Syria ponders filing UN complaint following helicopter attack

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Those fk'n Americans are at it again:

8 civilians killed
Syria ponders filing UN complaint following helicopter attack

The United States committed a "terrible crime" when a helicopter attack killed eight civilians on a Syrian farm near the Iraq border, according to Syrian officials, who said the country may file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council.

Four U.S helicopters attacked the al-Sukkari farm Sunday in the Albou Kamal area of eastern Syria, about eight kilometres from the Iraq border, according to Syrian government officials.

"Four helicopters came from different directions and hovered. Two of them landed and soldiers got out and started shooting," Osama Malla Hameed, who owns a farm nearby, told Reuters. "They stayed for about four minutes and then departed."

Syrian officials said U.S. soldiers also stormed a civilian building that was under construction in the area.

The funerals of the people killed, who included four children, were expected to be held on Monday.

'Outrageous raid'

"This is an outrageous raid which is against international law. It is a terrible crime," Syrian Ambassador to London Sami al-Khiyami said.

Khiyami said Syria is still waiting to hear from the United States about why the attack occurred.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Monday that the attacks targeted an area that is used by insurgents to launch cross-border attacks into Iraq.

"The latest of these groups ... killed 13 police recruits in an [Iraqi] border village. Iraq had asked Syria to hand over this group which uses Syria as a base for its terrorist activities," Dabbagh said.

The United States has neither confirmed nor denied the incident.

But a U.S. military official in Washington anonymously told the Associated Press Sunday that special forces conducted a raid in Syria targeting a network of al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The United States has previously accused Syria of failing to stem the flow of al-Qaeda fighters into Iraq.

About 90 per cent of the foreign fighters in Iraq enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence.

Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and are more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis.
May lodge complaint

Syria will decide if it is going to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Security Council after officially hearing from the American government, Khiyami said.

The attack comes at time when Syria appears to be making some amends with the United States.

Its president, Bashar Assad, has pursued indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, and says he wants direct talks next year. Syria also has agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, a country it used to dominate both politically and militarily.

The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has also been declining. A senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July it had been cut by about 50 per cent over six months to an estimated 20 a month.

"If they [the United States] have any proof of any insurgency, instead of applying the law of the jungle and penetrating, unprovoked, a sovereign country, they should come to the Syrians first and share this information," Syria's press attaché at its embassy in London, Jihad Makdissi, told the BBC.

"This administration ... have proved to be irrational and they have no respect for international law or human rights. We expect a clarification, and of course Syria reserves the right to respond accordingly in the proper way."

Syria is also urging the Iraqi government to carry out an immediate inquiry into the attack and to ensure that Iraq was not used for "aggression against Syria," said state news agency SANA.

Iraqi officials said they hoped the raid would not harm their relations with Syria, and Iran condemned the attack.

Gotta love the US's response:

"But a U.S. military official in Washington anonymously told the Associated Press Sunday that special forces conducted a raid in Syria targeting a network of al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids."

^ Yeah ok.... those four children must have been a real threat that you gotta send off special forces to execute them on a farm and then take off quickly, expecting nobody would notice.

Taking matters into their own hands..... yeah no sh*t.... the US is sending it's troops into any country, any location, for any reason they damn well please, totally ignoring the borders of other nations, totally ignoring international laws.....

Jesus, I won't shed a damn tear when several countries just decide to land on US territory and blow the hell out of a few of their children and civilians claiming to have targeted terrorists.

God Damn Americans.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Additional Info:

Syria reports attack by American helicopters
CTV.ca | Syria reports attack by American helicopters

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Syria's state-run television and witnesses say U.S. military helicopters have attacked an area along the country's border with Iraq, causing casualties.

The report quoted unnamed Syrian officials and said the area is near the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. It gave no other details on Sunday's attack.

Local residents told The Associated Press by telephone that two helicopters carrying U.S. soldiers raided the village of Hwijeh, 15 kilometres inside Syria's border, killing seven people and wounding five.

The U.S. military in Baghdad had no immediate comment.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
So wait a minute. America is responsible for Americans entering Syrian borders.

But Syria isn't responsible for Syrians crossing into foreign borders?


Sovereignty is a responsibility, not just a privelage. If Syria can't control its own borders, then it loses the right to claim sovereignty over them.

Its not that I mind people holding first world nations accountable to their actions, its the double standard evidenced in each instance that gets to me.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
So wait a minute. America is responsible for Americans entering Syrian borders.

But Syria isn't responsible for Syrians crossing into foreign borders?


Sovereignty is a responsibility, not just a privelage. If Syria can't control its own borders, then it loses the right to claim sovereignty over them.

Its not that I mind people holding first world nations accountable to their actions, its the double standard evidenced in each instance that gets to me.

Exactly.......

Aiding and abetting attacks on a foreign nation are acts of war. Something those who protest our war in Afghanistan don't seem to understand.

Kill 'em where you find 'em.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
It's not that I don't understand what you and Zz are talking about in some respects, but, in other respects, I don't understand the willingness to let it flow across yet another border and involve yet another country. 'An act of war' Colpy says. Sure, why not... let's broaden the war. Let's spread it out. Not enough people were dying? Not enough nationalities were holding a lifelong grudge after holding their dying children in their arms? There weren't enough governments being told how they need to exercise their sovereignty to western standards?

It's sickening and sad to see how this spreads.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Exactly.......

Aiding and abetting attacks on a foreign nation are acts of war. Something those who protest our war in Afghanistan don't seem to understand.

Kill 'em where you find 'em.

So ... tell me again why 9/11 was a bad thing? ...because the shoe was on the other foot? Syria ... Iraq.... What has either to do with Afghanistan? Because you're pee'd off at one it's okay to piddle on the world?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
So ... tell me again why 9/11 was a bad thing? ...because the shoe was on the other foot? Syria ... Iraq.... What has either to do with Afghanistan? Because you're pee'd off at one it's okay to piddle on the world?

Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Afghanistan, except in the illustration of the principle.

9-11 was a bad thing (are you serious????) because 3000 people died, including 24 Canadians.

After it was established were the attacks were planned, where the attackers' leaders were based, the USA gave the Afghanis (the Taliban then) every opportunity to hand over the guilty......the Taliban tried to wiggle out of that, and so........

The attacks originated from Afghanistan, therefore Canadian participation in the attacks on Afghanistan were not only justified, but necessary as part of our treaty obligations.

It was so obvious that the attacks were partly the responsibility of the Afghan gov't that the bloody useless UN has sanctioned themission there.

Iraq is not part of any Canadian treaty......Iraq is not our problem. we have no commitment there......but the Americans have every right to defend themselves from attack in Iraq by terrorists aided and abetted by the Syrian gov't.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I am well aware of the deaths in 9/11 - including those 24 Canadians you keep touting to bend us all to your will. Now ... please DO try not to create propaganda of a statement, Colpy. It only serves to make you froth at the mouth.

If it's so okay for your beloved United States or Israel to strike anywhere they choose in whichever manner they choose, why is it wrong for anyone else to do the same. Keep in mind, your beloved United States has created a lot of dissent in the "lesser nations" since it emerged as a poor winner following WW2.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Now ... please DO try not to create propaganda of a statement, Colpy. It only serves to make you froth at the mouth.

If it's so okay for your beloved United States or Israel to strike anywhere they choose in whichever manner they choose, why is it wrong for anyone else to do the same. Keep in mind, your beloved United States has created a lot of dissent in the "lesser nations" since it emerged as a poor winner following WW2.

Sorry, I live in Canada, not Syria or Taliban Afghanistan, or Pakistan (thank God)......I happen to prefer western liberal democracies over theocratic looney states or murderous tyrannies. And when those two entities go to war with each other, I have no doubt which side deserves my support.........I appreciate the good things in our society, and believe that attacks on that society should be dealt with very very harshly........

The USA is far, far from perfect, and has stuck its fingers in a lot of places that they didn't belong.........but that doesn't change what I've said one iota......
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
So wait a minute. America is responsible for Americans entering Syrian borders.

But Syria isn't responsible for Syrians crossing into foreign borders?


Sovereignty is a responsibility, not just a privelage. If Syria can't control its own borders, then it loses the right to claim sovereignty over them.

Its not that I mind people holding first world nations accountable to their actions, its the double standard evidenced in each instance that gets to me.

They, much like Pakistan, have been improving on controlling these people who are commiting these sorts of crime (As already expressed in the above article) and it seems that the moment Pakistan or Syria actually start to do something for the benifit of the US, the US turns around and starts blowing the hell out of them.

Not to mention any and all links to Syria and those causing the violence in Iraq come from the same US intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMD, that Iran actually was working on a Nuke, that Osama was in Afghanistan, and has based much of their shadey intelligence on shadey evidence such as weapons which can be bought from Syria or anywhere else for that matter, by a third party.

I may see the point where some are saying that Syria and Pakistan shouldn't preach about sovereignty when they don't practice the same thing..... well it is not the countries themselves who are doing these things..... and like terrorists, if you want to remove the threat of terrorism, you don't stoop to terrorist methods which the US continually does, even when those they are attacking start or continually do what is requested of them by the same idiots who are attacking them.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Sorry, I live in Canada, not Syria or Taliban Afghanistan, or Pakistan (thank God)......I happen to prefer western liberal democracies over theocratic looney states or murderous tyrannies. And when those two entities go to war with each other, I have no doubt which side deserves my support.........I appreciate the good things in our society, and believe that attacks on that society should be dealt with very very harshly........

The USA is far, far from perfect, and has stuck its fingers in a lot of places that they didn't belong.........but that doesn't change what I've said one iota......

Apparently they do too....
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Exactly.......

Aiding and abetting attacks on a foreign nation are acts of war. Something those who protest our war in Afghanistan don't seem to understand.

Kill 'em where you find 'em.

Show me proof of their abetting of the attacks, otherwise you're talking out of your arse and recycling the same old garbage the US likes to spout to get what they want. And if anybody was abetting attacks, point your finger directly to the US, who's been giving billions to these organizations for years now..... the same organizations they claim to be fighting.

And if you're all happy and go-lucky about the US going after Terrorists.... then fine.... go after the terrorists.

Unfortunatly, the US doesn't have a brain when it comes to actually targeting terrorists and tend to kill more children and civilians in the process to counter any productivivty in their mission.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
@ Karrie:

If armed fighters are leaving Syria to fight against the Iraqi government, then Syria is involved in a war with Iraq.

If the armed fighters are not coming from the Syrian government then that means the Syrian government does not control its borders, aka, it cannot exert sovereignty over them.

This is no different than the reason Canada has to send icebreakers up north. We just can't draw lines on a map and say "Ours". If the land is ours we have to be able to exert government control and enforce the laws of the land in those areas.

If we can't, then it really isn't our land.


likewise, if Syria (or Pakistan) doesn't actually control regions, then drawing on a map and saying "Thats our land" doesn't cut it. The people who live there have exerted their independance. And when they cross into another country to start shooting people, thats an act of war.

And then the other side (Iraq with US air support) is going to go back across the border and do some shooting themselves.


Either Syria is sending the fighters as an act of war, or it is not in control of its borders and has no right to complain of incursions.

Either situation could be true, but in neither one can Syria claim to be wronged.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Afghanistan, except in the illustration of the principle.

There is no illustration of any principle to be made..... Iraq shouldn't have been a situation period.... what anybody within Syria may or may not be doing to US troops in Iraq has been brought apon the US by their own actions alone... nobody else's. Now Pakistan and Syria are being attacked by the US..... great fk'n plan.

Why? Apparently to you it's to illustrate a principle.

Tell they to the civilians being killed.

Shoe on the other foot indeed..... I can only imagine when the fighting is brought to our doorsteps as we sit by and allow the US to continually screw everybody over for their own selfish gains.

9-11 was a bad thing (are you serious????) because 3000 people died, including 24 Canadians.

Big whoopie doo..... more Canadians have died in Afghanistan then died on 9/11..... great trade off on that one..... oh has anybody seen Osama yet? Nope.

Oh yeah... but 9/11 occured.... so let's make everybody in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and now Syria suffer..... Hell, I think Iran is next.... why the hell not?

After it was established were the attacks were planned, where the attackers' leaders were based, the USA gave the Afghanis (the Taliban then) every opportunity to hand over the guilty......the Taliban tried to wiggle out of that, and so........

Oh yeah, they wiggled out of that alright.... apparently, based on that wonderful US intelligence you hold dear to, the attack was planned by Osama, who are apparently in Afghanistan, who was a part of the Taliban, who didn't turn him over since Osama and the Taliban never claimed responsibility for the attack and refused to turn him over to a blood thursty nation out for revenge with no evidence provided other then edited/modified media only supplied by that same military intelligence that didn't seem to notice Osama was never even in Afghanistan when they landed..... or that Iraq and Saddam has WMD.

Yeah.... great track record so far. What is that? Zero for Six so far?

The attacks originated from Afghanistan, therefore Canadian participation in the attacks on Afghanistan were not only justified, but necessary as part of our treaty obligations.

Treaty obligations? Oh yeah, the whole NATO Bullsh*t.... Afghanistan was as much of a lie as Iraq, we shouldn't have been in there in the first place, and being contracted to go there should have been our departure from NATO.

It was so obvious that the attacks were partly the responsibility of the Afghan gov't that the bloody useless UN has sanctioned themission there.

No they sanctioned the mission there out of trying to rebuild what the US has destroyed, to try and bring some kind of order, help build people's homes back, bring jobs, basically to clean up the mess the US made..... unfortunatly, that has all been forgotten and we've been fighting the US's damn war more then doing what we should be doing..... rebuilding and then getting the hell out of there.

But then again, if the US did their damn job in the first place, the right way, this all would have been done a long time ago.

Iraq is not part of any Canadian treaty......Iraq is not our problem. we have no commitment there......but the Americans have every right to defend themselves from attack in Iraq by terrorists aided and abetted by the Syrian gov't.

It's not their country to dictate what happens to them.... if they don't like people suspected from Syria blowing their soldiers up, then address their concerns with the Iraqi government to take matters into their own hands.... it's their country, their security.

Then again, I guess it all boils down to who started what..... who killed who first..... did the US kill a few Syrian supporters who were already in Iraq which caused them to attack back, or was it the other way around.

I hear everybody here complaining about Syria not respecting borders and shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...... but isn't that the same damn argument about the US who should have respected borders and shouldn't be in Iraq either?

Pot meet kettle.

Maybe Syria is killing US troops in Iraq..... and maybe the US is killing Syrian forces in Iraq..... but Syria isn't killing people in the US, so perhaps the US shouldn't be killing people in Syria.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Prax:

To your last point: You know that was a Joint Iraq/US raid on the behest of the Iraqi government.

Or are you saying Iraqi's don't have a right to their own borders. IF they don't thats a fine view, then I guess the US invasion was a-ok.

Or they do have a right to their borders, in which case striking back at Syria is A-ok.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
@ Karrie:

If armed fighters are leaving Syria to fight against the Iraqi government, then Syria is involved in a war with Iraq.

If the armed fighters are not coming from the Syrian government then that means the Syrian government does not control its borders, aka, it cannot exert sovereignty over them.

This is no different than the reason Canada has to send icebreakers up north. We just can't draw lines on a map and say "Ours". If the land is ours we have to be able to exert government control and enforce the laws of the land in those areas.

If we can't, then it really isn't our land.


likewise, if Syria (or Pakistan) doesn't actually control regions, then drawing on a map and saying "Thats our land" doesn't cut it. The people who live there have exerted their independance. And when they cross into another country to start shooting people, thats an act of war.

And then the other side (Iraq with US air support) is going to go back across the border and do some shooting themselves.


Either Syria is sending the fighters as an act of war, or it is not in control of its borders and has no right to complain of incursions.

Either situation could be true, but in neither one can Syria claim to be wronged.

I keep seeing people claim they're not doing anything, therefore the US has every right to prance all over the place and blowing things up.... when clearly, at the very least, in the last 2-3 months, both Pakistan and Syria have been stepping up their control and security to benifit the US's stupid ass wars..... in the above report and many others I have been posting, this has been proven time and time again.

And yet, even though they are meeting your above requirements of keeping and maintaining those borders, the US continues to blow the snot out of their people.

And if you want to talk about people not controlling their borders all that well.... tell me.... how's the US doing with the Mexicans jumping their borders everyday? Great control and security there..... perhaps some other nations should enter the US and start patrolling their borders, since they can't seem to do a good enough job on their own.

I don't suppose you see the point I'm trying to make:

Granted, you should be able to at least admit you have seen similar reports that these two countries are doing a lot to curb the flow of Taliban and the sort in recent time.... but I imagine to you and Colpy, it isn't enough so therefore the US has every right to blow everybody up...... but who has the right to determine how well or bad a country is doing for itself?

The US can't fully contain the flow of illegals crossing their borders, so should someone else step in for them? Does this mean that Mexico isn't doing enough for the US, and so the US should start crossing Mexico's borders to take over and dictate what they feel needs to be done?

Then who's next? Canada? Iran? North Korea? China?

The US has been given a green card for anything and everything it does for way too long, it seems like anybody can pull some excuse to justify their actions out of their arses and think it's simply ok.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Prax:

To your last point: You know that was a Joint Iraq/US raid on the behest of the Iraqi government.

Or are you saying Iraqi's don't have a right to their own borders. IF they don't thats a fine view, then I guess the US invasion was a-ok.

Or they do have a right to their borders, in which case striking back at Syria is A-ok.

None of the information provided in the two above reports claims it was a joint operation between Iraq and the US..... witnesses and all available reports claim it was US and US only forces who commited this act. While an Iraqi official explained a few details about the attack as he understood it, a US Military official was quoted as saying "We are taking matters into our own hands."

Until I hear it officially that it was a joint operation, it wasn't, no matter how much you speculate.

If it was Iraqi forces who crossed the border and attacked, then my view on the situation may be different.... but it wasn't, so my view is not.

Syria is also urging the Iraqi government to carry out an immediate inquiry into the attack and to ensure that Iraq was not used for "aggression against Syria," said state news agency SANA.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Iraq defends US-Iraq cross-border raid into Syria - Times Online
Iraq today defended launching a joint raid with the United States across the border into neighbouring Syria, claiming that the target was a site used by terror groups planning attacks against it.


Joint Raid.


As for Mexico. That is actually a case against Mexico not controlling its borders. Now if US vigilantes or criminals were venturing into Mexican territory, THEN it would be an issue for US claims of sovereignty.

Its not what goes into your borders (IE, Syria couldn't be faulted for Iraqi forces crossing its borders)

Its about what goes out of your borders into other peoples (the Syrian forces crossing into Iraq)
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Iraq defends US-Iraq cross-border raid into Syria - Times Online
Iraq today defended launching a joint raid with the United States across the border into neighbouring Syria, claiming that the target was a site used by terror groups planning attacks against it.


Joint Raid.

Fair enough.... but I still don't believe the US should have had any part in the mission.

As for Mexico. That is actually a case against Mexico not controlling its borders. Now if US vigilantes or criminals were venturing into Mexican territory, THEN it would be an issue for US claims of sovereignty.

Its not what goes into your borders (IE, Syria couldn't be faulted for Iraqi forces crossing its borders)

Its about what goes out of your borders into other peoples (the Syrian forces crossing into Iraq)

So by your logic, the US would be in it's rights to invade Mexico in order to stop the illegal border jumpings? Mexico clearly isn't doing enough in regards to what the US expects.... so they should be flying in helicopters with troops to Mexico and laying down the law.

Or is this just a pick and choose situation?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
It could very well assume border control from
mexico. But that would seem counter productive as it would then be responsible for the care of those whom it occupies.

And if its just going to form a border, well its already got a pretty descent location, so why go further.

If those crossing in from Mexico were throwing bombs around, then US might take a more aggressive role.