You can understand why they may be trying to cut off supplies/support to various

entities operating in Iraq but you just gotsta wonder where this one will

end... or take us all...

 

_______________________________________________________

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/27/2402767.htm

 

US military says no information about Syria raid

 

Posted 2 hours 24 minutes ago

The US military said it had no information about a deadly raid reportedly carried out yesterday by American helicopters inside Syria which left eight people dead.

"The Multinational Forces - Iraq, as a whole, does not have any information regarding the Syria incident," the American military said in a statement.

Syrian official media reported that US helicopter-borne troops from Iraq launched an assault on a building site on Sunday in the village of Al-Sukkiraya, eight kilometres from the border with Iraq.

The incident, if confirmed, would be the first of its kind into Syrian territory.

Damascus has summoned the official US and Iraqi representatives in protest, the official SANA news agency said, describing the dead as a father and his four children, a couple and another man.

- AFP

I call BS.

 

Bloody people are so quick to call the American's the "bad guys" these days. It looks like they are completely guessing that they were Americans with no actual proof. And even if it was an American raid it was probably called for, Syria is a confirmed terrorist haven and all round dodgy ass country isn't it?

 

Should have just blown the joint to crap with a cruise missile or JDAM. Then they wouldn't be able to point fingers.

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by mrchickenfool

Syria and Egypt along with Turkey are pretty good mates. Remember the 6 day war?

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by seo iphone

I call BS.

 

Bloody people are so quick to call the American's the "bad guys" these days. It looks like they are completely guessing that they were Americans with no actual proof. And even if it was an American raid it was probably called for, Syria is a confirmed terrorist haven and all round dodgy ass country isn't it?

 

Should have just blown the joint to crap with a cruise missile or JDAM. Then they wouldn't be able to point fingers.

 

Your saying the Americans arn't the bad guys ?

 

Smokejumper ? is that you ?

 

:hi:

Lol no.

 

I just don't subscribe to the theory that all war is unnecessary and everyone should just get along and make daisy chains all day long.

 

I subscribe to the theory that there is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war. And that some bad people just need killing to make the world a better/safer place.

 

EDIT: Please feel free not to argue with my personal point of view, I don't want this thread turning into some pointless political debate.

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by mrchickenfool

Lol no.

 

I just don't subscribe to the theory that all war is unnecessary and everyone should just get along and make daisy chains all day long.

 

I subscribe to the theory that there is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war. And that some bad people just need killing to make the world a better/safer place.

 

EDIT: Please feel free not to argue with my personal point of view, I don't want this thread turning into some pointless political debate.

 

I actually agree with most of what you say here, just some of the details might be different, like which wars and which people.

 

Please feel free to agree with my personal point of view.

 

:hi:

I call BS.

 

Bloody people are so quick to call the American's the "bad guys" these days. It looks like they are completely guessing that they were Americans with no actual proof. And even if it was an American raid it was probably called for, Syria is a confirmed terrorist haven and all round dodgy ass country isn't it?

 

 

.

 

so by your rationale,it would be ok for me to say that Israel is the cause for quite a lot of the problems that are,and have always plagued the middle east,since its inception.Was Syria always a know terrorist as it was so quaintly put? might it of had anything to do with them disagreeing strongly with having a foreign army in what they believe to be holy territories?If some thug jumped into your neighbours yard and started trashing the joint wouldnt u help your neighbour kick thier teeth in?just my opinion here,but diplomacy should always be the first line of defence,and just because u dont get the response your country is looking for,doesnt give u just cause to attack/invade/occupy/dislpace. just my opinion which by precident seems to be allowed

Edited October 28, 200816 yr by Soulassassin2

I think all wars should be settled by drinking... If you can drink em under the table, your argument wins the day.

*ahem*

 

*cough*

 

I wasn't making any political statements. Per se. Just observing something that's developing at the moment.

 

I was hoping to perhaps start a discussion on the broader strategic implications of a conflict engaging Syria in this way. I know we all

have different political and ideological interpretations of warfare.

I think that an intelligent discussion on geo-strategy could rise

a little and engage our curiosity and intelligence...

 

Feel free to disagree with the assumption that upon agreeing that

conflict is an inevitable element of human social interaction and that

whatever stance one takes vis-a-vis conflict, war and peace, that

this raid on Syria marks a dangerous new phase which could

spiral into many different possible scenarios.

 

I am not arguing for or against the conflict. I am conjecturing and speculating on what may arise.

The only relevant political element is the timing of the cross-border strike

a week before the US election.

 

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round...

 

______________________________________________

 

p.s. I didn't call anyone "bad guys"

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by mandatory05

Once again this is like post that was up last year that went to ****e..everyone is going to sit here trying to spit out what they think its RIGHT and arent going to budge if someone else is trying to change their views on the situation.

 

YOU WATCH someones going to get very knarcked up and and have a sook like whats ALREADY happening.

 

If war happens IT HAPPENS.

 

Just follow the news reports *cant believe im going to say this* Stop hurting each others egoes!

I think all wars should be settled by drinking... If you can drink em under the table, your argument wins the day.

 

bahaha then aussies would rule the world! hmm but ireland might be a tough one to crack

 

as for the attack, dont beleive everything (most) the media says, they love to get dirt on the US military, always have always will... its another vietnam all over again. but i think the US are doing wat it can to keep it under control but it seems to be sliding outa control... simply a uphill battle, not only becuase of the main terror organisations located out of Iraq in countries they dont exactly want to start anything with anytime soon (forces are streched as is not to mention the global politcal blow back) (iran, pakistan, egypt,Syria and the list goes on). not the mention the US publics tendancy to want to pull out once they have their first casualty, like who know that happened in war....

 

In the end the war on terror is going to be going on for decades, they arnt going away anytime soon and i sure as hope we arnt going to give in anytime soon...

 

the public just have to understand that this isnt a over night thing, we have to put i nthe hard yards to even make a slight difference, and that can mean doing somethigns that may not seem "right" in other circumstances...

I can fully understand why US would do this and why they would have to deny it. Don't forget the new Iraqi Army have heli borne forces and could easily have done this. Either way, from all the research I've been doing at the operational level recently, there is no way this was just a "oh lets go raid syria tonight and see what we can find" sort of op. These ops take weeks and month to prepare and this sort of controversial op would have taken longer. Make no mistake, if the US was behind this there would have been a bloody good reason for it. Oh and there probably was civilian deaths, but these "civilians" could be the ones running guns and explosives into Iraq, or making car bombs and driving them across the border or something. They are all bloody civilians. That's part of the reason why any of them captured are not covered under the Geneva Convention.

 

Raids like this don't just happen. Read General Molan's Running the War in Iraq for some insight to things at this level.

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by CopMurda187Yo

A US official said the attack targeted elements of a robust foreign fighter logistics network and that, "due to Syrian inaction" the US was "taking matters into our own hands".

 

They did it and have admitted it. Whether you like the US or not you have to admit killing civilians won't help their cause. And this is why they will never, ever, ever win this war.

 

It's a waste of human life on both sides.

Dude they are all civilians. Where would you draw the line?

<sarcasm>Hey, lets just nuke them then. It's not like they're white christians or anything.</sarcasm>

Maybe the yanks hire the blackhawk to a foriegn nation to invade or maybe it was just blackwater not the US military

 

The war on terror coming to your home soon

Edited October 27, 200816 yr by hades198

Without getting into personal points of view, I'm with Wolf in that I would take anything Syria has to say with a grain of salt; doubly so if it concerns the US. Like Ace (or milsims.blogspot.com) has said, if they did it, there was a bloody good reason.

 

As for the causualties - well of course Syria would say they are civvies, it doesn't look good on CNN to say the Yanks killed several high level terrorist targets, does it. From a purely political standpoint, Syria most likely has to stay diametrically opposed to whatever the US is doing in order to stay onside with its Mid-Eastern allies. Regardless of whether or not the raid even was the US, any chance to denounce the US is a bonus for Syria.

 

As for the strategic implications of involving Syria in this Mid-Eastern conflict, it might be nice to have some semi-conventional warfare for once. That said, its a dangerous powderkeg situation happeing right now. Stay tuned, WWIII is coming.

I am not arguing for or against the conflict. I am conjecturing and speculating on what may arise.

The only relevant political element is the timing of the cross-border strike

a week before the US election.

 

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round...

 

Well if we are speculating as to where this 'could' go, with the tension between the US and Russia over Georgia (US claiming the Ruskies started it, but evidence pointing to Georgians starting it, then calling the Ruskies 'bad' for recognising Sth Ossetia and the other joint as indipendants, yet conveniently forgeting that they irked Russia by doing the same thing in Kosovo plus the enroachment of NATO into former E/block countries irking Russia as well) and Russia increasing military ties with Syriah (shipping SS missile units there and i think they were selling them their S300 SAMs also this), it 'could' spark off a limited exchange between the two.

 

I think Russia may just be doing that to get the US's attention that its not happy about the US messing around near their boarder. By doing so the US then has to look not only towards insurgents in Iraq but also to neighbours.

 

The US could also be 'testing' the new relationship between Syriah and Russia by this raid as well.

OK i wasnt trying to start a political argument with my post,just got a little riled up from certain small minded statements.

maybe they did have a good reason to do a little Cambodia style action,but suffice to say it could be our downfall.

not being a pessimist,but when another of their close allies ie Iran has a rather formidable arsenal and is a member of the "axis of evil" not my words by the way in case we have forgotten and we all know who they would be directed at and who they would be aiming all theirs at,

maybe it is time to get out of Dodge before it all comes down around their heads and those of innocent peeps.

After all it is a war that can never be won.

we are talking about a group of people who's ideals will never be shaken no matter what is thrown at them,or however many may die in the name of their cause.

 

Maybe the only way to fight a war against terror is from your own backyard, ie better homeland security and not letting the buggers in in the first place.

I don't mean to offend anyone that served in Iraq or Afghanistan or might still have to but these conflicts where lost before they were even started,if someone can truly win in the first place.

I'm sure that the Afghan people for the most part are very happy, and a reasonable proportion of Iraqis also would be pleased to be freed of their tyrannical dictatorships,

but unfortunately as we have seen in past wars/conflicts,an occupying army don't tend to make too many friends, intentions noble or otherwise.

 

One last comment just using your quote here ace " They are all bloody civilians. That's part of the reason why any of them captured are not covered under the Geneva Convention "this was a loophole the US found/created.

they get around this by calling them "non combatants"as implying they are civilian would have kept them covered by the convention,and also by U.S law

Edited October 28, 200816 yr by cm.

"As long as there are men,there will be Wars."

 

Albert Einstein.

 

Imo Syria has a right to demand an explanation.

Hearing that children were killed really ****s me off,they are always the greatest victims in ANY War.

i agree with that chillwinston. Pretty much the majority know the US went into Iraq, not for the fabelled 'WMD's but for the oil. Hell if Bush labelled Iraq, Iran and NK as the 'axis of evil' and said that they are 'sure' Saddam had them all the while he said he didn't and We've got good ol' Kim screaming for attention saying he has nukes and the 'reason' given to the world by "Bush Co." was that they had to remove the WMDs from Saddam, why not go after Kim . . . oh hang on, thats right, they weren't going in for wmds, they were going in for oil . . . NK doesn't have oil (or if it does nothing to the extent of Iraq) so why would they go there?!? Oh yeah, dont forget to install a pliable head of govt to help pillage the country of its assets/money/resourses before turning the wasteland back over to the people. Whats boils my blood is that they dont give a crap about putting their troops lives on the line, nor how many of their troops die (nor their allies) no matter what they say publicly, because "Bush Co." is making money out of it and hey this is neocon capitalism right? Doubt things will get any better with the two 'candidates' they have up for ellection either.

 

ditto bahlyem, same for Pakistan too. Think the US would like it if Syriah/Pakistan decided to bomb a 'terrorist' site inside the US? Me thinks they'd have carrier groups off the coast before too long with Hornets flying off the decks at a rate of knots.

Edited October 28, 200816 yr by Heat-seeker

Chill, everything you say is correct, in a way (and might I just highlight the "I dont want to offend people who served" part, cause thats important) but as nice as it would be to be able to concentrate on homeland security instead of sending troops overseas, the reality is that Woodrow Wilson's Isolationism didn't work - if we (the Coalition of the Willing) had said "ENOUGH!" to a certain mustachio'd dirtbag from Germany 60 years ago, we might have saved 6 million innocent lives, not to mention the millions killed in the fighting.

 

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing. There must be a point where we say "Thats Enough" to religeous indoctrination that specifically targets segments of world society. Especially when that segment is us.

 

I wish we could all be punk rock girls, with flowers in our hair. But the reality is that the world doesn't function properly without a world policeman keeping people in check. And if it means that some parts of the world hate us, then so be it.

 

To paraphrase Toby Zeigler from The West Wing: I dont remember having to explain to the Italians that it wasn't them we hated, it was Mussolini. I dont recall having to explain to Germany that we only invaded them because we had to stop Hitler. Why should we explain ourselves to the Mid-East? We need to put an end to this crap thats going on in these countries. They hate us now. But they'll like us when we win.

 

Phew, well thats my right wing rant for the day. I love you all. Peace.

all i know is that if it all does turn to poop,and www3 does arises itle be a doesy,just glad we live where we do as we are safeish down here,unless those ruskie ships that arrived in indo during the cold war really where carrying a precious cargo of,well you get the jist.

 

love your quote Bahyle,was the rest of it "i dont know what weopons ww3 will be fought with,but ww4 will be fought with sticks and rocks"

 

and Base i respect your opinion too,might be the kind of discussion better had over a few beeries somewhere,as opposed to this forum

Edited October 28, 200816 yr by happy_googleboy

"I know not what weapons World War 3 will be fought with. But World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones!" - Albert Einstein

thats the one thanks Mr. Trip