We're getting awfully good at pissing people off

[quote name='bigdaddy']Since when was Syria an ally?[/quote]
Well according to that article they are trying to "clean their act up" so to speak. Maybe ally was to strict a term.
 
A U.S. raid on a farm in eastern Syria is thought to have killed an Iraqi smuggler who oversaw the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq for the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist group, a U.S. official said Monday.

The smuggler, whom the official identified as Abu Ghadiya, was "one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, foreign fighter facilitator" operating across the Iraq-Syrian border, said the official, who asked not to be further identified because Sunday's operation was classified.

"It was a successful operation," the U.S. official told McClatchy Newspapers. "Abu Ghadiya is believed to have been killed. He was in the compound. The bottom line: this was a significant blow to the foreign fighter pipeline between Syria and Iraq."

Abu Ghadiya is the nom de guerre of Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, a Sunni Muslim who was born in the late 1970s in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and was a lieutenant of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006. He was believed to be living in the Syrian town of Zabadani.

"Abu Ghadiya and his network go to great lengths to facilitate the flow through Syria of money, weapons, and terrorists intent on killing U.S. and Coalition forces and innocent Iraqis," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey.
Click to expand...
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/743633.html
Keep jumping to conclusions. You guys give Liberals a bad name.

I'm greatly encouraged by this attack, it shows that the battle will not be dictated by politics as it was in Vietnam.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']So i guess Syria has no say in it, huh? It's fine to just violate their soverignty and bomb them whenever we wish.[/QUOTE]
If they allow forces to operate within their borders which are directly responsible for American deaths, then yes, bombs away. Does Iraq have a say on whether Syria should allow foreign fighters to cross its borders freely and destabilize the country? As the party responsible for the defense of Iraq and its sovereignty, we have an obligation to act.

If they don't like it, they can either stop giving their tacit support to these groups, or they can try and stop us. More than likely they'll just complain about it and take no action either way.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Didn't Obama get attacked for saying that we should do something like this if Bin Laden and crew were hiding in Pakistan?[/quote]

The point was that you can't say it, not that you can't do it. :p
 
[quote name='dafoomie']If they allow forces to operate within their borders which are directly responsible for American deaths, then yes, bombs away. Does Iraq have a say on whether Syria should allow foreign fighters to cross its borders freely and destabilize the country? As the party responsible for the defense of Iraq and its sovereignty, we have an obligation to act.[/quote]

Okay, so by that logic, say there was a mexican paramilitary group acting inside the US' borders conducting terrorisms against mexico. Mexico launches a strike that kills a handful of innocent people in Texas.

Is bombs away still an okay tactic when it's your own fucking people being killed?
 
[quote name='ananag112']Didn't Obama get attacked for saying that we should do something like this if Bin Laden and crew were hiding in Pakistan?[/QUOTE]
Violating international laws and treaties that we have agreed to for the sake of killing Bin Laden is a reasonable point of debate. Doing the same to some cut rate small town operator is something entirely different. The #2 guy to the #2 guy to the #2 guy is still just a #2 guy.
 
[quote name='Hex']Okay, so by that logic, say there was a mexican paramilitary group acting inside the US' borders conducting terrorisms against mexico. Mexico launches a strike that kills a handful of innocent people in Texas.

Is bombs away still an okay tactic when it's your own fucking people being killed?[/quote]

Of course not. :D

However, the US isn't going to get very far in belly aching if Mexico has a trail on evidence showing the US ignoring a threat to Mexico and its people.

...

Syria knows people are using it as a gateway to Iraq. Refugees also use it as a gateway from Iraq.

As far as I know, Syria isn't asking for US support to close or to maintain the border.

So, Syria is being complicit in the deaths of US soldiers. Whether or not the US soldiers should be there is another long debate.
 
[quote name='Hex']Okay, so by that logic, say there was a mexican paramilitary group acting inside the US' borders conducting terrorisms against mexico. Mexico launches a strike that kills a handful of innocent people in Texas.

Is bombs away still an okay tactic when it's your own fucking people being killed?[/QUOTE]
Lets look at history. When Pancho Villa's forces were attacking the US from Mexico, the US sent 10,000 troops into Mexico to stop him.

Ignoring the absurdity of your hypothetical situation, if one nation is harboring forces which are attacking your nation, whether through official support, tacit support, or negligence, the nation under attack has every right to defend itself and go after those forces.

Lines on a map are just lines on a map, unless they've got the ability and the will to back it up. And if they could do that, eliminating the 3rd party is well within their means, in which case they are supporting the forces attacking you. Which isn't any different than that nation sending its own troops in to attack you.

Syria is unhappy that their sovereignty has been violated. But Syria has been violating Iraq's sovereignty on a daily basis by allowing these foreign fighters to enter Syria, arm and organize in Syria, and enter Iraq.

If Syria can't or won't stop these people, and they can't stop you, why would you care what Syria thinks?
 
Syria itself is not violating Iraq's sovereignty unless they are the ones sending these people into Iraq. Otherwise they're just using Syria as a corridor into Iraq.

Think of it this way, if Mexican fighters were entering the US and arming themselves, then passing into Canada, would that be our fault? I mean officially our fault too, not just that these people were sneaking through our territory.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Syria itself is not violating Iraq's sovereignty unless they are the ones sending these people into Iraq. Otherwise they're just using Syria as a corridor into Iraq.

Think of it this way, if Mexican fighters were entering the US and arming themselves, then passing into Canada, would that be our fault? I mean officially our fault too, not just that these people were sneaking through our territory.[/QUOTE]
If a gang of militants is operating out of a camp in North Dakota and we won't go after them, why shouldn't Canada? The only thing stopping them would be retaliation.

If Syria did not want this to happen, it would not be happening. They are either directly supporting them or turning a blind eye to it. If they are truly unable to deal with this, then they have little ability to stop us or retaliate, either way there is little reason to give these terrorists an artificial safe haven that they can cross at any time.

In the Vietnam War, the "neutral" countries of Laos and Cambodia were being used to move supplies and launch attacks deep inside South Vietnam. That war was lost when politicians decided that lines on a map were more important than the practical situation on the battlefield. They basically had a safe haven where American forces could not enter.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Think of it this way, if Mexican fighters were entering the US and arming themselves, then passing into Canada, would that be our fault?[/quote]

Yes. The Mexicans became armed in America. They became a threat to Canada because of American negligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top