:shifty:
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?

I personally struggle to believe any reports of civilian deaths in controversial circumstances caused by any coalition member these days.

No, I'm not denying civilian deaths occur - kind of expected when the enemy hides behind civvies as human shields then uses their deaths for propaganda. Yes, shock horror I'll even admit that there have been attacks by aircraft for example in which civvies have been mistaken for combatants and subsequently attacked and killed.

But lets face it. With most of these combatants today, if you take away their weapon, lo and behold, we have a dead civvy. Anyone reminded of the palestinian/french video a couple of years back, with the cowering child, proven to be fake? I've little doubt it happens all the time, and yes a US man was charged with fabricating evidence in a similar manner.

Lets look closer at the 'innocent civilians' Syria claims were killed. As I said before, the US would want you be very bloody certain about who they were after in a raid like this. Also, they wouldn't have sent undisciplined troops in. Disciplined troops don't open fire on civvies. The types of troops who would've been used are smart, you don't get to be an SF man by fighting skill alone.

Now, Syria claim that these civvies were all killed for no reason. Doesn't make much sense, does it, especially on such a high-profile, arguably criminal raid - why make things even worse?? But, if you take my earlier point about removing a combatant's weapon to create a civilian, suddenly there is logic. The only reason for these people to have been killed is that they were threatening or attacking the SF team. If you do that, your lifespan can be counted in seconds, not years.

Nice attempt at dodging the question but it won't wash. You're the one who said it was fine for a "neutral" country to shelter and support combatants in a civil war, not me.

I assume I am one of the most unsuspicious people here to be biase din favour of moral authority of the US, however it is a war they are fighting, ans when I accept - even call for - US strikes against taleban seeking save haven in pakistan, then I would contradict my logic of war when I would not do the same regarding Al Quaeda terrorists in Syria. If you alolow your enemy in a war certain places of untouchable refuge and save haven, like you allowed China to stockpile supplies around Hanoi and not striking Haiphong and other places were the Vietcong resupllied in safety, then you end up like then americans did: they won all battles and still lost the war.

So either you leave afghanistan now, or you strikle Pakistan. either ou leave Iraq now, or you strike in Syria, and if needed: Iran, as well in order to kill enemies in Iraq. that civilians got killed, is regrettable, but may come from the fact that time and again we learn that these kind of enemies either hide in the middle of civilian crowds from where they open fire, or that they just melt ionto the civilian environment agaon once they take a brake from fighting. The guy they killed was said to be a key figure in recruiting and organising logictsical support and trafficking of bombers and fighters. Taking out a node in a powergridline may lead to disruptions and blackouts that are worth such an operation, and loss of life. After all, neither Syria is demanded to host terror bombers, nor is Al Quaeda demanded to wage a terror war against the civilian population in Iraq.

Its all a mess-up. War always is, and there is no way you don't get your hands dirty, always. Letting that man live may have caused bombs go off in Iraq and killing civilians that now maybe will not explode. Granted, somebody else will take over, and still, as long as the decision is to stay in Iraq, they hardly have another option than to fight and kill their enemies - what else is there to do if staying in Iraq? the syrian government however, should have understood the message. At least it would be better if they have.

I haven't dodged the question.
I have just invited you to answer it for your self.
If you think the UK should have reacted in the same way to Irish-American support for the IRA; then you are advocating the RAF bombing of Irish parts of New York.
You can't possibly believe this and therefore I conclude that you don't believe that bombing a country harboring people causing civil strife is justified universally.


Skybird:
War is not all or nothing.
Where it so, it would make sense to lay much of the region to waste via nuclear
explosions to achieve stability.

In the end, yes, if only the pollution would stop at the borders.

your lack of determination is diusturbing, becasue you create more war, not less. The illusion that war can be scaled, leads to two things: first, your wars are considered to be more acceptable, which makes them more likely, and second: wars get lost.

Igive a griom understanding of war, and by that, itz scares people away. By that I make war less attractive, and I make sure that I win the ones that I pick. I aoso make sure that a lot of thiought is spend in advance wether a war in question is really needed and really wanted.

Be hesitent to wage war. But if you do make sure your reasons are such that you can justify it before your conscience, and prepare well - and then strike at the enemy with all might you have. Else you end up like in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Half-hearted efforts. One hand bound on the back. Self-restraints. Bad preparation and planning ahead. History has given the results.

Europe tries to hunt down such sleepers and Islamic terrorists. Syria does not, but tolerates their presence. A small but decisive difference.

Some of the posts in the thread highlights why we will never 'win' this war.

We're trying to fight with rules, regulations, under extremely close scrutiny, and with a standard of morals and ethics. arguably the war could be all over now, if the west didnt care for civilian lives and just went in all guns blazing, killing anything that was deemed a threat. The west values human life however, and this would be simply unjustifiable. It actually goes out of its way to spare 'collateral damage'

On the other hand, our enemy cares nothing for innocent lives, or for fighting within any ruleset. they'll quite happily blow up a city block to try kill 1 man. Whilst the west is targetting just against the extremists/militants/whatever, they are fighting against every single westerner.

For us to win, is nigh on impossible - there are too many conditions that need to be met, too many rules to stop us achieving goals. For them to win, its relatively easy - kill or convert every one of us.

It's very simple, really. You have enemy combatants sitting across the border, where they refit, recruit, train and move out to attack and kill your troops. In other words, a primary logistics / leadership target. Those guys were sitting across that border because they counted on all those Anti-American clowns to condemn the US in case of a raid on their hide-out. And so did the Syrian government. But now someone in the US said "Ah, **** it" and took them out regardless. I say good call. More of it.

The humanitarians we are, we only kidnap those suspected of terrorism living in Europe.

And to be fair, the target in the Syrian raid was much more than a suspect. After al-Zarqawi was killed there was some speculation that the man killed in Syria would take over for him. He was indicted ~2004 by a Jordanian court for being part of a cell lead by his buddy al-Zarqawi that planned a chemical attack in that country. He was a bad guy.

It seems that they had solid intelligence (of which there is precious little concerning people like him) on where he was and a decision was made that he was important enough to kill even if there were civillians around and we had to piss of the Syrians.

I don't know if it's a decision I agree with, but I know it's a decision I would never want to make.

PD

What you actually outline is that civilisational progress and war are mutually exclusive. And I agree with that. there is no such thing like a "civilised way of war". thge higher developed a civilistion is in morals, the less capable it is to wage war itself.

The higher developed a civilisation is, the less it tends to waging war itself, but let proxies fight wars in its place. Civilised people do not kill with their own hands, but they will the dying of others and let the killing happen, committed by others. Linked to this is the expectation not to be worried by details of war, instead being saved the bloody details and instead left to one's own polished mental image of how clena and tidy it could be done.

I honestely do not believe in being civilised. It's a hypocritic lie. Some other things are far more important, I think. Honesty. Trustworthiness. Reliability. Strength. In peaceful and martial intentions: determination, and courage. For being considered to be civilised i can buy myself nothing.

It's only "nigh on impossible" as long as your own side keeps attacking you from behind while you fight the enemy at your front. Also known as "treason" once upon a time.

Skybird, have you had that stutter checked??:p

heartc, its like what skybird says - the west tries to be civilised in war, when war is anything but civilised by its very nature. Its hypocritical

edit - looks like you fixed it now :)

Hope so. Since some weeks this board sometimes drives me crazy. As if you guys are not already suffering enough from my many typos. :lol:

First off you did dodge the question and i'm still waiting for an answer to it.

Second. I don't think Irish-American support of the IRA was at all justified but the US Government did not encourage it either, interdicting many cash and arms shipments destined for IRA fighters. The exact opposite is the case with Syria, which brings up my final point.

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.

Yes it is.

Can you provide a news source that foretold of the attacks before they occurred?

That's not what i said. Try reading instead of reacting.

"This strike was not something out of the blue"

Something not out of the blue that no one saw coming? :hmm:
How far out of the blue is out of the blue!

No it is true. Strange to agree with August for a change, but it is true indeed. American accusations against Syria are not new at all.

And Letum, please stop debating semantics. Clever wordgames are not needed here, really.