US Attacked "Civilian Farm" in Syria...

[Mad Mike]

So, the next time Russian crosses over into Georgia, we really don't have any room to object, do we? After all, here we are raiding into the territory of another nation.

Yes. Syria aren't the necessarily the "good guys," as we see them. Yes, we have a right to defend ourselves, but I don't think those principles come into play in this case. We just raided into the territory of another nation, and I do not think it helped our cause.

Yeah. Much better to sit back and be attacked. God knows we cant actually fight back because those nice syrians might think we are bad people.

Bottom line. If anyone thinks that we are in the wrong for this F them. they were never our friend and the never would like us anyway.

[Predicto]

You have no idea... mistakes happen....

RIiiiiight. Love the disclaimer. But the bottom line is once again you jumped into a discussion on the side of our enemies. You could have jumped in and said "yeah we could have made a mistake, but more than likely, knowing Syria's track record, we hit a terrorist compound.

That would have been fair to say too right? But what was the position you took again?

I don't know. Why don't you go back to my first post. The one where I said that Syria lies all the time. Or my third post. The one where I said that I am sure that our guys tried their best not to make a mistake.

Or ALL of my posts, where ALL I ever said was that THESE pictures aren't persuasive either way and that I'm not saying anything about whether Syria is telling the truth. Frankly I don't think they are. Syria lies. All the time (like I already said).

I still think these particular photos don't show anything. I probably shouldn't be surprised that this makes you so angry, given your history.

I'm sure you have seen lots of farms with 25 foot cinderblock walls in terrorist supporting middle east nations.

But hey, as long as you put in the disclaimer and all you are just being fair.

I have looked at pictures of Iraq for 6 years now. All I ever see is cinderblock walls, everywhere.

[Corcaigh]

Part of that "winning the minds in the streets" is also smacking liars in the face. Last year I completed a home for a couple who emigrated here from Iran. It was interesting hearing their views on this. Arguing and haggling are the norm in their culture. The husband made the point that strength is respected. That's why we need to smack down regimes like Syria when we figure out they are lying. It is all about our perception there.

Sure smack the Syrians in the face, but how about some photos of the terrorist leader we killed, a weapons cache, or anything to show evidence to the man in the street that the Syrians weren't dealing with the problem inside their border.

[Larry]

So they had a specific target.

Yep. Their target was somebody who's a relative of somebody who's suspected of being Bad.

This is starting to sound like one of McCain's campaign commercials.

So we landed special forces and THEY couldn't tell a terrorist camp from a farm. Who wants to tell me that our special forces wiped out a bunch of farmers for giggles.

Well, the source you quoted says they killed "four members of one family, a guard at the farm and his wife and a man who was fishing nearby".

Syria reported that US troops, backed by helicopters, launched the attack five miles into its territory, killing eight people, including four children. But at the funerals of the victims, where angry crowds chanted anti-American slogans, an Associated Press photographer said he saw the bodies of seven men.

Now that's surprising. In a region that's made an art form of the mock war crime outrage, I would have expected them to have cooked up some better evidence for the photographers.

[The Sisko]

Walls are very common in the Middle East because they allow women to walk freely around the house/yard area without hair covering which is required in Islam.

Even so, I'm not buying that this was an attack on innocent civilians. The Syrians took all the pictures at the site (that we've seen so far) and they obviously wouldn't show anything that would incriminate themselves. Furthermore, if there were women and children killed, even if they were the family of the target, the Syrian govt would have them on every news outlet around the world by now.

Naah, I was just kidding. It was actually a baby milk factory. Death to Amrika!!

[Mad Mike]

And you claim that he's jumping to conclusions without evidence?

Maybe you should stick to :jerk:.

Exibit A: American Special Forces landed and put eyes on their target. Yes I believe they are good enough to identify terrorists from farmers and children. Silly me.

Exibit B: Syria reported that US troops killed eight people, including four children. But at the funeral an Associated Press photographer said he saw the bodies of seven men. No Children.

And your evidence to the contrary?

Maybe you should STFU before you make yourself look stupid. Oh, my bad...

[Larry]

So, the next time Russian crosses over into Georgia, we really don't have any room to object, do we? After all, here we are raiding into the territory of another nation.

[Dan T.]

All rhetoric aside, this is a tough call, and a similar one to what we're facing in Pakistan. Should enemy combatants have safe refuge across these national borders, where they can stage operations to attack U.S. and coalition forces, and be able to retreat there without fear of counterattack? If those neighboring countries do something about these fighters camped within their borders, we might be better off staying out of there. But if they are given safe harbor, and neither Syria nor Pakistan make enough of an attempt to deter them, it's in our best interests to strike there.

[Mad Mike]

Yep. Their target was somebody who's a relative of somebody who's suspected of being Bad.

BZZZZT! WRONG!

The US refused to comment publicly, but an official said the raid's target was Abu Ghadiya, a former aide of the Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ghadiya was a major smuggler of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters into Iraq, the official told Reuters.

This is starting to sound like one of McCain's campaign commercials.

Well, the source you quoted says they killed "four members of one family, a guard at the farm and his wife and a man who was fishing nearby".

Now that's surprising. In a region that's made an art form of the mock war crime outrage, I would have expected them to have cooked up some better evidence for the photographers.

Yeah, your evidence against america is that the syrians could have cooked up better evidence. That's real genius right there.

Really man. You are just making yourself look bad. TO DEFEND SYRIA. :doh:

[Predicto]

Mike, this is where your logic falls apart (like always).

NO ONE IS DEFENDING SYRIA.

[Mad Mike]

Mike, this is where your logic falls apart (like always).

NO ONE IS DEFENDING SYRIA.

Are you smoking crack? Did you read Larry's comments?

Yep. Their target was somebody who's a relative of somebody who's suspected of being Bad.

There are two sides to this argument. It's really not complicated. Either you believe that we targeted some poor schmuck who was related to someone who might be bad and our special forces killed a bunch of innocent farmers in cold blood or you dont.

If you do believe that we killed a bunch of farmers while going after some guy who was related to some guy who "might be bad", as larry believes... YOU ARE DEFENDING SYRIA. :doh:

[Larry]

BZZZZT! WRONG!

Oooh. Scathing comeback.

That'll teach me to ever believe the sources you provide again. Remember, the source you quoted:

The American official, who would not be identified but who has access to U.S. intelligence, identified the intended target of the attack as "Abu Ghadiya," an Iraqi whose family the official said has been active in smuggling money, weapons and foreign fighters across the Syrian border into Iraq.

Yeah, your evidence against america is that the syrians could have cooked up better evidence. That's real genius right there.

Really man. You are just making yourself look bad. TO DEFEND SYRIA. :doh:

Best response I can think of to the steaming pile of assumptions you're making here is

BZZZZT! WRONG!

Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change?

[Baculus]

Yeah. Much better to sit back and be attacked. God knows we cant actually fight back because those nice syrians might think we are bad people.

Bottom line. If anyone thinks that we are in the wrong for this F them. they were never our friend and the never would like us anyway.

We cannot lecture others on the importance of international law if we disregard it ourselves; it weakens our position at the expense of striking at this one particular target.

It is about foreign policy consistency, and a strategy based upon "F-them" is imprudent and lacking any sort of reasoning. If you ask me or probably any reasonable person, we cannot base our foreign policy upon a concept such as "F-them."

This is above and beyond national defense, mind you.

So, in other words, no matter the size of the target, you don't care at all about our international affairs, do you? And when it comes to the issues of border violations by other nations, you would rather undermine our ability to utilize diplomatic engagement just to strike at one target.

Here is an eye-roll back at ya:

[Dan T.]

Oooh. Scathing comeback.

That'll teach me to ever believe the sources you provide again. Remember, the source you quoted:

Best response I can think of to the steaming pile of assumptions you're making here is

BZZZZT! WRONG!

Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change?

Larry, you don't think the U.S. military had pretty solid evidence justifying launching this attack?

[Larry]

Larry, you don't think the U.S. military had pretty solid evidence justifying launching this attack?

I certainly assume they did.

OTOH, Frankly, I haven't seen a lot that makes me trust this administration's definition of "good enough". But the only information I'm looking at, in this case, is what's in this thread, itself.

And my comments have been limited (intentionally) to pointing out the incredible number of people who seem to be able to loudly announce conclusions based on the measly information that's been presented here.

Near as I can tell, nobody in this thread has enough information to come to any conclusion whatsoever. (Other than "there's not enough information here".)

[Baculus]

There are two sides to this argument. It's really not complicated. Either you believe that we targeted some poor schmuck who was related to someone who might be bad and our special forces killed a bunch of innocent farmers in cold blood or you dont.

If you do believe that we killed a bunch of farmers while going after some guy who was related to some guy who "might be bad", as larry believes... YOU ARE DEFENDING SYRIA. :doh:

There is more at stake then simply your glib assessment of the argument as either killing a military target or a "bunch of farmers." In my case, I didn't even bring up this matter - of course, such nuances often seem to escape you, it would seem.

Again, if Russia or any other nation violates the national borders of another nation, what are we supposed to tell them? How can we criticize Iran if we do the same thing?

[JMS]

. . . but more than likely . . . we hit a terrorist compound.

I hope and pray you are right. I'm not very optomistic and I don't think our track record warrents optomism. We're the same folks who accidentally bombed the Chineese embassy in Yugoslavia. A civilian bunker in Iraq, and numerous civilian targets in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan....

We are way too ready to let fly from 20,000 feet and to my mind not nearly selective enough about our targets....

Hell we can't pick the right targets when we're interviewing them here in the United States much less frmo 20,000 feet in Syria. Remember the homeless folks who Bush' justice department tried to say was part of Al Quada? Remember the Military chaplin who Bush threatenned with the death penelty for treason?

This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight running the show.. I hope they got it right. I'm not optimistic. I'm not overly confident in their ability to select targets and concern themselves with hitting the bad guys.

[JMS]

Larry, you don't think the U.S. military had pretty solid evidence justifying launching this attack?

That's the funniest thing I've seen posted today..

I don't think the administration had solid evidence in justifying the attack in Iraq in general.. I think that's a proven fact..

As for this particular attack, I haven't seen any evidence or justification. It concerns me.

I think killing one innocent person, is harmful to our interests in the Middle east. I think dropping bombs from 20,000 feet on civilian targets in offically neutral countries is counter productive even stupid on our part..

[Baculus]

I hope and pray you are right. I'm not very optomistic and I don't think our track record warrents optomism. We're the same folks who accidentally bombed the Chineese embassy in Yugoslavia. A civilian bunker in Iraq, and numerous civilian targets in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan....

We are way too ready to let fly from 20,000 feet and to my mind not nearly selective enough about our targets....

Hell we can't pick the right targets when we're interviewing them here in the United States much less frmo 20,000 feet in Syria. Remember the homeless folks who Bush' justice department tried to say was part of Al Quada? Remember the Military chaplin who Bush threatenned with the death penelty for treason?

This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight running the show.. I hope they got it right. I'm not optimistic. I'm not overly confident in their ability to select targets and concern themselves with hitting the bad guys.

That echoes my thoughts on "military targeting," and the reason why we need to have measured deliberation before we use our military to kill others.

[The Sisko]

That's the funniest thing I've seen posted today..

I don't think the administration had solid evidence in justifying the attack in Iraq in general.. I think that's a proven fact..

As for this particular attack, I haven't seen any evidence or justification. It concerns me.

I think killing one innocent person, is harmful to our interests in the Middle east. I think dropping bombs from 20,000 feet on civilian targets in offically neutral countries is counter productive even stupid on our part..

This does concern me as well. However, in this case I suspect that's why we put boots on the ground instead of just firing a hellfire from a predator. It was more dangerous for our guys but it allowed them to get a positive ID before taking down the target and was a way to avoid obvious civilian targets like children.

So far, it sounds like a highly successful operation to me. We'll see what comes out over the next few days though.

[Mad Mike]

This is classic.

Larry hasnt figured out that this quote:

The US refused to comment publicly, but an official said the raid's target was Abu Ghadiya, a former aide of the Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ghadiya was a major smuggler of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters into Iraq, the official told Reuters.

ALSO comes from a link that I provided. He was just to lazy to read.

JMS seems to think we dropped a bomb or something but feels qualified to lecture me.

And Baculus has a problem with me saying that I don't care what a terrorist supporting nation like Syria thinks.

Yall have fun bashing america though. Keep assuming we are killing women and children. And whatever you do, do NOT notice that Syria can't even keep its own story straight on who was killed.

And Baculus. When we do identify bin Laden across the border in Pakistan. Let's be sure we don't cross the border to kill him. We wouldn't want to upset anyone do we?

It's been reall fun watching you guys lead with your chin but I have to go now. G'night!

[Mad Mike]

This does concern me as well. However, in this case I suspect that's why we put boots on the ground instead of just firing a hellfire from a predator. It was more dangerous for our guys but it allowed them to get a positive ID before taking down the target and was a way to avoid obvious civilian targets like children.

So far, it sounds like a highly successful operation to me. We'll see what comes out over the next few days though.

This ladies and gentlemen is what sanity looks like. :applause:

[Dan T.]

That's the funniest thing I've seen posted today..

I don't think the administration had solid evidence in justifying the attack in Iraq in general.. I think that's a proven fact..

As for this particular attack, I haven't seen any evidence or justification. It concerns me.

I think killing one innocent person, is harmful to our interests in the Middle east. I think dropping bombs from 20,000 feet on civilian targets in offically neutral countries is counter productive even stupid on our part..

If you had read what little information we've had presented in this thread, you would know that we didn't "drop bombs from 20,000 feet."

[Larry]

This is classic.

Larry hasnt figured out that this quote:

ALSO comes from a link that I provided. He was just to lazy to read.

This is classic.

Larry reads Mike's posts. Comments on Mike's post. Mike finds a different source that says something different. Tells Larry he's wrong (for believing the source that Mike quoted.) Chews Larry out. Tells Larry what Larry is thinking.

And when Larry points out that Larry was responding to what Mike posted, Mike chews Larry out, again, for failing to correct Mike sooner.

Yall have fun bashing america though. Keep assuming we are killing women and children. And whatever you do, do NOT notice that Syria can't even keep its own story straight on who was killed.

And continues to tell everybody in the room what they're thinking.

Does :jerk: impair reading comprehension, too?

[Seabee1973]

They have to lie so that liberals will have sympathy for them IE Diaper factories and baby food factories