Syria ponders filing UN complaint following helicopter attack


Praxius
#1
Those fk'n Americans are at it again:

8 civilians killed
Syria ponders filing UN complaint following helicopter attack

Quote:

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
#2
Additional Info:

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

Quote:

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
#3
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
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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
#5
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
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

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
#8
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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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 **** 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
#13
@ 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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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
#15
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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

@ 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 *** 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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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
#18
Iraq defends US-Iraq cross-border raid into Syria - Times Online (external - login to view)
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
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Iraq defends US-Iraq cross-border raid into Syria - Times Online (external - login to view)
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.

Quote:

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
#20
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.
 
scratch
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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.

Another case of invading/taking over a sovereign nation?
Hasn't that become standard practice now?
 
Zzarchov
#22
Its either not sovereign, or its declaring war, if militants are crossing its borders to attack you.

Sovereignty has responsibilities too. If you don't live up to the responsibilities, you aint sovereign.
 
Praxius
#23
Information Update:


Three children and a married couple were said to be among the dead

Syria hits out at 'terrorist' US
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Syria hits out at 'terrorist' US (external - login to view)

Quote:

Syria's foreign minister has accused the US of an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" over what it says was a helicopter raid on its territory.


Walid Muallem said Sunday's attack saw four US aircraft travel eight miles inside Syrian airspace from Iraq and kill eight unarmed civilians on a farm.

He said those who died were a father and his three children, a farm guard and his wife, and a fisherman.

The US has not confirmed or denied the alleged raid.

However, a unnamed US official was quoted by the AFP news agency as saying that its forces had mounted a "successful" raid against foreign fighters threatening US forces in Iraq.

Oh yeah, successful against a family of farmers.... that must have taken great skill and determination. fk'wits.

Quote:

The US has previously accused Syria of allowing militants into Iraq, but Mr Muallem insisted his country was trying to tighten border controls.

'An opportunity'
Speaking at a news conference in London, Mr Muallem said the raid on the town of Abu Kamal was "not a mistake" and that he had urged the Iraqi government to investigate.

"We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government," he told reporters following talks with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband.


He added: "All of them [the victims] are civilians, Syrian, unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories."

"Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression."
Asked if Syria would use force if a similar operation was mounted, he said: "As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our terrorities."


Referring to the US presidential election, he said: "We hope the coming administration will learn the mistakes of this administration."

Mr Muallem and Mr Miliband were scheduled to hold a joint press conference, but Mr Miliband withdrew. The UK government has declined to comment on the raid.

The US official quoted by AFP said: "Look when you've got an opportunity, an important one, you take it."
"That's what the American people would expect, particularly when it comes to foreign fighters going into Iraq, threatening our forces."

What a stupid son of a bitch this last guy is.... Oooooo... that's what the American people would expect.... us to blow the sh*t out of a family of farmers in another country.

The US just keeps opening up this can of worms every friggin day.

And the funny thing is that all of these countries that everybody thinks are our enemies and apparently want us all to die keep officially hoping for the next elections to change the west's direction of thinking and to correct their ways from what we all know and understand is a blundered Bush administration who doesn't give a sh*t about anybody on this planet.... hell they don't even care about their own nation.

Wanting and hoping for the West to correct its mistakes and paths they are taken sure is a different view point then from all of them wanting us to die..... hell even the Taliban in Afghanistan say very much the same thing.

Oh, so now you're probably thinking I must believe in the "Terrorist Propaganda" and all that crap since I don't snap sh*t and follow suit with what those in the government tell us..... and I say no.... but much more of what they are all saying sure sounds more logical then what we're being fed by our corrupt officials.

I say screw it...... Pakistan should unleash the demon all over Afghanistan and we should pull out.... and at the same time, Iran and Syria should both unleash the demon all over Iraq..... then Iraqis would be even more pissed about what the US did to their nation, blame the whole thing on them, and then the US would be back to square one with dealing with Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Iran, and Syria......

Hell, throw North Korea in there too while we're at it.... sure why not.... let's just get WWIII started with shall we?

Then again if it ever starts, it'll be a World War alright.... the World against the US..... I just hope Canada get's some brains and picks the right side to fight on...... and that's the one against the US, cuz I sure as hell have no sympathy or support for that neo-nazi regime south of us.

"Oh, Prax.... calling them Nazis is a bit far fethched and out of context."

Indeed... which is why I called them Neo-Nazis, because they're new, they're following similar trends as the old Nazis.... and give them enough time and space in the world as everybody is currently doing, and they will be soon enough.

See, the thing about following, reading up on and understanding our history, is to try and prevent history from repeating.... and it doesn't do much good when everybody just twiddles their thumbs in question until they know 100% for sure.... which is of course after history repeats again.... which by then is far too late.

The thing that bought the US extra time is by playing the WWII card early and finger pointing at everybody else as being the next Hitlers and Nazi Germanys...... all the while, they're the one's restricting travel into their country with manditory passports, racial profiling at the borders and airports, secret detention facilities accross the globe to do as they please to those they don't like, they're the ones using the whole "Terrorist" card for their own political and greedy agendas, they're the one's invading one nation after another nation...... they've been told to stop and follow proper protocol and did for a year or two, and now here they are attacking two other nations, spreading their military machine accross the globe and all signs are pointing that they are no where near done with their tyrant ways.

They certainly arn't going to stop themselves, because they simply think they're not doing anything wrong...... and so long as we all keep our mouths shut and do nothing, it will continue this way.

Oh well, when WWIII is all said and done, with any luck, the US will be bombed back to the stone ages, Bush and those who supported him will be tried for war crimes, executed... and like all the Jews in WWII, all the displaced Muslims will have a new land to call home... . right smack dab in the middle of the US, while we shove everybody else from the US into Israel.

And all will be good in the world.....
 
mabudon
#24
Ooohh Prax I LOVE the idea of giving the displaced a nice piece of the US to inhabit- I think now might be the time to buy stock in concrete retaining walls and bulldozers- very good suggestion

The US is going to pay dearly sooner or later- sad to say but the best thing that could happen to the US is some kind of major ****-whooping at the hands of several armies all at once, and if they keep this crap up I am fairly confident that it WILL happen. They will never admit they're losing until they really, truly LOSE, much as our Afghan mission, where instead of a "mandate for victory" we have now basically admitted defeat by introducing an "artificial timeline"- 5 years ago that was tratorious cowardice, but the reality has softened that perception immensely
 
EagleSmack
#25
OK BOYS... Get out the rubbing oil... Prax (edit) talking WAR against the US again!!!!
 
Zzarchov
#26
Seriously Prax? Grain of Salt. The Syrian's are making a claim a family of farmers were hit.

1.) Assuming the US forces were even there (they probabably were but Syria isn't always truthful about actions)

2.) Assuming they were farmers

What do you think it is foreign fighters do and where they stay? They don't have skull shaped island hideaways and they don't spend their days when they aren't fighting cashing welfare checks.

Farmers can be bad guys too, so can women, even married ones. Married men and women are suicide bombers, let alone being the much safer gunmen and bomb makers.

And if they are enemy forces, then they really shouldn't be staying with their kids, but should sent them away to an aunts for safekeeping, because the rules of war are pretty clear. If you have take your kid to work day in a warzone, you are the one responsible for them when they die, not the guy shooting at you. If your going to get involved in a war, don't bring your kids along.
 
Zzarchov
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudonView Post

Ooohh Prax I LOVE the idea of giving the displaced a nice piece of the US to inhabit- I think now might be the time to buy stock in concrete retaining walls and bulldozers- very good suggestion

The US is going to pay dearly sooner or later- sad to say but the best thing that could happen to the US is some kind of major ****-whooping at the hands of several armies all at once, and if they keep this crap up I am fairly confident that it WILL happen. They will never admit they're losing until they really, truly LOSE, much as our Afghan mission, where instead of a "mandate for victory" we have now basically admitted defeat by introducing an "artificial timeline"- 5 years ago that was tratorious cowardice, but the reality has softened that perception immensely

We have by and large already won in Afghanistan. Whats left now has gone from "enemy army" to "criminal gangs". Thats not the Armies territory, thats a police matter. In real terms, the Bloods and the Crypts in the US, hell even in BC, are more military powerful than the Taliban are.

At some point you have to say "near enough to zero", because like most things in life, it never actually reaches zero and it just gets more and more expensive to approach zero.
 
lone wolf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

We have by and large already won in Afghanistan. Whats left now has gone from "enemy army" to "criminal gangs". Thats not the Armies territory, thats a police matter. In real terms, the Bloods and the Crypts in the US, hell even in BC, are more military powerful than the Taliban are.

At some point you have to say "near enough to zero", because like most things in life, it never actually reaches zero and it just gets more and more expensive to approach zero.

ummm ... Yes, General Westmorland
 
Zzarchov
#29
A fitting example. Westmorland won in Vietnam until an uniformed public relying on negative media coverage (needed to garner interest and thus ad money) pulled the plug.

The publics right to do so, but with 20/20 hindsight and access to Soviety sources, the defeat the NVA suffered in the Tet offensive broke their back, the Viet Cong was by and large gone (with no new recruits) after the NVA attrocities on South Vietnamese cities, and the south was actually unifying against the threat of the NVA (after seeing their handiwork). This is why the NVA were looking for what kind of surrender terms they could get, until public opinion shifted and they decided to hang in there (to end up winning when the American's left)


I hate to break it to you, but a bunch of unloved foreigners with shoddy equipment, inferior numbers and no knowledge of the land are not going to dislodge a bunch of unloved foreigners with world class equipment, superior numbers and 5+ years experience in the territory.

Even in their home country the Taliban are getting slapped around by the locals.
 
lone wolf
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post


I hate to break it to you, but a bunch of unloved foreigners with shoddy equipment, inferior numbers and no knowledge of the land are not going to dislodge a bunch of unloved foreigners with world class equipment, superior numbers and 5+ years experience in the territory.

Even in their home country the Taliban are getting slapped around by the locals.

I hate to break it to you, but America felt bulletproof. Tet cost support from home - and thus, the war.

The point is: a bunch of unloved foreigners with world class equipment, superior numbers and 5+ years experience in the territory haven't a chance against the people they're pissing off to play cops 'n' robbers with that other bunch of unloved foreigners.
 

Similar Threads

29
NHL ponders 2 teams in Toronto
by Avro | Jan 19th, 2009
no new posts