US Attacks syria

[wth1257]

From what I understand the U.S. military followed some jihadist types across the Syrian border and assaulted them there. They have been crossing the border, doing whatever it is they do, and then retreating back into Syria. If Syria wants to shout about "serious aggression" they need to reign in those who take advantage of the border to inflict damage on the Iraqi people and Coalition forces.

No.

Syria is no saint but the US does not have the right to invade a sovereign nation, launch a military raid, and kill civilians in the process.

There is a reason we have a body of international law.

 

[buddy1]

I think right before the election something might happen that might tilt the votes for Mccain.

Oh I dont doubt that for one second!

But with the credit crunch getting worse, alot of the states that didnt want a black preseident are now changing their minds for the sake of their jobs and money so we may be surprised!!

 

[SixTen]

where is the western outrage, where are the protests, and the international condemnation etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

change this around with Muslims doing the act and thats what they would be asking for. yet again the Sovereignty of another Muslim country has been violated.

So true

 

[Keltoi]

No.

Syria is no saint but the US does not have the right to invade a sovereign nation, launch a military raid, and kill civilians in the process.

There is a reason we have a body of international law.

This isn't some isolated incident. Syria has been a problem for a long time. If a group of jihadists cross the border and become involved in attacks on U.S. forces, those U.S. forces will retaliate. It's understandable that Syria is upset, but perhaps this will make them more proactive in sealing their border crossings.

 

[SixTen]

This isn't some isolated incident. Syria has been a problem for a long time. If a group of jihadists cross the border and become involved in attacks on U.S. forces, those U.S. forces will go kill Syrian civilians who had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks. It's understandable that Syria is upset, but perhaps this will make them more proactive in sealing their border crossings - except they don't have the power or resources to actually stop the terrorists, but in the end regardless, U.S. justifies the civilian killings by saying that you should have stopped those terrorists from attacking us - just as what happened to Lebannon - where they pretend to be apparently doing what they thought the government should do(stop the terrorists) - but actually they end up not doing that either, but just killing civilians, in what is just blatant massacres of civilians

I thought, I would correct you.

 

[Keltoi]

I thought, I would correct you.

Firstly, terrorists hide in civilian areas. That is part of their strategy. There is no way to separate civilians from the battlefield in 99% of these scenarios. Israel has and had the same problem in Palestinian areas and with Hezbollah in Lebanon. You can kill the insurgents, but killing insurgents has a high risk of killing non-combatants who are either family members or people simply living in the building in question.

Early on in the Iraq War, U.S. forces had a very strict ROE. It didn't work. Now it is straight up "seek and destroy". Unfortunately, that also means killing insurgents where they live, which also means engaging in civilian areas. No honorable soldier wishes to be responsible for the death of non-combatants. Even more unfortunate, the insurgents are by and large strategically targeting non-combatants. It creates a hellish environment.

 

[SixTen]

Firstly, terrorists hide in civilian areas. That is part of their strategy. There is no way to separate civilians from the battlefield in 99% of these scenarios. Israel has and had the same problem in Palestinian areas and with Hezbollah in Lebanon. You can kill the insurgents, but killing insurgents has a high risk of killing non-combatants who are either family members or people simply living in the building in question.

Early on in the Iraq War, U.S. forces had a very strict ROE. It didn't work. Now it is straight up "seek and destroy". Unfortunately, that also means killing insurgents where they live, which also means engaging in civilian areas. No honorable soldier wishes to be responsible for the death of non-combatants. Even more unfortunate, the insurgents are by and large strategically targeting non-combatants. It creates a hellish environment.

They sure put an end to Hezbollah, and all those regimes, all those civilian lives I guess in the end were worth disposing of

/end sarcasm

Please, stop reiterating what I already see on the news. When they actually disabled the terrorist groups - then you can actually argue if what they did was justifiable or not.

Right now, Al Qaeda, and most groups, still seem live and kicking - So your arguement is fallacious.

 

[Keltoi]

They sure put an end to Hezbollah, and all those regimes, all those civilian lives I guess in the end were worth disposing of

/end sarcasm

Please, stop reiterating what I already see on the news. When they actually disabled the terrorist groups - then you can actually argue if what they did was justifiable or not.

Right now, Al Qaeda, and most groups, still seem live and kicking - So your arguement is fallacious.

I wasn't making an argument, I was pointing out the reality. Of course Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban still exist. And the conflict continues.

 

[SixTen]

I wasn't making an argument, I was pointing out the reality. Of course Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban still exist. And the conflict continues.

So what good, if you count all the wars and attacks, was gained - which was worth near a million civilian lives (if not more)?

The media, has desensitized people, unfortunately. Nowadays, everything just appears as statistics to people.

Rather sad, how the loss of 1 life is portrayed as a tradegy, while a million goes merely as a statistic.

 

[The_Prince]

btw since barney mentioned the point that the people in the west arent happy about this etc etc, here is a nice comment from the BBC forum about this incident:

No, they should be applauded! Well done, America. Now do something about Iran before it nukes our oil supplies.

anon.


Recommended by 2 people (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...tart=0&edition=1&ttl=20081027130159#paginator)

how lovely, we are dealing with savages people, a savage that kills civillians none stop, and then cries they are the peace makers who respect humanity.

 

[Keltoi]

So what good, if you count all the wars and attacks, was gained - which was worth near a million civilian lives (if not more)?

The media, has desensitized people, unfortunately. Nowadays, everything just appears as statistics to people.

Rather sad, how the loss of 1 life is portrayed as a tradegy, while a million goes merely as a statistic.

If you wish to lament civilian casualties, it is striking that the thousands upon thousands of civilians killed by these terrorist groups gets nothing but silence from most people on this board. Many more Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgent groups than have been killed by U.S. military action. That million person statistic is bogus, but the reality is bad enough. There is an interesting double standard going on when it comes to civilian deaths. You have one side that is strategically targeting civilians for death(Al-Qaeda, Taiban, related groups), and a conventional force that tries to avoid civilian death. When it comes to the former group they are usually defended by people on this forum, either by way of conspiracy theory or silence. Yet when American or British forces are involved in any situation that leads to the unfortunate deaths of civilians they are demonized as blood crazed lunatics. No civilian death is justifiable on moral grounds. Unfortunately this conflict is tied directly to the civilian population. You have the terrorist element that targets them, and the conventional forces that are forced to engage this terrorist element in a civilian environment. As I stated before, it is a hellish situation.

 

[SixTen]

If you wish to lament civilian casualties, it is striking that the thousands upon thousands of civilians killed by these terrorist groups gets nothing but silence from most people on this board. Many more Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgent groups than have been killed by U.S. military action. That million person statistic is bogus, but the reality is bad enough. There is an interesting double standard going on when it comes to civilian deaths. You have one side that is strategically targeting civilians for death(Al-Qaeda, Taiban, related groups), and a conventional force that tries to avoid civilian death. When it comes to the former group they are usually defended by people on this forum, either by way of conspiracy theory or silence. Yet when American or British forces are involved in any situation that leads to the unfortunate deaths of civilians they are demonized as blood crazed lunatics. No civilian death is justifiable on moral grounds. Unfortunately this conflict is tied directly to the civilian population. You have the terrorist element that targets them, and the conventional forces that are forced to engage this terrorist element in a civilian environment. As I stated before, it is a hellish situation.

Your arguement is so flawed.

Show me where, we have ever defended or sympathised - deaths of terrorists. Why are you twisting my arguements to imply the former? Their is no double standard. As long as you kill civilians without any benefit, don't expect my backing.

Good luck

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

what is done by terrorists is negligable compared to what is done by the US on every level.

 

[Keltoi]

what is done by terrorists is negligable compared to what is done by the US on every level.

This is what I'm talking about. I could turn the statement around and state "What is done by U.S. forces is negligable compared to what is done by terrorists on every level".

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

This is what I'm talking about. I could turn the statement around and state "What is done by U.S. forces is negligable compared to what is done by terrorists on every level".

yes except that would make you a horrible horrible liar

 

[Keltoi]

Your arguement is so flawed.

Show me where, we have ever defended or sympathised - deaths of terrorists. Why are you twisting my arguements to imply the former? Their is no double standard. As long as you kill civilians without any benefit, don't expect my backing.

Good luck

I've seen a plethora of posts on this forum that deny terrorists are targeting civilians. I've even seen people defend the actions of the terrorists at the Beslan school massacre.

In any event, I'm simply pointing out that there are groups out there whose sole purpose is to kill civilians, and it isn't the U.S. or British militaries. It would be great if people could find it within themselves to denounce these insurgent groups who kill civilians on a daily basis with as much righteousness as they denounce the U.S. or British for their unfortunate involvement in civilian deaths.

 

[Keltoi]

yes except that would make you a horrible horrible liar

Really? Take the number of civilians killed by terrorist acts in the past two years in Iraq and compare it to civilians killed in U.S. military operations. The number difference is quite striking.

 

[SixTen]

I've seen a plethora of posts on this forum that deny terrorists are targeting civilians. I've even seen people defend the actions of the terrorists at the Beslan school massacre.

In any event, I'm simply pointing out that there are groups out there whose sole purpose is to kill civilians, and it isn't the U.S. or British militaries. It would be great if people could find it within themselves to denounce these insurgent groups who kill civilians on a daily basis with as much righteousness as they denounce the U.S. or British for their unfortunate involvement in civilian deaths.

You see, this is a debate between you and me. I am not interested what other people say. When you state that a double standard exist - unless its directed at me, their is no reason to state it.

Now, I am against all terrorist organisations, so make another paragraph keeping the discussion in context - and justify your reasons to support the US force operations - and how all those civilians lives which were killed wern't in vain.

 

[Izyan]

what is done by terrorists is negligable compared to what is done by the US on every level.

Have you ever been to Iraq? I have. I can honestly tell you that many injustices (rape, torture, murder, kidnappings) have been done by those we call brother. In my family's village they were more afraid of what other muslims might do to them than what the Americans would. It got even worst when other muslims that didn't look like us or talk like us started coming to town. No they weren't Americans either, Syrians have a distinct accent.

 

[SixTen]

Have you ever been to Iraq? I have. I can honestly tell you that many injustices (rape, torture, murder, kidnappings) have been done by those we call brother. In my family's village they were more afraid of what other muslims might do to them than what the Americans would. It got even worst when other muslims that didn't look like us or talk like us started coming to town. No they weren't Americans either, Syrians have a distinct accent.

Guess what? US forces are known to have done the same, unless you actually think they don't rape Iraqi civilians? Or harm them, torture them and various other things?

You see, we don't support or defend those Iraqis/terrorists who engage in those acts - but unlike some people- we are opposing the US forces too - as they just are doing the same thing and have yet to fix anything, Iraq is still a mess, hundreds of thousands dead. No good has come from the US forces, none which was worth all the deaths, rape and torture that they created themselves.

You need to really understand what we are saying.