guys smuggle in kills people. If Syria isn't going to stop/prevent this from happening, then somebody needs to.

It's probable that this was the true cause of the attack. Maybe it was 7 people, maybe it was 4, maybe it was one mentally challenged monkey and a few goats. I don't trust the statements of fact from either side fully, but you can dig through to find the general truth.

We probably decided just to go in there and deal with these people since asking for permission from the Syrian government would be a huge fiasco where we'd have to go through all sorts of red tape and take heat from every country in the world suggesting we were planning an invasion of Syria. We got caught trying to be sneaky, even if it was during broad daylight, and the fiasco ensued anyway, but I think at this point both sides are doing what they need to do to handle the situation.

The Syrian government will continue to claim that the US broke its airspace and killed a bunch of civilians.

The US will continue to claim that the "civilians" were supplying terrorists and it needed to be done, but offer no apologies for the breach of protocol.

And eventually it'll all fade into obscurity as the next big fiasco starts up.

[Gelston]

It has what the US says, it has what Syria says, but then it also has what local officials said to an AP reporter AND what an AP Reporter said that actually went there.

[Moist Happenings]

It has what the US says, it has what Syria says, but then it also has what local officials said to an AP reporter AND what an AP Reporter said that actually went there.

Hehe. Because what the press conveys to the general public is always the hard truth without any doctoring to make a good story, support their own opinions or the opinions of the organizations they work for. :yes:

[Gelston]

The press is generally pretty negative of what the US does, if there are women and children killed they'll usually jump at the chance to blare it out.

[TheEschaton]

I'll definitely go with what the US report said. Even with the two reports from others saying it was 7 men. Illegal or not, the weapons the guys smuggle in kills people. If Syria isn't going to stop/prevent this from happening, then somebody needs to.

So, killing one guy, and other collateral damage, is worth breaching the very fundamentals of international law? Is that what you're saying?

[Moist Happenings]

The press is generally pretty negative of what the US does, if there are women and children killed they'll usually jump at the chance to blare it out.

Yeah. It's a shame really that almost any information that comes to you has to either so biased or skewed it's unbelievable, or has the giver of the information trying to get you to see it the same as their opinion suggests. I hate weeding through news to figure out what actually happened, but I guess that's just part of the human element involved in it all.

[Moist Happenings]

So, killing one guy, and other collateral damage, is worth breaching the very fundamentals of international law? Is that what you're saying?

It's a really fuzzy line in situations like this. If the US adhered strictly to international law there would have been miles and miles of red tape, and the Syrian government which has been anything but supportive of any US operations in Iraq would have done whatever they could to stop it. I'm not saying they'd be wrong to do so, but again that human element caused the US to make the decision that their opinion was correct, act on it, and suffer whatever consequences would come from it later. They know the system is flawed to the point where they can get away with it without even so much as a slap on the wrist.

If you look at how situations that adhered strictly to international law unfolded in the past though with our flawed organizations, some might consider it to be a wise move to skip all that bullshit and go for the kill. Personally, in this situation I don't think it was the right decision, but I can understand how our government could think it was. They're doing what they can to win the war and stem the tide of insurrection and war weariness in the US today. Accomplishing this mission was obviously tailored to do that. Personally, whatever was really happening at this place I think was probably exaggerated at best, and it wouldn't make or break the war. How much can one small Syrian family do? It wouldn't have killed us to adhere to policy in this situation. In Bosnia though, the UN did nothing but help the side committing genocide with its procedures. All it came to in the end was a "Woops. Yeah that was probably a bad idea. Well, at least we adhered to policy.". That was a large scale issue that was make or break for tens of thousands of people's lives. We should have handled it better.

[TheEschaton]

Furthermore, a reporter saying he saw 7 bodies is "too biased" to be believable? How sensationalized is that!

Like Daniel said in another thread, this is the type of "entitlement" which is really at the heart of the American problem: that we think we can just do whatever the hell we want on the world stage and no one can do anything about it.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

It's a really fuzzy line in situations like this. If the US adhered strictly to international law there would have been miles and miles of red tape, and the Syrian government which has been anything but supportive of any US operations in Iraq would have done whatever they could to stop it. I'm not saying they'd be wrong to do so, but again that human element caused the US to make the decision that their opinion was correct, act on it, and suffer whatever consequences would come from it later. They know the system is flawed to the point where they can get away with it without even so much as a slap on the wrist.

If you look at how situations that adhered strictly to international law unfolded in the past though with our flawed organizations, some might consider it to be a wise move to skip all that bullshit and go for the kill. In Bosnia, the UN did nothing but help the side committing genocide with its procedures. All it came to in the end was a "Woops. Yeah that was probably a bad idea. Well, at least we adhered to policy."


You apparently know nothing about Bosnia.

Furthermore, this was one country, unilaterally violating the borders of another country, to kill a citizen of that second country. That is illegal. The ends NEVER justify the means, but the U.S. constantly does shit like this and thinks it's justified.

[Gelston]

So, killing one guy, and other collateral damage, is worth breaching the very fundamentals of international law? Is that what you're saying?

One guy smuggling weapons in that have killed dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of people is worth it. I think international law was already broken by Syria anyways, by funding guys like this.

[Moist Happenings]

Furthermore, a reporter saying he saw 7 bodies is "too biased" to be believable? How sensationalized is that!

Like Daniel said in another thread, this is the type of "entitlement" which is really at the heart of the American problem: that we think we can just do whatever the hell we want on the world stage and no one can do anything about it.

-TheE-

Agreed. But I think a large part of the problem is that we've got our hands so tied in international law and no real way to untie them through traditional procedure in sufficient time to do any good. We do take our "god given right as Americans" too far in a lot of cases, but we need better systems in place to put us in the right position to do the right thing as a global government before we can start fixing this American issue on a global scale.

Obviously, I don't have any solutions to the problem. Wish I did. The UN is an intelligent idea in theory, but it just can't get anything done.

[Gelston]

You apparently know nothing about Bosnia.

Furthermore, this was one country, unilaterally violating the borders of another country, to kill a citizen of that second country. That is illegal. The ends NEVER justify the means, but the U.S. constantly does shit like this and thinks it's justified.

And if you think that Syrians haven't been in Iraq killing American troops, you are dead fucking wrong. Seriously, more Syrians have killed Americans then we have killed Syrians.

[Moist Happenings]

I think international law was already broken by Syria anyways, by funding guys like this.

True. And adhering strictly to UN procedure would probably have an investigation launched into the claims on both sides. That'll take a month, maybe 6. After that there would be some sort of presentation on the matter, and a hearing. By the time it was all finished, a year or three might go by, nothing will have been done to stop the problem we knew existed years ago resulting in the cost of X amount of lives, and each side will have whatever they can to cover up the evidence and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing.

[TheEschaton]

Syrians who kill American soldiers should be brought to justice. But not by crossing into Syrian borders.

How would you feel if Al-Qaeda started crossing into our borders to kill soldiers who had killed their friends?

Oh yeah, you'd call that terrorism.

[Gelston]

Syrians who kill American soldiers should be brought to justice. But not by crossing into Syrian borders.

How would you feel if Al-Qaeda started crossing into our borders to kill soldiers who had killed their friends?

Oh yeah, you'd call that terrorism.

So, a cop busting down the door of a kidnapper who he chased to the building and was able to go in with probable cause is the same as that said criminal earlier in the day chasing down a little girl and busting down her door and snatching her up? Sorry to go off on a tangent like that.

When it comes down to it though, I could give a shit less about the lives of un-uniformed, illegal combatants and arms smugglers. No one ever seems to complain when Israel sneaks into a country and abducts former Nazis.

To be quite frank, I care more about the lives of American Troops then the borders of Syria. If we can stop them by hitting them at home, awesome. Lets do it.

[Gan]

Believe me, I hold the Catholic Church in a great deal of disdain. However, we don't have any real diehard "The RC Church is the bestest!!!" folks on here since Latrin decided to go AWOL, and you just don't see that side of me.

Latrin is busy playing ClydeR...

:whistle:

[Moist Happenings]

You apparently know nothing about Bosnia.

Furthermore, this was one country, unilaterally violating the borders of another country, to kill a citizen of that second country. That is illegal. The ends NEVER justify the means, but the U.S. constantly does shit like this and thinks it's justified.

"On Sept. 25, 1991, the United Nations imposed an arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia for the ostensible purpose of promoting peace and security in the Balkans. But for over three-and-a-half years the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives. Instead, it has made possible ethnic cleansing, genocide and the dismantling of a member state of the U.N.

This was the only part of the Bosnian conflict I was referring to. The UN put an arms embargo on them in order to further the cause of peace. When it was proven to be counterproductive, and that there was genocide and ethnic cleansing going on, the UN went through so many miles of red tape that the damage was done before they were even able to start to do something about it.

And I agree with you that the US does a lot of shit that it thinks is justified in order to "preserve the American way of life" with utter disregard to what the rest of the world thinks. We should be held accountable for it just as we would hold anyone else accountable for it. I just think before that is able to happen, we need some system in place globally that will be able to hold a country accountable for its actions. It certainly isn't the UN, especially since America can't get kicked out.

In this situation, we know we're in the wrong. We don't care, because what are they gonna do? Bitch about it. That's pretty much it.

[Gelston]

"On Sept. 25, 1991, the United Nations imposed an arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia for the ostensible purpose of promoting peace and security in the Balkans. But for over three-and-a-half years the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives. Instead, it has made possible ethnic cleansing, genocide and the dismantling of a member state of the U.N.

This was the only part of the Bosnian conflict I was referring to. The UN put an arms embargo on them in order to further the cause of peace. When it was proven to be counterproductive, and that there was genocide and ethnic cleansing going on, the UN went through so many miles of red tape that the damage was done before they were even able to start to do something about it.

And I agree with you that the US does a lot of shit that it thinks is justified in order to "preserve the American way of life" with utter disregard to what the rest of the world thinks. We should be held accountable for it just as we would hold anyone else accountable for it. I just think before that is able to happen, we need some system in place globally that will be able to hold a country accountable for its actions. It certainly isn't the UN, especially since America can't get kicked out.

In this situation, we know we're in the wrong. We don't care, because what are they gonna do? Bitch about it. That's pretty much it.

Maybe we are wrong, but its for the right reasons. I quite frankly don't give a damn.

[Moist Happenings]

Latrin is busy playing ClydeR...

:whistle:

Off topic question. Possibly a dumb one. Latrin=Latrinsorm=TE?

[Gan]

I dont know about the TE part.

But my guess is ClydeR=Latrin(sorm).

[Moist Happenings]

Maybe we are wrong, but its for the right reasons. I quite frankly don't give a damn.

Situationally I agree. I just don't see this particular situation as severe enough to have skipped policy. Of course, we're not fully informed of the reasoning behind the situation either. If we were my opinion might change. All we know is "These guys were smuggling arms to support insurgent troops.". We don't know how large an operation it is, whether it was a clear cause of a large part of the issue, or just some minor mom and pop organization bringing handguns to the locals. If it was something that was definitely going to cost a large number of lives, you have a point. If it was something relatively minor in the grand scheme, we could have taken it through the proper channels. This sounds cold hearted, but a small number of American lives is a small price to pay for holding ourselves accountable for our actions.

The problem as I see it is still that "the proper channels" take so long and generally get very little done, that "a small number" of lives turns into a larger and larger number with each mile of red tape.

[Gelston]

Well, if they are smuggling stuff, its likely bigger then AK-47s. It would most likely be your RPG, SA-7, Demo, etc.

[Gelston]

Situationally I agree. I just don't see this particular situation as severe enough to have skipped policy. Of course, we're not fully informed of the reasoning behind the situation either. If we were my opinion might change. All we know is "These guys were smuggling arms to support insurgent troops.". We don't know how large an operation it is, whether it was a clear cause of a large part of the issue, or just some minor mom and pop organization bringing handguns to the locals. If it was something that was definitely going to cost a large number of lives, you have a point. If it was something relatively minor in the grand scheme, we could have taken it through the proper channels. This sounds cold hearted, but a small number of American lives is a small price to pay for holding ourselves accountable for our actions.

The problem as I see it is still that "the proper channels" take so long and generally get very little done, that "a small number" of lives turns into a larger and larger number with each mile of red tape.


And if crossing the Syrian border and killing 1000 Syrians would prevent the death of 1 American, I'd be all for it.

[Moist Happenings]

Well, if they are smuggling stuff, its likely bigger then AK-47s. It would most likely be your RPG, SA-7, Demo, etc.

If that's true then it may have been justified to skip the problematic system, depending realistically on the number of lives versus the cost of popularity. And only if there were some real clear cut evidence to support the claims.

Unfortunately we almost certainly won't get any real details on the situation before it fades away into obscurity.

[Gelston]

If that's true then it may have been justified to skip the problematic system, depending realistically on the number of lives versus the cost of popularity. And only if there were some real clear cut evidence to support the claims.

Unfortunately we almost certainly won't get any real details on the situation before it fades away into obscurity.

They have no reason to smuggle in anything smaller. Each family in Iraq is allowed to own an AK type weapon. All that junk is already there.

[Sean of the Thread]

How would you feel if Al-Qaeda started crossing into our borders to kill soldiers who had killed their friends?

Oh yeah, you'd call that terrorism.

Uhm it's called terrorism because they are terrorists and their friends that the soldiers killed in the first place...

[Moist Happenings]

They have no reason to smuggle in anything smaller. Each family in Iraq is allowed to own an AK type weapon. All that junk is already there.

Meh. I guess in that case it would boil down to how large of an operation it actually was. I hate to put lives into a mathematical equation, and it begs the question "How many lives are too many lives to preserve our country's image in the world's eyes?", but somewhere along the line you have to make that decision.

I guess I can't really comment after all on my personal opinion on what we should have done because I don't have all the relevant information.

[Moist Happenings]

Uhm it's called terrorism because they are terrorists and their friends that the soldiers killed in the first place...

There's a very fuzzy line between war and terrorism in my opinion. Sometimes it's both. And don't even fucking start with me Nieninque. I don't want to get back into that argument. If you're reading this thread, I know you're thinking it right now. We can save that argument for January 30th.

[Gelston]

Meh. I guess in that case it would boil down to how large of an operation it actually was. I hate to put lives into a mathematical equation, and it begs the question "How many lives are too many lives to preserve our country's image in the world's eyes?", but somewhere along the line you have to make that decision.

I guess I can't really comment after all on my personal opinion on what we should have done because I don't have all the relevant information.

They were bad guys, responsible for smuggling in unknown quantities of weapons into Iraq. These weapons were used to kill Americans, Iraqis, etc. Either way these people need to a. be captured or b. be killed.

[Moist Happenings]

They were bad guys, responsible for smuggling in unknown quantities of weapons into Iraq. These weapons were used to kill Americans, Iraqis, etc. Either way these people need to a. be captured or b. be killed.

No dispute there. My only issue was with the blatant disregard for the procedures we made up ourselves for the most part and hold everybody else accountable for. But like I said, miles and miles of red tape. If it was a critical thing, I have no problem with us circumventing procedure. If it wasn't critical, we probably should have played it differently.

[TheEschaton]

And if crossing the Syrian border and killing 1000 Syrians would prevent the death of 1 American, I'd be all for it.

I'm glad the Armed Services have completed their objective in making you a complete fucking moron.

[Durgrimst]

Threads like this make me HATE what America has turned into. WE KILLED PEOPLE THAT WERE BAD, OR NEW ENOUGH ABOUT BAD PEOPLE TO THE POINT THAT THEY DESERVED IT. You should be more concerned about the people putting their lives at risk so that you can go to the mall and work without being blown the fuck up, instead of sad that a couple douche bags got killed. I know that my Dad was in the Pentagon when it got hit, he has deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I am on my 3rd tour to Iraq right now as an infantryman. I don't give a shit why we are here, WMD's, Bush got bored... It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that my wife and mother are safer being in the US right now because there are people willing to be the easy targets over here.

[Gelston]

I'm glad the Armed Services have completed their objective in making you a complete fucking moron.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. You never will. Enjoy your life.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm glad the Armed Services have completed their objective in making you a complete fucking moron.

Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Terrorism with the aid of God and a few Marines!
God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours!

To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?

[Durgrimst]

Just think about all the innocent people in the world that die everyday from terrorism, not just 9/11, but every event before and since. Those people weren't weapons smugglers. This guy was.

[TheEschaton]

Just think about all the innocent people in the world who wouldn't die if the United States didn't try and implement global hegemony on the rest of the world.

[TheEschaton]

P.S. We've smuggled weapons before too. Maybe we should start putting to death some of our CIA agents.

[Gelston]

Just think about all the innocent people in the world who wouldn't die if the United States didn't try and implement global hegemony on the rest of the world.

http://blogol.hu/pikz/merlin/bscap0002.jpg

[Moist Happenings]

Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Terrorism with the aid of God and a few Marines!
God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours!

To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?

Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT!! Or I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, Private Pyle, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!!

[TheEschaton]

It was aging hippy liberals who wrote the Constitution, you dipshit motherfucker.

[Gelston]

Yes, but they weren't douches.

[Sean of the Thread]

It was aging hippy liberals who wrote the Constitution, you dipshit motherfucker.

Actually they were the leaders of a terrorist organization known as the Continental Army.

Stay on topic plz.

[Moist Happenings]

Yes, but they weren't douches.

:rofl: Point Gelston

:fence:

[Durgrimst]

It blows my mind that people would side with accused weapons smugglers that are trying to kill their own countrymen, than the people that defend their freedoms.

[nub]

Just think about all the innocent people in the world who wouldn't die if the United States didn't try and implement global hegemony on the rest of the world.

So zero have lived because of U.S. help?

[Gelston]

It blows my mind that people would side with accused weapons smugglers that are trying to kill their own countrymen, than the people that defend their freedoms.

I direct you here


I'm glad the Armed Services have completed their objective in making you a complete fucking moron.

My new favorite quote.

[TheEschaton]

Nub, quit before you even start. You're an idiot.

And I'm siding with international law, and against the breaking of it. Regardless of whether these Syrians commited a crime (they probably did, as far as I know), breaking a law to exact vengeance for the breaking of a different law isn't exactly promoting democracy, peace, and all that good stuff in the world.

[Moist Happenings]

It blows my mind that people would side with accused weapons smugglers that are trying to kill their own countrymen, than the people that defend their freedoms.

I'm not saying that our troops in Iraq deserve to die, or anything of the like. In fact I agree that situationally this could have been the correct move for us. But especially in war, things are rarely so black and white as your opinion suggests.

[Durgrimst]

Just think about all the innocent people in the world who wouldn't die if the United States didn't try and implement global hegemony on the rest of the world.

The history of America has been written through it taking/winning everything. We ran away from the known world cause we didn't like the rules we had to live by, we conquered a society and forced them off their land, we fought the countries that once ruled us... If you want to be part of a peaceful tree hugging smiling nation that cares more about hugs than freedom, you need to move.

[Gelston]

People like to make it grey. It is very black and white.

[TheEschaton]

The history of America has been written through it taking/winning everything. We ran away from the known world cause we didn't like the rules we had to live by, we conquered a society and forced them off their land, we fought the countries that once ruled us... If you want to be part of a peaceful tree hugging smiling nation that cares more about hugs than freedom, you need to move.

You are an imbecile.

[Durgrimst]

Nub, quit before you even start. You're an idiot.

And I'm siding with international law, and against the breaking of it. Regardless of whether these Syrians commited a crime (they probably did, as far as I know), breaking a law to exact vengeance for the breaking of a different law isn't exactly promoting democracy, peace, and all that good stuff in the world.

Situational question:
I come into your house in the middle of the night, rape your mom, wife, sister and daughter and then flee to a country with diplomatic immunity. If you ran into me at a bar, would you kill me?

[Moist Happenings]

People like to make it grey. It is very black and white.

There's no such thing as pure black and white. I think the Catholic church has proven that over the last thousand years or so.

God wants us all to be happy and love each other and accept each other.

unless you're a witch
or a heretic
or a Templar
or have a different opinion on something.

[TheEschaton]

No. And someone who answers yes, I would say is barbaric, and is close to losing their humanity.

By the way, I assume you mean extradition.

[Sean of the Thread]

Nub, quit before you even start. You're an idiot.

And I'm siding with international law, and against the breaking of it. Regardless of whether these Syrians commited a crime (they probably did, as far as I know), breaking a law to exact vengeance for the breaking of a different law isn't exactly promoting democracy, peace, and all that good stuff in the world.

Did you cry a river when the Israelis took a few F-16's and 15's for a long ride to take out an Iraqi nuclear power plant that the French of all people built for them?

Didn't hear you protecting "international law" in recent months when Israel went into Syria and blasted the fuck out of their current nuclear plant project either..


You sure know how to pick and choose whatever suits your purpose.

[TheEschaton]

No one discussed it here, but I sure as hell was pretty pissed in real life.

[Gelston]

Wheres the grey? They were known to be smuggling weapons. This info could have come from HUMINT or whatever. Their activities were probably watched by UAVs or Satellites for a decent amount of time. Then a strike was sent in. 7 of them died, 2 were reportedly taken.

If it was Osama bin Laden would you be against it?

[Durgrimst]

No. And someone who answers yes, I would say is barbaric, and is close to losing their humanity.

By the way, I assume you mean extradition.

That is what I meant, and I for one would kill the man that committed those crimes. Even if they were not acted upon my family, because anyone that can hurt innocent people, does not deserve to live. But someone has to be willing to take care of those committing the crimes, otherwise they continue to happen. If your not willing to do it, don't hate those that are. Because for all you know, your town could be the next location of a terrorist attack.

[nub]

Nub, quit before you even start. You're an idiot.

And I'm siding with international law, and against the breaking of it. Regardless of whether these Syrians commited a crime (they probably did, as far as I know), breaking a law to exact vengeance for the breaking of a different law isn't exactly promoting democracy, peace, and all that good stuff in the world.

Holy fuck, you haven't even heard my opinion on this have you?

I am an idiot for thinking that the U.S. has done something which has actually caused less people to die as the result? If I am.. then I guess I am an idiot.

But seriously... calling names so fast? Calm down.

As for the U.S. going into Syria... I think that was a bad idea. There could be terrorist in my apartment complex and I would be pretty pissed (or dead) if my apartment was blown up by some foreign country because there was a terrorist in said apartment.

Hopefully this doesn't escalate, or this is not something that is happening to shift the view in America from the economy to national defense. (as in... some internal works trying to get McCain back on top before election day).

[Sean of the Thread]

UAV's aren't missing much that's for sure. I have confidence that any decision made in this instance was well informed and correct.

[Gelston]

They obviously knew EXACTLY who was there and that it was someone of high enough profile to even RISK sending troops in. Otherwise they could have just killed them with hellfire missiles from a Predator as they have before.

[TheEschaton]

Nub, war is not a zero sum game. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Furthermore, this isn't a question of killing one to prevent other deaths. This is a question of breaking international law to exact revenge for the breaking of a different international law. If he's smuggling into Iraq all the time, and he's being surveilled all the time, can't you try and arrest him while he's in Iraq, in an active war zone, trying to smuggle guns?

It smacks of a "We just want to kill him" tactic. Not a legitimate use of force.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

They obviously knew EXACTLY who was there and that it was someone of high enough profile to even RISK sending troops in. Otherwise they could have just killed them with hellfire missiles from a Predator as they have before.

My point exactly.

[Gelston]

Nub, war is not a zero sum game. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Furthermore, this isn't a question of killing one to prevent other deaths. This is a question of breaking international law to exact revenge for the breaking of a different international law. If he's smuggling into Iraq all the time, and he's being surveilled all the time, can't you try and arrest him while he's in Iraq, in an active war zone, trying to smuggle guns?

It smacks of a "We just want to kill him" tactic. Not a legitimate use of force.

-TheE-

Probably because he never entered Iraq. The exchanges could have been made just inside of Syria. And for it to be a daylight raid like that, it may have been a last second "Oh shit, we have to go now or we are going to lose him"

[Sean of the Thread]

Nub, war is not a zero sum game. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Furthermore, this isn't a question of killing one to prevent other deaths. This is a question of breaking international law to exact revenge for the breaking of a different international law. If he's smuggling into Iraq all the time, and he's being surveilled all the time, can't you try and arrest him while he's in Iraq, in an active war zone, trying to smuggle guns?

It smacks of a "We just want to kill him" tactic. Not a legitimate use of force.

-TheE-

No we could have rained hellfires into one of their wallets if we wanted them all dead.

They knew who was there and the value of the target and sent in a special forces crew to extract him.

You're not understanding what occurred here. I'm sure a lot more good will come from this.

[Moist Happenings]

Wheres the grey? They were known to be smuggling weapons. This info could have come from HUMINT or whatever. Their activities were probably watched by UAVs or Satellites for a decent amount of time. Then a strike was sent in. 7 of them died, 2 were reportedly taken.

If it was Osama bin Laden would you be against it?

The grey in this situation is that to put an end to this obvious breach of international law, we had to breach it ourselves. Again, I'm not saying it was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but in a black and white world, we're just as bad as that we went in to stop.

But the world isn't black and white. It's shades of grey. Was what we did less of an offense than what they did? Probably. But it's not exactly 100% on the level, either.

And if it was Osama..Well I suppose it would depend. I don't look at it so much as Osama and his cohorts are doing everything they can to kill us. I look at that, and WHY they are doing what they can to kill us. Yes, fighting them is a large part of the concern, but we seem to show no concern whatsoever for preventing the reason for them to pop up in the first place.

Our theory has always seemed to be "kill them all until there are no more left." Problem is, the more we follow this line with disregard to what everyone else thinks of us, the more of these people will begin to show up.

[Sean of the Thread]

Read up on this Alok.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/

[TheEschaton]

No, I don't think you understand.

For example: Do you think funding and arming the contras in Nicaurauga was a good thing (irrespective of the whole Iranian piece)?

[Gelston]

The grey in this situation is that to put an end to this obvious breach of international law, we had to breach it ourselves. Again, I'm not saying it was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but in a black and white world, we're just as bad as that we went in to stop.

International law is a joke. There isn't a nation in existance that actually respects it. The only reason it exists is so that nations can say other nations broke it.

[TheEschaton]

I know what a predator is, and that would be equally violative of Syria's sovereign territory.

[Sean of the Thread]

It's not irrespective of the whole Iranian piece tho so I'm not sure where you're going.

And there was a lot more that went into that Contra affair. Fuck let's go back to the Bay of Pigs.

Or Vietnam.

Or Korea.

You're picking and choosing again.

[TheEschaton]

Actually, the only countries that don't respect it regularly are the U.S., Israel, and then all your garden variety despots who don't usually belong to the UN. The rest of the world usually follows what bodies like the UN and the ICJ say.

But you can sure as hell guarantee that the U.S. ensures any international law which are to their benefit (like most of the trade agreements in the world) are enforced, otherwise they kick and wail and threaten to starve the rest of the world out.

[TheEschaton]

I'm just saying, would you have thought funding and arming the Contras was a good thing, if we provided that outright (instead of funneling it through Iran and all that jazz).

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

I know what a predator is, and that would be equally violative of Syria's sovereign territory.

Well then any news or television you watch is in violation of their international airspace since satellites roam all over the fucking planet.

[TheEschaton]

Satellites operate outside of airspace - legal definitions of a country's airspace only go so far up, and definitely does not include "outer space". Hence why Reagan was so enamored with Star Wars in the beginning - there is no law in outer space.

-TheE-

[Gelston]

Actually, the only countries that don't respect it regularly are the U.S., Israel, and then all your garden variety despots who don't usually belong to the UN. The rest of the world usually follows what bodies like the UN and the ICJ say.

But you can sure as hell guarantee that the U.S. ensures any international law which are to their benefit (like most of the trade agreements in the world) are enforced, otherwise they kick and wail and threaten to starve the rest of the world out.

Can you name me a few countries that follow international law to the T?

[Gelston]

Satellites operate outside of airspace - legal definitions of a country's airspace only go so far up, and definitely does not include "outer space". Hence why Reagan was so enamored with Star Wars in the beginning - there is no law in outer space.

-TheE-

Actually, there is a project in the works that would put squads of troops on a ship that launches into space and can land anywhere n the world in minutes. We would no longer require to request countries permission to travel through their air space to get into another country.

[TheEschaton]

That seems like a lot of effort, lol.

[Warriorbird]

Bay of Pigs was stupidly handled (whee, no air support!). Vietnam was fucking idiotic. Korea was fine until we went WAY too far and then it became one of the biggest wastes ever.

I don't think those are good grounds for policy justification.

With that said... we're willing to unilaterally invade Iraq and willing to blow into Syria to execute some fucker (if badly). What the hell's so wrong with running into Pakistan with a few hundred thousand troops and offing Osama? Pakistan doesn't have the stones to strike back.

The same people who support this oppose that. Partisan fuckery.

[Gelston]

They mostly have the idea of using it to land in Embassies, so things like the Iran Hostage Crisis will be more preventable.

Troop presence in itself is a deterrance, and I imagine Marines from Space would scare the fuck out of most people.

[Gelston]

Bay of Pigs was stupidly handled (whee, no air support!). Vietnam was fucking idiotic. Korea was fine until we went WAY too far and then it became one of the biggest wastes ever.

I don't think those are good grounds for policy justification.

With that said... we're willing to unilaterally invade Iraq and willing to blow into Syria to execute some fucker (if badly). What the hell's so wrong with running into Pakistan with a few hundred thousand troops and offing Osama? Pakistan doesn't have the stones to strike back.

The same people who support this oppose that. Partisan fuckery.

I'm pretty sure if we knew exactly where bin Laden was, we probably would kill/capture him no matter where.

[Moist Happenings]

International law is a joke. There isn't a nation in existance that actually respects it. The only reason it exists is so that nations can say other nations broke it.

I agree that international law is a joke. There's grey elsewhere though of course, too.

Take a hypothetical in this situation.

We know this guy smuggles arms into Iraq to kill our people.
So does Syria. Syria thinks they're right in letting the guy do so because they don't like us.
We think Syria is wrong. Syria thinks we are wrong. We attack this guy regardless of what Syria thinks. Regardless of what the world thinks.

What makes us right is our viewpoint to the world. Some of the world, let's even say ALL of the rest of the world maybe thinks as Syria does in this situation (which obviously won't be the case. Strictly hypothetically). Why is our viewpoint more important than theirs? Because it's ours, and we think it's better. No other reason.

This guy is supplying weapons to kill people with our viewpoint. But why did he start supplying weapons? Maybe we started killing people with his viewpoint. Maybe we were bombing a legitimate target, missed, and killed his family.

People don't just up and say "I'm going to supply weapons to kill people today" just because they feel like it. There's always a motivation. Maybe it's greed, maybe it's a viewpoint or opinion, maybe it's revenge, but there is always a reason.

Maybe his reason is something we feel is stupid, or unworthy of his actions. Maybe others feel differently. What is right and what is wrong is something we make up to support our own beliefs.

To our beliefs, killing these people and shutting down their operation might have been the right thing to do. To some other people's beliefs, maybe we've grown too big, too arrogant as a country, and they feel that more people should rise up and fight us.

The more we cavort around the globe destroying whoever and whatever isn't aligned with our viewpoint, the more people like this will pop up and try to stop us.

Yes, these people were bad people, and they needed to be stopped, but in doing so the way we continue to we may just be adding gasoline to the fire.

As I've strayed on a huge tangent here from my shades of gray thing, I'll try to get back to it in some sort of conclusion statement:


The only point I'm trying to make is that there is no absolutely good, and no absolutely evil. All of the "Good" countries at some point in time, and in every war, have done something "Evil". Usually more than one something. Usually a LOT more than one something. Does that still make us good, and them bad? By our viewpoint, sure. But at what cost?

/End excessively convoluted rant.

[Warriorbird]

Hopefully we'll actually have a candidate and some Cabinet officials who actually understand diplomacy in office now. The attitude that 'international law is made to be broken' really doesn't work well when we whine about terrorism and people defying international law.

While I support this particular action the fact that we have people in the military who spout junk like that says sad things about our country.

We've known where Osama was at several points in time. We were more worried about Iraq.

[Gelston]

Hopefully we'll actually have a candidate and some Cabinet officials who actually understand diplomacy in office now. The attitude that 'international law is made to be broken' really doesn't work well when we whine about terrorism and people defying international law.

While I support this particular action the fact that we have people in the military who spout junk like that says sad things about our country.

We've known where Osama was at several points in time. We were more worried about Iraq.

I assure you, if we knew EXACTLY where bin LAden was we'd have put troops or a missile in there. Saying we know he is within this 20 square miles of mountainous rugged landscape is completely different.

[Warriorbird]

Throw a few hundred thousand troops into those 20 miles and we'd have him. I actually believe in you guys. Instead we spent a lot of time and money on people who will be 'Yay Iran!' as soon as we leave.

[Gan]

Did you cry a river when the Israelis took a few F-16's and 15's for a long ride to take out an Iraqi nuclear power plant that the French of all people built for them?

Didn't hear you protecting "international law" in recent months when Israel went into Syria and blasted the fuck out of their current nuclear plant project either..


You sure know how to pick and choose whatever suits your purpose.


No one discussed it here, but I sure as hell was pretty pissed in real life.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=27124

[Gelston]

Throw a few hundred thousand troops into those 20 miles and we'd have him. I actually believe in you guys. Instead we spent a lot of time and money on people who will be 'Yay Iran!' as soon as we leave.

We have less then a few hundred thousand troops in all of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[Warriorbird]

Correct. We could've gone straight into Pakistan instead of Iraq.

[Gelston]

And we'd still have less then a "few hundred thousand" troops in the area. You seem to have no idea how much it is to deploy numbers that large. It doesn't occur quickly.

[Warriorbird]

We could've gone from Afghanistan into Pakistan. The force would've been more than sufficient.

[Gelston]

No, it wouldn't have. In 2001 we had 10,000 total US troops in Afghanistan. In 2006 we had 40,000. We currently have 70,000. We have never had 100,000 troops there ever. We never had sufficient troops to perform searches of the magnitude you are referring to, nor to invade nuclear armed Pakistan and perform searches there.

Not to mention as its all land locked, we'd have no air space inwhich to send reinforcement, supplies.

[Warriorbird]

I'm just going by what a couple military friends said... but they felt that America would've supported a huge ramp up to kill Osama at that time.

[TheEschaton]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=27124

Wow, oddly enough, it was discussed....and guess what, I was critical of the action. WHOA!

[Moist Happenings]

Not to mention as its all land locked, we'd have no air space inwhich to send reinforcement, supplies.

Not that I'm advocating the idea, but I'm pretty sure if we were going to invade Pakistan, India would let us set up base camp there.

[TheEschaton]

Again, it shows you how little you know. India is currently pissed, and has been for the past 8 years with us, for making Pakistan a "partner in the war on terror" when India feels Pakistan is one of the biggest state sponsors of terror out there.

Of course, the relationship was pretty rock solid under Clinton, but leave it to Bush to fuck anything up.

-TheE-

[Moist Happenings]

Again, it shows you how little you know. India is currently pissed, and has been for the past 8 years with us, for making Pakistan a "partner in the war on terror" when India feels Pakistan is one of the biggest state sponsors of terror out there.

Of course, the relationship was pretty rock solid under Clinton, but leave it to Bush to fuck anything up.

-TheE-

Yes, India is pissed with us because we've been cooperating with Pakistan. I'm saying that in the incredibly unlikely event that we were to invade Pakistan, I'm pretty sure India would forgive us our brief partnership in the interest of seeing its worst and closest enemy get pounded on.

Turkey didn't really think too highly of us when we asked to put ICBMs there, but they were pretty sure they liked the USSR even less, so they allowed it.

And yes, I am aware that Turkey had just become a NATO member at the time, but the point stands that Turkey liked us more than the USSR, but that wasn't saying much.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck India. Of course they loved clinton... he sent them all of our jobs.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough a President that followed him sure fucking helped.

[TheEschaton]

Turkey didn't really think too highly of us when we asked to put ICBMs there, but they were pretty sure they liked the USSR even less, so they allowed it.

Errr, is this the same Turkey who, right before the Iraq war, refused to allow us to stage operations from there, turning down billions of dollars in aid to do so?

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Fuck India. Of course they loved clinton... he sent them all of our jobs.

Hey man, that's just laissez-faire capitalism! Innit great?

[Moist Happenings]

Errr, is this the same Turkey who, right before the Iraq war, refused to allow us to stage operations from there, turning down billions of dollars in aid to do so?

-TheE-

Hence reinforcing the point that Turkey doesn't like us all that much. Unless of course the USSR was still a threat to them when they turned us down.