American Raid in Syria

[baggygreen]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-23109,00.html

Interesting reading.

Admission of a violation of territorial integrity by the yanks means that some real low-life mongrel was killed or captured. There is no way in hell that the yanks would fly 4 choppers into Syria and start shooting up civvies.

From a purely emotional standpoint I say good on 'em, but from a more objective point of view it is a real issue. Whoever it was must have been worth one heck of a risk, for the yanks to attack in Syria... Who knows what those crazies in Damascus might do.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-23109,00.html

Interesting reading.

Admission of a violation of territorial integrity by the yanks means that some real low-life mongrel was killed or captured. There is no way in hell that the yanks would fly 4 choppers into Syria and start shooting up civvies.

Agree, on the basis of assuming that their intel was correct, and the commando did not mistake place and target.

[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:

[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.

[baggygreen]

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

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.

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.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

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 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.

[baggygreen]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

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

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