American Raid in Syria

[caspofungin]

Who knows what those crazies in Damascus might do.

Nothing that the crazies in Washington haven't already perfected.

[Dowly]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind...

It was meanwhile said they were after an AlQuaeda key person who managed the recruiting and trafficking of Al Quaeda fighters from Syria into Iraq, and out again and back to safe haven. Maybe the lacking interest of the world public has to do with the limitation in sympathy for terrorists doing like this.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It was meanwhile said they were after an AlQuaeda key person who managed the recruiting and trafficking of Al Quaeda fighters from Syria into Iraq, and out again and back to safe haven. Maybe the lacking interest of the world public has to do with the limitation in sympathy for terrorists doing like this.

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken. I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken.

That risk is a certain given. You can call off the whole operation then. that is as absurd as that British polcie going after a Muslim terror suspect now has to tell his religious community first, so that they can call and warn him, and afterwards know of nothing. The Syrian government is no neutal player, but party in this conflict. Thus, you do not warn it. Or better: you warn it - by executing a warning example.

Like this mission, for example.

Originally Posted by Dowly

I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

[Digital_Trucker]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Skybird

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Couldn't have said it better myself, Skybird

It seems at times we can agree on some things.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

Which boils down to the age old question, is might necessarily right?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Which boils down to the age old question, is might necessarily right?

No, and might without sense of resopnsibility is tyranny. Power can corrupt. Nevertheless improvement and progress lies in increasing the number of your options, and that you will never acchieve by beeing weak, but only by being strong (in a wider meaning of the word). Thus it is better to have strength and not needing to use it, than to be in need of strength but not having it. What victims of crimes usually have in common is that they were weak. Of the strong ones, some are just, others are not. The latter are a problem.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Is that Dowly's plane? :p

-S

Originally Posted by Skybird

That risk is a certain given. You can call off the whole operation then. that is as absurd as that British polcie going after a Muslim terror suspect now has to tell his religious community first, so that they can call and warn him, and afterwards know of nothing. The Syrian government is no neutal player, but party in this conflict. Thus, you do not warn it. Or better: you warn it - by executing a warning example.

Like this mission, for example.

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

When you cross into the territory of a sovereign nation without any warning and kill citizens in that nation, expect repercussions. Not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of that guy or his family for that matter (I guess the family had to go too then. I guess they were guilty too, I'm not expecting a retroactive trial though).

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of that guy or his family for that matter (I guess the family had to go too then. I guess they were guilty too, I'm not expecting a retroactive trial though).

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.

Originally Posted by Dowly

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken. I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

Aye aye,America is in its Worst Recession ever,Which Corporate Banks Created so,,,Could this be an Excuse for War?:hmm:

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Dowly

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind...

You know, the US of A is the exception that confirms the rule.
All countries must abide by international law, except of course the USA.
"Do as I say not as I do" would be the motto of the americans.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

You know, the US of A is the exception that confirms the rule.
All countries must abide by international law, except of course the USA.
"Do as I say not as I do" would be the motto of the americans.

Nevertheless sometimes they are right. That's why I decide on an issue-by-issue basis wether I am suppoorting them or not. Neither do I always oppose them for principal reasons, nor do I make it a principal thing to always be with them, no matter what. I think that is the only intelligent solution to how to deal with american policies. Everything else is ideological trench warfare in defense or in attack against America.