NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

It said that "American soldiers" who had emerged from helicopters "attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths".

"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," Sana said.

Way to win hearts and minds.

HOORAY!
GO America! Let's kick some Syrian ass!

Im skeptical until I hear reasoning from anyone why US troops would randomly attack a building under construction in Syria and randomly kill eight construction workers.

Erm... yeah.

HOORAY!
GO America! Let's kick some Syrian ass!

Yes, because this is a good thing...

Im skeptical until I hear reasoning from anyone why US troops would randomly attack a building under construction in Syria and randomly kill eight construction workers.

Bush wanting to go out with a bang?

Yes, because this is a good thing...

Ignore him, hes a troll.

Bush wanting to go out with a bang?

Not convincing enough. If his desire was to "go out with a bang" there are better ways to do it. One would think hed want to try and secure himself a legacy that doesnt suck hairy ass. This is not the way to do it.


Again, Im skeptical that it was American troops, or that it even happened, until I hear motive.

Bush wanting to go out with a bang?

I doubt that - Bush would not start a war in election year - they need the votes.

Im skeptical until I hear reasoning from anyone why US troops would randomly attack a building under construction in Syria and randomly kill eight construction workers.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were acting on Israeli intelligence. In fact, it's usually the Israelis that do this sort of thing.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were acting on Israeli intelligence. In fact, it's usually the Israelis that do this sort of thing. No evidence, no belief.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were acting on Israeli intelligence. In fact, it's usually the Israelis that do this sort of thing.

Israeli intellegence of what though? And why attack a building under construction and kill the construction workers? If we didnt want the building built, wed have bombed it.

And while I may disdain and distrust the pentagon, the US military does not order its troops to kill civies just for shits and giggles.


And if it was Israeli intellegence, why not have them do it? Thats what we usually do. Israel is our proxy atm, wed just have used them.


No, Im not convinced.

Israeli intellegence of what though? And why attack a building under construction and kill the construction workers? If we didnt want the building built, wed have bombed it.

And while I may disdain and distrust the pentagon, the US military does not order its troops to kill civies just for shits and giggles.


And if it was Israeli intellegence, why not have them do it? Thats what we usually do. Israel is our proxy atm, wed just have used them.


No, Im not convinced.

Well, IF the aim was to take prisoners. that's why you wouldn't bomb it. If it were an important building, the workers, surveyors, etc could hold usual info. Hostages are another reason to launch a ground raid. I'm not an expert but isnt that part of Syria a bit far for Israeli helicopters? That would be why US troops would do it. This is my speculation. And will probably change as more info comes in, Hell I could be completely out. However, a possibility none the less.

And I'm not implying that the US kill civvies for shits and gigglies, because I know its not endorsed at all.

Well, IF the aim was to take prisoners. that's why you wouldn't bomb it. If it were an important building, the workers, surveyors, etc could hold usual info. Hostages are another reason to launch a ground raid. I'm not an expert but isnt that part of Syria a bit far for Israeli helicopters? That would be why US troops would do it. This is my speculation. And will probably change as more info comes in, Hell I could be completely out. However, a possibility none the less.


But prisoners for what? Again, if we are acting on intellegence that what they are building is bad, the US would just bomb it and be done. Then we coud claim we didnt do anything.

And I'm not implying that the US kill civvies for shits and gigglies, because I know its not endorsed at all.

I know, Im just musing out loud.

But prisoners for what? Again, if we are acting on intellegence that what they are building is bad, the US would just bomb it and be done. Then we coud claim we didnt do anything.



I know, Im just musing out loud.

Unless the intelligence was of a human target. Wanted for capture.

A rather weird piece of news. It's not impossible that some kind of covert ops was executed, but usually word of those operations doesn't reach the media. I'm a bit surprised witnesses were allowed to live... maybe something went wrong during the mission, resulting in a cut & run?

A rather weird piece of news. It's not impossible that some kind of covert ops was executed, but usually word of those operations doesn't reach the media. I'm a bit surprised witnesses were allowed to live... maybe something went wrong during the mission, resulting in a cut & run?

My thoughts exactly. EG when that SEALS Team tried to get the warlord. (I think it was in panama), got bogged down on the airfield, so just blew up his jet and ran.

Or, the pilot looked at his sat nav, and went "Fak, wrong country"

Or, the pilot looked at his sat nav, and went "Fak, wrong country"That wouldn't happen. :p

I still don't believe this. Delta, GSG9, or SAS might have been up to something there, but the news about their activities almost never reaches the media. Hm.

I am going to assume that there was a suspicious person that moved across the border and the US chopper followed them in.

As far as I can tell, there is no clear reason for the Americans to have planned a deliberate and obvious military incursion into Syria.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the Syrians to lie about this.

I think that this incursion may have been an accident. Perhaps the Americans were unaware they had crossed the northern Iraqi border, were dropped off in the wrong location, and thought that this building site was the real objective?

Major incompetence in the American military has happened before, after all.

Im currently leaning towards it not being US troops. It wouldnt the first time someone else wore US uniforms to make sure the US gets the blame for their attack.

That wouldn't happen. :p

I still don't believe this. Delta, GSG9, or SAS might have been up to something there, but the news about their activities almost never reaches the media. Hm.

Yes, but GSG9, are German, and Police. and aren't in Iraq.

And the SAS, which could be a possibility, but the raid is on a too big a scale for their usual ops. And they don't get publicised at all. Plus their British. Wrong theatre of operations for us. We are right in the south. (Unless the Black Watch are still in Baghdad, but they are raiders :p)

Delta. Possibly. Could just as easily be normal soldiers.

I feel like I should post the Air Cav beach scene from Apocalypse Now!

As far as I can tell, there is no clear reason for the Americans to have planned a deliberate and obvious military incursion into Syria.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the Syrians to lie about this.

I think that this incursion may have been an accident. Perhaps the Americans were unaware they had crossed the northern Iraqi border, were dropped off in the wrong location, and thought that this building site was the real objective?

Major incompetence in the American military has happened before, after all.

I have to agree with you here. They could have got lost, which I am too leaning towards. But it does have the Hallmarks of a planned US raid.

What I am wondering is this, if the Syrians could pick up the Aircraft on Radar, when why didn't they A) Contact, B) Engage. It must of been apparent that they weren't friendly.

I am going to assume that there was a suspicious person that moved across the border and the US chopper followed them in.Four helicopters.
And US SF helicopters are notoriously hard to detect. Especially Little Birds. :p

Im currently leaning towards it not being US troops. It wouldnt the first time someone else wore US uniforms to make sure the US gets the blame for their attack.

That wouldn't be entirely impossible.

Yes, but GSG9, are German, and Police. and aren't in Iraq.

And the SAS, which could be a possibility, but the raid is on a too big a scale for their usual ops. And they don't get publicised at all. Plus their British. Wrong theatre of operations for us. We are right in the south. (Unless the Black Watch are still in Baghdad, but they are raiders :p)

Delta. Possibly. Could just as easily be normal soldiers.

I feel like I should post the Air Cav beach scene from Apocalypse Now!I wouldn't happen to know where our SF groups are at any given time. They're just "In Iraq". Or "In Korea". No idea where, exactly.
And that would be awesome.

That wouldn't be entirely impossible.

And, while it seems unlikely, until I hear plausible motive, Im going with this.

Four helicopters.
And US SF helicopters are notoriously hard to detect. Especially Little Birds. :p

Howso? the only stealth they can get is to fly under the radar, at night right? Well the Syrians picked them up!

You do bring me onto an interesting point. Does the newly trained UK/US advised Iraqi Army, have Helo's?

Syrian media and witnesses say U.S. soldiers have attacked a building in eastern Syria during a helicopter raid, killing eight people.

Syrian media say four U.S. helicopters took part in the raid Sunday on the town of Abu Kamal, near the Iraqi border. They say U.S. soldiers who emerged from the aircraft stormed a civilian building under construction and fired on workers, killing eight of them.

Syrian media say the U.S. helicopters flew to Iraq after the attack. The French news agency quotes a U.S. military spokesperson in Iraq, Sergeant Brooke Murphy, as saying the U.S. military is "investigating" the reports.

No other information about the reported attack was immediately available.

The Abu Kamal area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which was once a major crossing point for fighters and weapons coming into Iraq from Syria.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-10-26-voa20.cfm

My new theory is either it wasnt really the US, or we had intellegence that there was some weapons smuggling from Syria into Iraq going on.

Howso? the only stealth they can get is to fly under the radar, at night right? Well the Syrians picked them up!They say that they did. I have yet to see proof. :p

If this happened, I am guessing we had info of some REALLY big fish over there who was just begging to have himself filleted and we obliged, following him into Syrian airspace in a snatch and grab.

And no, I don't think it was bungled if it was American, the whole leaving people alive is standard operating procedure in the SF. If they go in, take out the people who need taking out, bag their prisoners, and leave most of the people alive, it makes natives less likely to shoot them on sight and let them do their work. Look at Somalia, they only ever shot at someone who was shooting at them.

I am leaning though toward a False Flag op. Blackhawks and Little Birds are worldwide and black market. We have had enough un-recovered SF bodies that a uniform or two could have fallen into hands hostile to US interests and duplicated. The actions strike me as unprofessional, which is a major red flag for me.

And no, I don't think it was bungled if it was American,

Why not, it's happened before.

Why not, it's happened before.

Read his post that you quoted, he spells out why

And no, I don't think it was bungled if it was American, the whole leaving people alive is standard operating procedure in the SF. If they go in, take out the people who need taking out, bag their prisoners, and leave most of the people alive, it makes natives less likely to shoot them on sight and let them do their work. Look at Somalia, they only ever shot at someone who was shooting at them.
Why not, it's happened before.
He answered your question in his post.

He answered your question in his post.

I must be missing something. Low Syrian casualties doesn't mean that the mission was a success. Regardless of American RoE and operational procedure.

I can easily see the US military crossing the boarder to take out some target: as has already been said, Israel has done this before. Why not America?

Or it could have been accidental. They may have thought they were in Iraq if it was near the boarder.

I do not buy the explanation that it was someone else posing as American troops. I think insurgents in Iraq have done that, but where the hell would they have gotten the helicopters from? This seems like people grasping for a way to keep the US military's hands clean.

Of course, the Syrians could have made the whole thing up for propaganda reasons. Their doesn't seem to be enough evidence to know for sure. Until their is, I just hope people keep calm and don't jump to conclusions that could lead to a war.

I can easily see the US military crossing the boarder to take out some target: as has already been said, Israel has done this before. Why not America?

Or it could have been accidental. They may have thought they were in Iraq if it was near the boarder.

I do not buy the explanation that it was someone else posing as American troops. I think insurgents in Iraq have done that, but where the hell would they have gotten the helicopters from? This seems like people grasping for a way to keep the US military's hands clean.

Of course, the Syrians could have made the whole thing up for propaganda reasons. Their doesn't seem to be enough evidence to know for sure. Until their is, I just hope people keep calm and don't jump to conclusions that could lead to a war.

Syria wants to make itself look big in front of Israel. Feigning a US attack wouldn't help this. Yes, they probably are milking this. But I would say it's based on fact.

Im currently leaning towards it not being US troops. It wouldnt the first time someone else wore US uniforms to make sure the US gets the blame for their attack.

I'm leaning towards my previous opinion towards the news. These days it can tell you somethings happened fairly quickly, but you're still going to have to wait to find out what.

I do not buy the explanation that it was someone else posing as American troops. I think insurgents in Iraq have done that, but where the hell would they have gotten the helicopters from? At least twenty other coutnries use the UH-60 Black Hawk with an assault helicopter variant.
Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-60_Black_Hawk#Operators)

I doubt it was a lie for propaganda, and while I wouldn't put it past Syria to do something like that themselves to help portray the US as an enemy, it seems like major overkill there. And besides, our stance on the Syrian/Lebanese situation shows we would oppose Syria if it came down to it.

And as for the choppers falling int enemy hands, the UH-60 Black Hawk is in use with over twenty nations, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia. As our propping up of the Saudi Royal Family is the reason for some of the Saudi Terrorists (not all, but quite a few) it would not surprise me to see some members of the Saudi military, disenfranchised with US actions, have sold off "Damaged" Black Hawks to those who would hit us.

If MH-6 Little Birds where used then there is no doubt that it was US Special Forces that conducted the raid as the only nations that use the Little Bird are the US and Iraq. (Edit: Never mind, the OH-6 Cayuse is in use with many, many nations and even some Corporations and to the untrained eye looks exactly like the MH-6 Little Bird with the biggest difference being the number of blades on the main rotor, so even then it could have been False Flag)

It strikes me as very sloppy in a time when opinion of the US in the region is very low. This action seems very counter-intuitive. They fly in from the east at sundown, shoot up a construction site, and then they leave.

If this was US armed forces, then somebody needs to get called on the carpet for this and reamed as he has seriously damaged opinion of the United States and US Armed Forces in the region, and potentially caused a flare up of hostilities just as the nation of Iraq is calming down.

A rather weird piece of news. It's not impossible that some kind of covert ops was executed, but usually word of those operations doesn't reach the media. I'm a bit surprised witnesses were allowed to live... maybe something went wrong during the mission, resulting in a cut & run?

This quote from the article would lead me to believe you're right...

A US military spokesman couldn't confirm or deny the reports. He said: "It's a developing situation."

What does that even mean?

What does that even mean?That nobody knows what the fuck is going on... So they don't want to say anything and look stupid* if they're wrong. :D
*There could always be greater consequences.

This quote from the article would lead me to believe you're right...



What does that even mean?

It means he hasn't a fucking clue. They didn't stuff words into his mouth before the interview.

EDIT

Or its a cover up.

EDIT

Swamp gas.

That nobody knows what the fuck is going on... So they don't want to say anything and look stupid* if they're wrong. :D
*There could always be greater consequences.

Yeah but you'd think the spokesman would just say there was no US helicopters within a however many mile radius or some other BS lie. I mean that is standard procedure isn't it?

It means he hasn't a fucking clue. They didn't stuff words into his mouth before the interview.

EDIT

Or its a cover up.

EDIT

Swamp gas.

Weather balloon.

NO wait, Planet Venus.

That nobody knows what the fuck is going on... So they don't want to say anything and look stupid* if they're wrong. :D
*There could always be greater consequences.

My thoughts exactly, the armed forces are very slow to release information until they know enough to get a picture and then take action. They made huge mistakes in Vietnam when they would go to the news with reports of enemy casualties and looked very stupid. So we won't have word from then for at least a day or two as they debrief everyone in the area the even took place in.

Yeah but you'd think the spokesman would just say there was no US helicopters within a however many mile radius or some other BS lie. I mean that is standard procedure isn't it?

Look at what happened during Vietnam when they tried to lie about enemy casualties. If they lie, it is because it was something that was DEEP cover, and then they wouldn't have used helos, but rather camels, horses, local transportation, something to help them blend into the area.

Yeah but you'd think the spokesman would just say there was no US helicopters within a however many mile radius or some other BS lie. I mean that is standard procedure isn't it?See the below.

My thoughts exactly, the armed forces are very slow to release information until they know enough to get a picture and then take action. They made huge mistakes in Vietnam when they would go to the news with reports of enemy casualties and looked very stupid. So we won't have word from then for at least a day or two as they debrief everyone in the area the even took place in.

It means he hasn't a fucking clue.

Which is generally the norm. The right hand rarely knows what the left is doing.

Anyway, I really hope not. I just back to the Middle East (we even flew over Damascus) from France and would like to coast out the rest of my deployment, thank you very much.

i have doubts over the validity of this. US soldiers just don't fly around shooting up construction workers

i have doubts over the validity of this. US soldiers just don't fly around shooting up construction workers

Why not, they attack beaches to surf! :p

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vHjWDCX1Bdw

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military's reach.

Oh for the love of...

Whoever came up with the idea needs to be discharged, big chicken dinner style. Whose idea was it to kick over the bee hive?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=205823

*Goes to doctor to get foot surgically removed from mouth*

Why not, they attack beaches to surf! :p

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vHjWDCX1Bdw

thats the god given right of every American to surf at any and every beach.

thats the god given right of every American to surf at any and every beach.

Only if Martin Sheen doesn't steal your board.

Only if Charlie Sheen doesn't steal your board.

CHARLIE Sheen?

Missed by a generation.

I'm sorry but I need some concrete proof first what with that time US troops suddenly started throwing puppies off cliffs/British sailors spying on Iran

i have doubts over the validity of this. US soldiers just don't fly around shooting up construction workers

maybe they did a really bad job? :p

CHARLIE Sheen?

Missed by a generation.

I'm detecting sarcasm. In case not read below :p

Charlie Sheen's father, star of Apocalypse Now, where in the Redux version, he runs up to a helicopter, shouts "incoming!", and runs off with a surfboard.

I'm detecting sarcasm. In case not read below :p

Martin Sheen's father, star of Apocalypse Now, where in the Redux version, he runs up to a helicopter, shouts "incoming!", and runs off with a surfboard.

hence my "missed by a generation" comment. You have got it entirely backwards. Martin Sheen was the star of Apocalypse Now, not Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen is the son, Martin Sheen is the father. Marin Sheen starred in Apocalypse Now, Charlie Sheen (and Emilio Estavez) is his son.

Only if Charlie Sheen doesn't steal your board.

he is an American so it is okay. but any of those commies fundies or enemy's of week steals it they gonna have hell to pay.

hence my "missed by a generation" comment. You have got it entirely backwards. Martin Sheen was the star of Apocalypse Now, not Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen is the son, Martin Sheen is the father.

I got them mixed up didn't I...
I always get them confused. Charlie did Platoon, Martin, Apocalypse Now.

*Slaps head*:$

Corrected! You have no proof!

This quote from the article would lead me to believe you're right...

A US military spokesman couldn't confirm or deny the reports. He said: "It's a developing situation."

What does that even mean?

That he doesn't know or is unwilling/unable to say

If American Soldiers HAD raided a construction site why would they shoot unarmed civillians when American Soldiers are fully capable (and fully trained) to use flashbangs and various other less than lethal means to subdue unarmed opponents, not to mention that the rules of engagement in an area full of civillians prevent US soldiers from shooting until they have a confirmed armed opponent and a green light from HQ, or mission central, or whatever you want to call it.

I got them mixed up didn't I...
I always get them confused. Charlie did Platoon, Martin, Apocalypse Now.

*Slaps head*:$

Corrected! You have no proof!

One of the greatest moments of multi leveled geek humor comes from the following scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJBRS-8eDZU

For those of you who don't understand what is going on here, allow me to explain:

In 1979, the actor Martin Sheen starred in the iconic classic Apocalypse Now. In this film, Sheen played Captain Robert L. Willard, a soldier in the vietnam war, who was sent to find and assassinate Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. Much of the film, prior to Willard's finally meeting Kurtz, is spent showing Willard on a patrol boat (contrary to popular perception the boat was NOT a swift boat). In one scene, the character is shown reading the dossier given to him by army intelligence. When this happens, the audience hears Willard's thoughts in a voice over.

In 1986, the actor Charlie Sheen starred in another classic, the film Platoon, in which he played Chris Taylor, a soldier in the vietnam war. In one scene, Taylor is shown on a boat, writing a journal and reflecting on his experience.

In 1993, Charlie Sheen played Topper Harley, in the comedy spoof film, Hot Shots, Part Deux. In one scene in the movie, depicted above, Charlie Sheen is parodying his own roll in Platoon, in a nearly line by line reenactment of a scene in that movie. Charlie Sheen's "inner dialogue" is interrupted by someone ELSES thoughts, and he looks up to see actor Martin Sheen, reading the dossier, in a word for word reenactment of the aforementioned scene from Apocalypse Now.

Both actors, Charlie Sheen appearing as he did in Platoon, passes Martin Sheen appearing as he did in Apocalypse Now, and both yell, as the their respective boats pass each other, "I loved you in Wall Street!"

Wall Street was a 1987 film starring Charlie Sheen as well as his father, Martin Sheen. Charlie Sheen played Bud Fox, whereas Martin Sheen played Carl Fox, Bud Fox's father.

Thus in that one scene, Charlie Sheen, parodying his roll as a Vietnam solidier in Platoon, passes by his own father, Martin Sheen, parodying his roll as a Vietnam soldier in Apocalypse Now, at which point they give each other a bit of mutual acknowledgment over the roll both father and son had in the film Wall Street, in which they played father and son.

The comedic genius of that scene would be lost on me for many years after I first saw it.

Those builders had WMDs, people.

One of the greatest moments of multi leveled geek humor comes from the following scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJBRS-8eDZU

Damn, that is hilarious.

If American Soldiers HAD raided a construction site why would they shoot unarmed civillians when American Soldiers are fully capable (and fully trained) to use flashbangs and various other less than lethal means to subdue unarmed opponents, not to mention that the rules of engagement in an area full of civillians prevent US soldiers from shooting until they have a confirmed armed opponent and a green light from HQ, or mission central, or whatever you want to call it.

US SF prefer JOC. Joint Operations command. I believe.

Anything could of gone wrong. The 8 people could of run towards the raiders. That can be interpreted as hostile. That's just one of the many things that could of happened.

HOORAY!
GO America! Let's kick some Syrian ass!

My word is worth more than yours.

Im skeptical until I hear reasoning from anyone why US troops would randomly attack a building under construction in Syria and randomly kill eight construction workers.

That's roughly what I'm thinking. Why, one Earth, would the US do this? It accomplishes what, exactly?

That's roughly what I'm thinking. Why, one Earth, would the US do this? It accomplishes what, exactly?

The only thing I can come up with hinges on high-ups being ridiculously spiteful bastards.

Syrians never lie. Ever.

The only thing I can come up with hinges on high-ups being ridiculously spiteful bastards.

That's the best I can cook up. Even at that, though, wouldn't there be more spiteable bits of spite-bait available to the US?

One of the greatest moments of multi leveled geek humor comes from the following scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJBRS-8eDZU

For those of you who don't understand what is going on here, allow me to explain:

In 1979, the actor Martin Sheen starred in the iconic classic Apocalypse Now. In this film, Sheen played Captain Robert L. Willard, a soldier in the vietnam war, who was sent to find and assassinate Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. Much of the film, prior to Willard's finally meeting Kurtz, is spent showing Willard on a patrol boat (contrary to popular perception the boat was NOT a swift boat). In one scene, the character is shown reading the dossier given to him by army intelligence. When this happens, the audience hears Willard's thoughts in a voice over.

In 1986, the actor Charlie Sheen starred in another classic, the film Platoon, in which he played Chris Taylor, a soldier in the vietnam war. In one scene, Taylor is shown on a boat, writing a journal and reflecting on his experience.

In 1993, Charlie Sheen played Topper Harley, in the comedy spoof film, Hot Shots, Part Deux. In one scene in the movie, depicted above, Charlie Sheen is parodying his own roll in Platoon, in a nearly line by line reenactment of a scene in that movie. Charlie Sheen's "inner dialogue" is interrupted by someone ELSES thoughts, and he looks up to see actor Martin Sheen, reading the dossier, in a word for word reenactment of the aforementioned scene from Apocalypse Now.

Both actors, Charlie Sheen appearing as he did in Platoon, passes Martin Sheen appearing as he did in Apocalypse Now, and both yell, as the their respective boats pass each other, "I loved you in Wall Street!"

Wall Street was a 1987 film starring Charlie Sheen as well as his father, Martin Sheen. Charlie Sheen played Bud Fox, whereas Martin Sheen played Carl Fox, Bud Fox's father.

Thus in that one scene, Charlie Sheen, parodying his roll as a Vietnam solidier in Platoon, passes by his own father, Martin Sheen, parodying his roll as a Vietnam soldier in Apocalypse Now, at which point they give each other a bit of mutual acknowledgment over the roll both father and son had in the film Wall Street, in which they played father and son.

The comedic genius of that scene would be lost on me for many years after I first saw it.



Without a doubt the best scene in Hot Shots.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942EFR80&show_article=1

Well, it looks like they where striking at people that intel says where part of an insurgent infiltration network.

But this part has me really steamed

The [Syrian] government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.

I hope to Jesus that the idiots who fired those shots get court-martialed to the full extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Iraqi Law (Since they can now hold US Soldiers for crimes and try them for violations of Iraqi Law).

If Syria had been doing it's job, none of this would have happened, if the SF guys had done their job, those civilians would not have died, this was a total and complete FUBAR from all reports. Nice job guys, you kicked over one very large bee hive.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942EFR80&show_article=1

Well, it looks like they where striking at people that intel says where part of an insurgent infiltration network.

But this part has me really steamed



I hope to Jesus that the idiots who fired those shots get court-martialed to the full extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Iraqi Law (Since they can now hold US Soldiers for crimes and try them for violations of Iraqi Law).

If Syria had been doing it's job, none of this would have happened, if the SF guys had done their job, those civilians would not have died, this was a total and complete FUBAR from all reports. Nice job guys, you kicked over one very large bee hive.This hot?
If it is, shit.

I'm sure that they had a perfectly good reason for doing such a thing, in many ways like this;
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wdyN2_GJmP8&feature=related

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. THE 'WANT' TO BE KEPT IN A HELL HOLE FOR FIVE MORE YEARS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

It's updated.

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions," a government official said.

I'd be worried. Syria isn't exactly a push over. Not with Iran, their best friends. Behind them.

Israel and Iran aren't being very vocal over this matter. I expected different.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

It's updated.

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions," a government official said.

I'd be worried. Syria isn't exactly a push over. Not with Iran, their best friends. Behind them.

Israel and Iran aren't being very vocal over this matter. I expected different.Ahmadinejad has taken ill (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1toApx3u4d9KutprDqKxm0C3ezQD9428LLO0), recently. Probably why Iran is so quiet.

That surprises me, Israel and Iran will both be dragged into this somehow if something major happens here. And from there, most of the rest of the Middle East, and then we will have to see what happens in Pakistan.

Again, the officer who ordered this FUBAR'ed attack should take the gun out of Syria's hand and empty it into himself. Falling on the sword for his men and the US in general is the best thing he can hope for at the moment.

Ahmadinejad has taken ill (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1toApx3u4d9KutprDqKxm0C3ezQD9428LLO0), recently. Probably why Iran is so quiet.

Weird that it happens so soon after Kim Jong Il has disappeared...

But I am being paranoid, ignore this post :p

That surprises me, Israel and Iran will both be dragged into this somehow if something major happens here. And from there, most of the rest of the Middle East, and then we will have to see what happens in Pakistan.

Again, the officer who ordered this FUBAR'ed attack should take the gun out of Syria's hand and empty it into himself. Falling on the sword for his men and the US in general is the best thing he can hope for at the moment.

Couldn't he just let ten random Syrians kick him in the nuts? Death is so.... dull.

That surprises me, Israel and Iran will both be dragged into this somehow if something major happens here. And from there, most of the rest of the Middle East, and then we will have to see what happens in Pakistan.

Again, the officer who ordered this FUBAR'ed attack should take the gun out of Syria's hand and empty it into himself. Falling on the sword for his men and the US in general is the best thing he can hope for at the moment. I agree.

Couldn't he just let ten random Syrians kick him in the nuts? Death is so.... dull.Discipline break-down is not encouraged. -_-

Yeah, I know. Way too serious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

It's updated.

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions," a government official said.

I'd be worried. Syria isn't exactly a push over. Not with Iran, their best friends. Behind them.

Israel and Iran aren't being very vocal over this matter. I expected different.

First of all, Syria isn't buddies with Iran... Arabs and Persians have a tedancy to hate each other... I have yet to meet an Arab (and yes, I know a lot of them from many different countries) that doesn't hate Iran. The Middle East is a giant hate fest... Every ethnic group has an axe to grind against another ethnic group. If anyone was best friends with Syria, it was Iraq... But Iraq is a bit occupied at the moment. *Laughs at his own horrible joke*

I'm skeptical about all this considering there's no real evidence that they were American soldiers... I keep hearing people blame Mossad (the Israeli version of the CIA or the SAS) and that sounds as sketchy as the 9/11 conspiracies revolving around Israel... Trust me, Israel is not in the business of alienating its most important ally (the U.S.)... So I strongly doubt it was Israel.

But since we're just going to make up wacko conspiracy theories out of the blue... I say it was rogue Obama supporters trying to make Republicans look bad so McCain will lose votes! It's all Obama's fault!

First of all, Syria isn't buddies with Iran... Arabs and Persians have a tedancy to hate each other... I have yet to meet an Arab (and yes, I know a lot of them from many different countries) that doesn't hate Iran. The Middle East is a giant hate fest... Every ethnic group has an axe to grind against another ethnic group. If anyone was best friends with Syria, it was Iraq... But Iraq is a bit occupied at the moment. *Laughs at his own horrible joke*

I'm skeptical about all this considering there's no real evidence that they were American soldiers... I keep hearing people blame Mossad (the Israeli version of the CIA or the SAS) and that sounds as sketchy as the 9/11 conspiracies revolving around Israel... Trust me, Israel is not in the business of alienating its most important ally (the U.S.)... So I strongly doubt it was Israel.

But since we're just going to make up wacko conspiracy theories out of the blue... I say it was rogue Obama supporters trying to make Republicans look bad so McCain will lose votes! It's all Obama's fault!

Wait, I thought that MI was the British CIA, and that the SAS was the British Delta Force. But I am just a guy who owns the Jane's guides to special forces so what do I know...

As for the alliance between Syria and Iran, there is enough mutual hatred toward Israel, and by extension to the US that they are willing to work together to oppose the US. Look at what happened during the Quasi-War between Israel and Hezbollah. Militant-Communist-Athiest China sold their (Edit: It was the C-802 Eagle Strike Anti-Shipping Cruise Missile, not the Silk Worm, he he gomen) anti-shipping missiles to Militant-Theocratic Persian-Shi'a Iran, who then sold them to Pro-Syrian Lebanese-Occupying Hezbollah. War makes strange bedfellows, just ask Patton and Stalin...

First of all, Syria isn't buddies with Iran... Arabs and Persians have a tedancy to hate each other... I have yet to meet an Arab (and yes, I know a lot of them from many different countries) that doesn't hate Iran. The Middle East is a giant hate fest... Every ethnic group has an axe to grind against another ethnic group. If anyone was best friends with Syria, it was Iraq... But Iraq is a bit occupied at the moment. *Laughs at his own horrible joke*

I'm skeptical about all this considering there's no real evidence that they were American soldiers... I keep hearing people blame Mossad (the Israeli version of the CIA or the SAS) and that sounds as sketchy as the 9/11 conspiracies revolving around Israel... Trust me, Israel is not in the business of alienating its most important ally (the U.S.)... So I strongly doubt it was Israel.

But since we're just going to make up wacko conspiracy theories out of the blue... I say it was rogue Obama supporters trying to make Republicans look bad so McCain will lose votes! It's all Obama's fault!

Over Israel they stand united. They both happen to have a hatred for Iraq (I really don't think they get on now Saddam's gone)., and all things American aswell. Their friendship may not extend further than this. But you still do not want them collaborating.

"The enemy of thy enemy is my friend."

Wait, I thought that MI was the British CIA, and that the SAS was the British Delta Force. But I am just a guy who owns the Jane's guides to special forces so what do I know...


MI5 - Internal.
MI6 - External.
MI8 - Counter espionage.

MI stands for Mission intelligence.

Delta are probably closer to the Pathfinders (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) than the SAS (the SRR is a subsection of the SAS though). If you minus counter terrorism. They are incredibly hard to weigh up and compare however.

The SAS are considered more elite. The price of this, its smaller in size.

maybe syria should quit allowing foregin fighters to use their country as a base to launch attacks into Iraq from..

MI5 - Internal.
MI6 - External.
MI8 - Counter espionage.

MI stands for Mission intelligence.

Delta are probably closer to the Pathfinders (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) than the SAS (the SRR is a subsection of the SAS though). If you minus counter terrorism. They are incredibly hard to weigh up and compare however.

The SAS are considered more elite. The price of this, its smaller in size.

Ah, so the SAS is more like Gray Fox, just with publicity

But since we're just going to make up wacko conspiracy theories out of the blue... I say it was rogue Obama supporters trying to make Republicans look bad so McCain will lose votes! It's all Obama's fault!

Doubtful, considering the casualties didnt have "B"s carved into their faces.

Doubtful, considering the casualties didnt have "B"s carved into their faces.

True... Darn, there goes my cleverly crafted conspiracy.

Ah, so the SAS is more like Gray Fox, just with publicity

Picture Grey Fox, with a counter terrorist unit, Units specialising in mobility, mountain, and naval (SBS) fields of expertise. Alongside its main intelligence gathering/Bodyguarding/Covert Ops function. And about 3 regiments in size.

And that's the SAS in a nutshell.

MI5 - Internal.
MI6 - External.
MI8 - Counter espionage.

MI stands for Mission intelligence.

Delta are probably closer to the Pathfinders (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) than the SAS (the SRR is a subsection of the SAS though). If you minus counter terrorism. They are incredibly hard to weigh up and compare however.

The SAS are considered more elite. The price of this, its smaller in size.

My bad... I had a long day trying to finish grading tests so I'm not all here.

My bad... I had a long day trying to finish grading tests so I'm not all here.

Fun :p

Fun :p

Yup, about as fun as getting reeds shoved under your nails.

Delta are probably closer to the Pathfinders (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) than the SAS (the SRR is a subsection of the SAS though). If you minus counter terrorism. They are incredibly hard to weigh up and compare however.

The SAS are considered more elite. The price of this, its smaller in size.

Delta was started by an American who was an SAS during WWII. Delta only has about 1000 operatives not certain on the size of the SAS but 1,000 out of a population of 300 million makes it rare. to be honest i think comparisons of the two tend to devolve into fan boi fights.

and id consider british pathfinders closer to rangers.

Delta was started by an American who was an SAS during WWII. Delta only has about 1000 operatives not certain on the size of the SAS but 1,000 out of a population of 300 million makes it rare. to be honest i think comparisons of the two tend to devolve into fan boi fights.

They are both totally different entities, with Delta not even being an entity that wears uniforms.

They are both totally different entities, with Delta not even being an entity that wears uniforms.

lol naked BDU'S(uniform with no tags or labels)and completely ignoring a captain asking WTF is he doing dressed like that.

A US military spokesman was unable to confirm or deny the reports, saying it was a "developing situation".

But later the Associated Press news agency quoted an unnamed US military official in Washington as saying that American special forces had attacked foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official said.

So we did it. Well that's just great. Good job guys, just piss all over yet another country's sovereignty for the good of "The War On Terror".

Dipshits.

Blackwater?

Blackwater?

No... Surely not...

Im skeptical until I hear reasoning from anyone why US troops would randomly attack a building under construction in Syria and randomly kill eight construction workers.

^This, very strange for them to fly in shoot and then fly out again.

I wonder if Syria did the thing themselves and is looking to start something with the US.

No... Surely not...

Why not? I just mentioned them because they seem to have the relative autonomy to pull something like that.

Trust me, Israel is not in the business of alienating its most important ally (the U.S.)... So I strongly doubt it was Israel.


What's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) then?

Maybe by now, Bush has found Syria on the map and we will soon get a press conference.
:tongue:

What's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) then?
Friendly fire incident. they have kissed our ass profusely since.

Maybe by now, Bush has found Syria on the map and we will soon get a press conference.
:tongue:

nono he asked the military to make CNN find it for him on the map.

Delta was started by an American who was an SAS during WWII. Delta only has about 1000 operatives not certain on the size of the SAS but 1,000 out of a population of 300 million makes it rare. to be honest i think comparisons of the two tend to devolve into fan boi fights.

and id consider british pathfinders closer to rangers.

Different roles again, but an acceptable comparison. They are similar enough.

The "Regiment" 22nd SAS, has Never confirmed numbers. It is believed to be 280ish in strength. the other 2 regiments, are not publicised at all. The "Artists Rifles" are famous, but nothing is known. The SBS. Even more secretive.

I personally would say about 550 men. That's including support and logistic men. If they need more manpower, they usually call on the Parachute Regiment, or Royal Marine Commandos. Having said this, the Credenhill Barracks is huge. The SRR are based there too (Pathfinders) But still, its a massive complex, and these are small units.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

Updated with Video.

The Iraqi's have now confirmed the raid. Are just now waiting on the Americans. I don't think the Iraqi's could lie about this. I'm under the understanding that there is a lot of Coalition influence in their political system.

Syrian troops are massing too.

Syrian troops are massing too.

Source?

Source?

The Iraqi city's mayor, Farhan al-Mahalawi, told Reuters news agency that US helicopters had struck a village on the Syrian side of the border, after which Syrian troops surrounded the site.

Probably just a clean up op.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7692153.stm

Updated yet again.

Friendly fire incident. they have kissed our ass profusely since.

That doesn't seem to be the case, the other way around seems to be more apparent.

Probably just a clean up op.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7692153.stm

Updated yet again.

You do realize you gave us a chopped link right? It doesn't work as is.

That doesn't seem to be the case, the other way around seems to be more apparent.



You do realize you gave us a chopped link right? It doesn't work as is.

I do apologise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692500.stm

It it doesn't work now its the BBC's problem =]

Here's another AP-based article on the attack found at Welt Online:

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2632210/US-special-forces-attack-in-Syria.html

And an article posted by Der Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,586723,00.html


Looks like the U.S. doesn't care about sovereignty yet again. Heckuva job, guys. I'm so proud of you... NOT!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

Updated with Video.

The Iraqi's have now confirmed the raid. Are just now waiting on the Americans. I don't think the Iraqi's could lie about this. I'm under the understanding that there is a lot of Coalition influence in their political system.

Syrian troops are massing too.

technical note. the Iraqis have just been quoted as saying the raid took place in an area when cross boarder raids come from. doesn't necessarily mean it was confirmed.

Different roles again, but an acceptable comparison. They are similar enough.

The "Regiment" 22nd SAS, has Never confirmed numbers. It is believed to be 280ish in strength. the other 2 regiments, are not publicised at all. The "Artists Rifles" are famous, but nothing is known. The SBS. Even more secretive.

I personally would say about 550 men. That's including support and logistic men. If they need more manpower, they usually call on the Parachute Regiment, or Royal Marine Commandos. Having said this, the Credenhill Barracks is huge. The SRR are based there too (Pathfinders) But still, its a massive complex, and these are small units.

lets say 500 men population of the UK is 60 million. one spec op per 120,000 people. Delta force 1000 for 300 million people one spec op per 300,000 people. seems to make delta twice as unlikely.

I doubt that - Bush would not start a war in election year - they need the votes.

Unless he knew the Republicans were losing and wanted to kick over the proverbial beehive in order to ensure that fighting would continue long after his term. The motive is simply greed. Most of the people on their way out will get snapped up by defense contractors and the oil industry. Continued demand for the latter will ensure clientele for the former. But I'm veering into tin-foil hat territory, so I 'm not going to defend my hypothesis.

Looks to me like the US forces went in and killed some insurgents, as well as these civilians. No one's talking about the insurgents because they're not supposed to be there, according to the Syrians, and US forces aren't supposed to be there chasing them.

lets say 500 men population of the UK is 60 million. one spec op per 120,000 people. Delta force 1000 for 300 million people one spec op per 300,000 people. seems to make delta twice as unlikely.

This would be correct. The SAS, and its relative sub regiments is pretty much our sole force trained in all these arts. Yes the Para's, Pathfinders, Gurkha and Marines are considered elite. But they are specialist combat troops. Not trained in special forces roles such as counter terrorism.

The US's special forces range, is much broader, much larger. Resulting in higher spec op ratio to the population.

I thought the Artists Rifles were disbanded in the middle of WWI something about them losing over half of their strength during one of the great pushes. Were they reformed and turned into a special forces regiment?

I'm under the understanding that one of the SAS regiments adopted the name.

This would be correct. The SAS, and its relative sub regiments is pretty much our sole force trained in all these arts.

The SBS as well.

I don't understand this. Why did they attack?

I don't understand this. Why did they attack?

It says in the numerous articles in this thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7693583.stm Death toll's still at 8, but one of the kids has been replaced by a fisherman.

It says in the numerous articles in this thread.

I still do not understand this one.

From what I understood:

US violated the border of a country.
US killed a few citizen.
US says: 'it were friends of Osama Bin Laden'

This is very serious, the Box of Pandora is now even more open.

So the Russians can now cross USA, destroy a house and kill the people, just because the Russians think there are some evil people inside?

Is the US government aware that only the Israeli can do such stuff?

US violated the border of a country.
US killed a few citizen.
US says: 'it were friends of Osama Bin Laden'

Pretty much, but Iraqi insurgents instead of Al-Qaeda.


So the Russians can now cross USA, destroy a house and kill the people, just because the Russians think there are some evil people inside?

No, becuz merkinz is teh saintzleez onez. not ebil leik teh muzlimz in seeeria.

The world, the entire world should attack USA.

The world, the entire world should attack USA.

Kill the civilians for the actions of the government? Doesn't that steep to their level? Doesn't that make everyone else as bad as them?

Kill the civilians for the actions of the government? Doesn't that steep to their level? Doesn't that make everyone else as bad as them?

Yes, it would. But currently no one cares in US, it's too far away from their bedrooms.

But currently no one cares in US, it's too far away their bedrooms.

I don't know what that means.

I don't know what that means.

US people just don't care.

US people just don't care.

If they get invaded? I think they would, somehow.

If they get invaded? I think they would, somehow.

That's the whole point. Currently, they don't care. When they are the subject of attacks then suddenly they would care.

I don’t get it, that a government, which is in its end phase, is quickly doing this kind of actions. There’s no need for. I don’t think those 8 (including the children) were a treat for USA.

If they were a real danger, then the new prez could commit the needed actions.

Maybe some high-end people are trying to influence the elections….

That's the whole point. Currently, they don't care. When they are the subject of attacks then suddenly they would care.

Actually, some Americans do care, hence their posting in this thread.

Maybe some high-end people are trying to influence the elections….

lolwut?

That's the whole point. Currently, they don't care. When they are the subject of attacks then suddenly they would care.


You clearly have a major disconnect from reality, I suggest rehab to help remedy your entrapment in a hallucinogenic drugs trip.

Actually, some Americans do care, hence their posting in this thread.



lolwut?

They Americans on this board are not representative for the average Americans, their numbers here are not high enough to make any difference.

What country are you from, just out of interest?

They Americans on this board are not representative for the average Americans, their numbers here are not high enough to make any difference.

And have you spoken to enough Americans to know what they think, then?

You clearly have a major disconnect from reality, I suggest rehab to help remedy your entrapment in a hallucinogenic drugs trip.

Recommending psychotherapy advice without any serious analysis is rather dangerous.

You are pretending that you are a kind of a psychotherapist while you’re probably not.

One is wondering who is needing rehab. But love you too.

You are pretending that you are a kind of a psychotherapist

He's really not.

Even the War in Iraq has never had majority support from US citizens: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm, let alone attacks like this.

What country are you from, just out of interest?

He has said that he is from the Vatican, IIRC.

Even the War in Iraq has never had majority support from US citizens: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm, let alone attacks like this.

Sure. They gave Bush a second run.

He has said that he is from the Vatican, IIRC.

I remember that, but he's gotta be kidding. I also remember him mentioning "westeners" in some abortion thread, so I reckon he can't be.

Sure. They gave Bush a second run.

It was rigged, as was the first one.

Sure. They gave Bush a second run.

Only by a very small margin, and I'm sure if you add up all those too apathetic to vote, and those who supported other non democrat candidates who were against the war, you would find that the majority are against the war.

The world, the entire world should attack USA.

The rest of the world is either too afraid or too smart to do that. The rest of the world, the entire world, would get their butts whupped!

Only by a very small margin, and I'm sure if you add up all those too apathetic to vote, and those who supported other non democrat candidates who were against the war, you would find that the majority are against the war.

Could be, we'll never know.

In the past, a majority, including the demorats, approved the Iraqi war. Now, the times are changing...

The Iraqi war is rather big, this single (?) event in Syria will not be noticed by most Average Joe’s.

I was an American soldier and I can tell you for certain that this is very unlikely to have been an American attack, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, we will never carry out any military action without an objective. Killing construction workers is never an objective. Killing random civilians is never an objective. Only four objectives are likely in a construction site - stop the building from being completed, capture the building, capture or destroy enemy supplies in the building or remove enemy soldiers from the building.

Obviously, the building was neither captured nor destroyed. Nothing was taken or destroyed. Obviously, the action was not against the building or its contents.

When we move in to take a civilian installation, we typically accept surrender from civilians. Even if this was a special ops mission, if the mission was to kill a specific person, we would not have gone in until we knew exactly where that person was and we would try to capture, rather than kill, so that we can interrogate later.

Now, as for the equipment used, American helicopters were sold to half the countries in the world during the cold war. We haven't been told yet just what helicopter was used, so there's no reason to assume that it was a modern one. When people see a Huey with American markings, they assume it's Americans.

Besides, if we needed to destroy a construction site in Syria, we would do it with an airstrike, and if we needed to kill an Al-Qaida leader in Syria, we would use a Predator.

The rest of the world is either too afraid or too smart to do that. The rest of the world, the entire world, would get their butts whupped!

Not really.

Not really.

I'd like to see it!

I'd like to see it!

I really wouldn't because there'd be a lot of pointless deaths. However the entire world has a much larger army than the US, so I reckon they'd win.

We don't have to send the entire world, just a few North Vietnamese is enough.

Only by a very small margin, and I'm sure if you add up all those too apathetic to vote, and those who supported other non democrat candidates who were against the war, you would find that the majority are against the war.

Plus a lot of Democrats going over and voting for Bush. Lets face it, for any candiate to win an election, they must pull over a significant amount from the other party. I talked to a lot of people, many were Democrats and they admited they had voted for Bush, and now wish they hadn't. *sighs* :(

this single (?) event in Syria will not be noticed by most Average Joe’s.

The amount of people that will notice it in the US wont be significantly different from every other western country on earth. Pointlessly attacking the US just to say "hey, look at what you guys are doing over in Syria", is the most pointless, counter-productive, unethical and absurd solution to that problem.

Plus a lot of Democrats going over and voting for Bush. Lets face it, for any candiate to win an election, they must pull over a significant amount from the other party. I talked to a lot of people, many were Democrats and they admited they had voted for Bush, and now wish they hadn't. *sighs* :(

Exactly.

And while I was not a guest on all boards and forums, on the ones I visited the atmosphere Americans were distributing was like: "We'll kick some *ss"

The majority of American newspapers and TV stations were pro war at the start.

But suddenly the body bags were returning...

I really wouldn't because there'd be a lot of pointless deaths. However the entire world has a much larger army than the US, so I reckon they'd win.

What's a little carnage amongst friends?

The amount of people that will notice it in the US wont be significantly different from every other western country on earth. Pointlessly attacking the US just to say "hey, look at what you guys are doing over in Syria", is the most pointless, counter-productive, unethical and absurd solution to that problem.

Sure, the European Average Joe's will not know about this attack either.

If it is pointless, counter-productive, unethical and absurd, why are the US attacking a house in Syria?

Why is it pointless, counter-productive and stuff when one would do it in US, but not in Syria?

Sure, the European Average Joe's will not know about this attack either.

If it is pointless, counter-productive, unethical and absurd, why are the US attacking a house in Syria?

Why is it pointless, counter-productive and stuff when one would do it in US, but not in Syria?

Nice strawman, I'm not defending the attack in Syria (although I don't have enough information about it) either. But saying nonsense like 'the majority of Americans don't care' and 'we should attack America' is bullshit, regardless of whether the attack in Syria was good or bad.

Nice strawman, I'm not defending the attack in Syria (although I don't have enough information about it) either. But saying nonsense like 'the majority of Americans don't care' and 'we should attack America' is bullshit, regardless of whether the attack in Syria was good or bad.

The attack is always bad. Always. A serious country isn't behaving like this.

Suppose that all countries would act like this?
Suppose that any country would attack USA for similar reasons?

I still think that the Americans do not care. But they do care when American death bodies are on the counter.

We don't have to send the entire world, just a few North Vietnamese is enough.

Lol. It was the Vietcong, not the North Vietnamese and if the world invaded America then it would be the Americans who would be doing the guerilla fighting like the VC was.

Lol. It was the Vietcong, not the North Vietnamese and if the world invaded America then it would be the Americans who would be doing the guerilla fighting like the VC was.

It would be more like duck shooting.

Last time I was in USA, almost everyone was enormous fat.

We invented guerilla fighting and the West is full of militias who train exclusively in guerilla tactics.

The attack is always bad. Always. A serious country isn't behaving like this.

Suppose that all countries would act like this?
Suppose that any country would attack USA for similar reasons?


Great, if you want to apply this kind of categorical imperative, then you should therefore be fundamentally opposed to any attack on the US.

What part did you go? It wouldn't be duck shooting in the Rockies, trust me.

We invented guerilla fighting and the West is full of militias who train exclusively in guerilla tactics.

We being.....?

I'm still unsure about all this.

Perhaps the Syrians are lying about the civilian casualties? Maybe the US went in and killed eight militants?

And I'm not even TOUCHING the derail about attacking the US.

Great, if you want to apply this kind of categorical imperative, then you should therefore be fundamentally opposed to any attack on the US.

The problem is, that the US government will do it again, again and again.

Currently, most people do not care and will not push the government to stop this sickness.

Only when their relatives are death, then something will change.

The problem is, that the US government will do it again, again and again.

How do you know?

Only when their relatives are death, then something will change.

Their relatives are gonna be death? ZOMG!

What country are you from btw?

Exactly.

And while I was not a guest on all boards and forums, on the ones I visited the atmosphere Americans were distributing was like: "We'll kick some *ss"

The majority of American newspapers and TV stations were pro war at the start.

But suddenly the body bags were returning...


*sighs* I remember the start of the war, I was over in France at the time, participating in a study abroad program. Many of the American students were not happy about the war. But we were seeing it from a diffrent perspective and getting a diffrent version of the news than probably everyone else was getting back home.

The thing that angers me the most was the disinformation spread by the Bush adminstration that the war was based on false info, and still the Republicans want to stay there. That really compounds an error, doesn't it?

Not all Republicans want to stay in Iraq. However, whether they agree with the war or not, few soldiers want to leave in defeat and most soldiers vote Republican.

*sighs* I remember the start of the war, I was over in France at the time, participating in a study abroad program. Many of the American students were not happy about the war. But we were seeing it from a diffrent perspective and getting a diffrent version of the news than probably everyone else was getting back home.

The thing that angers me the most was the disinformation spread by the Bush adminstration that the war was based on false info, and still the Republicans want to stay there. That really compounds an error, doesn't it?

I do not underestimate the impact of the media, not even close. It was like pure propaganda and surely misinformed the American citizen.

But people on internet forums are a different species. They have access to the internet, know in general how to use it and can be informed by different views, news sources and people.

But still, most of them were in 'kick *ss mood'.

Even here, on Nation States…

Not all Republicans want to stay in Iraq. However, whether they agree with the war or not, few soldiers want to leave in defeat and most soldiers vote Republican.

Leaving doesn't equal defeat, and I'm assuming you're American, and you didn't reply to my earlier question, but you didn't invent guerilla warfare.

Leaving doesn't equal defeat, and I'm assuming you're American, and you didn't reply to my earlier question, but you didn't invent guerilla warfare.

The Americans either.

Reread the Art of War written by Sun Tzu, dated 600 BC.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War. When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.

The Americans either.

Reread the Art of War written by Sun Tzu, dated 600 BC.

I said the Americans didn't in my post, and the one before that, you fool.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War. When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.

Except that they'd been used for hundreds, even thousands of years before, by Celts, German tribes, Mongols etc.

I do not underestimate the impact of the media, not even close. It was like pure propaganda and surely misinformed the American citizen.

But people on internet forums are a different species. They have access to the internet, know in general how to use it and can be informed by different views, news sources and people.

But still, most of them were in 'kick *ss mood'.

Even here, on Nation States…

Media brainwashes people Sad but true.

It looks like you need to look up the definition of guerilla warfare. You seem to believe that any sort of attack which does not involve marching in ranks must qualify as guerilla warfare.

It looks like you need to look up the definition of guerilla warfare. You seem to believe that any sort of attack which does not involve marching in ranks must qualify as guerilla warfare.

No, guerilla warfare is laying ambushes in the woods, mountains etc. Uniform not compulsory, laying traps, harassing the enemy, that sort of thing.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War. When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.

I've read that book 30 years ago. In my memories it's almost completely about guerilla warfare.

Guerilla warfare also involves the division of troops into small groups which can operate without any clear front line, along with the careful whittling away of the weaker parts of the enemy by an inferior force. It's acutally based on Native American tactics.

The Art of War is mainly about broad sweeping strategies, such as which targets to attack and why and which troops to send, with only a small section in the back about battlefield tactics. Many of the strategies apply to guerilla warfare, but such a thing would have been horrifically dishonorable to the Chineese.

It's acutally based on Native American tactics.

Therefore not first used by Washington. Not even the first to use it in America.

I never said Washington was the first. I said that when he used it agains the Brittish, they were completely unprepared to face it. By the way, the Brittish officers had all read The Art of War and were tested on it.

I never said Washington was the first. I said that when he used it agains the Brittish, they were completely unprepared to face it. By the way, the Brittish officers had all read The Art of War and were tested on it.

Only 1 t in British. You actually said When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of. and also We invented guerilla fighting so please don't lie.

Guerilla warfare also involves the division of troops into small groups which can operate without any clear front line, along with the careful whittling away of the weaker parts of the enemy by an inferior force. It's acutally based on Native American tactics.

The Art of War is mainly about broad sweeping strategies, such as which targets to attack and why and which troops to send, with only a small section in the back about battlefield tactics. Many of the strategies apply to guerilla warfare, but such a thing would have been horrifically dishonorable to the Chineese.

I don't think the Chinese of 600 BC are the same as the current ones.
In warfare almost everything is accepted and I don't believe the honorable Chinese stories: they are *ssholes like any *sshole involved in warfare.

The art of war is clearly dealing about guerilla warfare in several topics.

I hate pointing out the obvious, but Native Americans ARE Americans. A lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute a lie on my part.

Picture Grey Fox, with a counter terrorist unit, Units specialising in mobility, mountain, and naval (SBS) fields of expertise. Alongside its main intelligence gathering/Bodyguarding/Covert Ops function. And about 3 regiments in size.


SBS is a separate regiment, all under the auspices of Special Forces, so not actually part of the SAS, in fact technically SBS are navy whilst SAS are army. The SRR is an intelligence unit based of some of the dodgy units doing work in N Ireland (Int 14 I think it was) and has taken over the surveillance and some of the counter-terrorism aspects. They recruit men and women from the intelligence units of the three branches of the military. They are probably closer to some of the black ops functions of the CIA than anything else. The SF Support Group is the official "back up" assigned to the Special Forces and may be closer to the US Rangers.

Of course not that there's much info about any of them, but those are the official positions. The SAS and SBS have been around for ages, dating back to WWII, the SRR and SFSG are very new however (2005), although in many ways this was more making official pre-existing ad hoc arrangements and structures.

I hate pointing out the obvious, but Native Americans ARE Americans. A lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute a lie on my part.

Well, are you a Native American? Also, you did say Washington was the first to use it, then later claimed you didn't which is a lie.

We don't have to send the entire world, just a few North Vietnamese is enough.

And here you have proven that in addition to a lack of knowledge about the U.S.A. and its citizens you also have little knowledge of history.


So what country are you from?

Sure, the European Average Joe's will not know about this attack either.

If it is pointless, counter-productive, unethical and absurd, why are the US attacking a house in Syria?

Why is it pointless, counter-productive and stuff when one would do it in US, but not in Syria?

You don't know that the US did attack a house in Syria, all we have is the Syrians word on it.

I'm thinkin' its fake, not really sure until we get some tv coverage on this thing. We already claim we didn't do anything all the time.

Of course it's fake, and a pretty bad one. It's as bad as the dead baby milk factory workers who were wearing uniforms that actually said "Baby Milk Factory" on the back in English! They didn't even try to make it look like this attack had any sort of objective. It's the sort of thing a terrorist would think up.

I'm thinkin' its fake, not really sure until we get some tv coverage on this thing. We already claim we didn't do anything all the time.

Only last time I checked the news, the US had admitted they did it and are claiming they were targetting a gun smuggler supporting terrorists in Iraq

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/27/syria.iraq/index.html

That story is much more believable than the report that the target was a construction site. If a terrorist was hiding in a farm house, this is how we would get him out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7694528.stm

That video is pretty damning. Although not definite proof. The Syrians have also stated they will defend themselves in future. It is claimed there was a high level gun/people smuggler whom was the target.

I'd like to see it!

You probably would. For about all 0.1 seconds before your eyes melt in their sockets and boil away beneath a newborn sun that will blacken your flesh and set your skin alight, nuclear winds stripping what pitiful remnants of life from your disintegrating bones as America as a nation ceases to exist, replaced by a land of blasted ruin.

Or maybe you'll be one of the unlucky ones who won't die immediately, but spend their remaining years scrounging in the irradiated wastes of your former country, your bodily organs steadily failing from malnutrition and radiation poisoning, forced to eat your scorched fingers just to survive in between hiding from the murderous armed gangs that form the new powers of the wastelands even as the smoke of a thousand burning cities usher in a new ice age that will wipe out all complex organisms off the face of the planet.

I'm still unsure about all this.

Perhaps the Syrians are lying about the civilian casualties? Maybe the US went in and killed eight militants?

Maybe, but it seems not very persuasive, given the cases where US assets deliberately murdered, shooting up a closet full of people, including children, after you stuff them inside is murder no matter how you look at it, civilians and then tried to cover it up as militants.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War. When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.

Then you've never read the Art of War. It wasn't called guerrilla warfare, true, but the tactics and strategies listed inside included many of the tactics in use by guerrillas today.

But please, do go on. Your ignorance amuses.

We invented guerilla fighting and the West is full of militias who train exclusively in guerilla tactics.

Liar.

You don't know that the US did attack a house in Syria, all we have is the Syrians word on it.

And the Iraqis, and the Americans, if you've been following the thread.

The amount of denial and disbelief displayed in this thread really is astonishing, especially in the light of the U.S. doing the same kind of attacks in Pakistan. And it's not like the U.S. didn't have a history of similar engagements in South and Middle America.

Besides, if it weren't true, don't you think that some official agency would by now have denied the allegations? That and the anonymous statement by an official who did say that it happened make me think that the attack happened.

As for shooting and killing civilians "by pure accident" - come on, just look at all the wedding celebrations that were bombed in Afghanistan.

Plus, as a personal note, the U.S. do not have any benefit of the doubt in my book.

The amount of denial and disbelief displayed in this thread really is astonishing, especially in the light of the U.S. doing the same kind of attacks in Pakistan. And it's not like the U.S. didn't have a history of similar engagements in South and Middle America.

Besides, if it weren't true, don't you think that some official agency would by now have denied the allegations? That and the anonymous statement by an official who did say that it happened make me think that the attack happened.

As for shooting and killing civilians "by pure accident" - come on, just look at all the wedding celebrations that were bombed in Afghanistan.

Plus, as a personal note, the U.S. do not have any benefit of the doubt in my book.

Agreed. This is a common thing, just a new target nation. As you said it is not unheard of, and the level of ignorance from some, understandable when reports were sketchy, is now just idiotic seeing as this has been pretty much confirmed.

And the Iraqis, and the Americans, if you've been following the thread.

At the point at which I posted that, we only had the Syrians word on it.

The amount of denial and disbelief displayed in this thread really is astonishing, especially in the light of the U.S. doing the same kind of attacks in Pakistan. And it's not like the U.S. didn't have a history of similar engagements in South and Middle America.

Besides, if it weren't true, don't you think that some official agency would by now have denied the allegations? That and the anonymous statement by an official who did say that it happened make me think that the attack happened.

As for shooting and killing civilians "by pure accident" - come on, just look at all the wedding celebrations that were bombed in Afghanistan.

Plus, as a personal note, the U.S. do not have any benefit of the doubt in my book.

Meh, I would be skeptical initially regardless of who the attacker was.

At the point at which I posted that, we only had the Syrians word on it.

This post? Only the Syrian's words beforehand?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140945&postcount=190

Hmmm....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14137962&postcount=51
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14138250&postcount=72

No.

You haven't been following the thread it seems.

Isn't killing civilians in a country you're not at war with illegal? Shouldn't someone be prosecuted under syrian and international law? I don't understand why more people aren't pissed about the US invading soveign nations and killing civilians. It isn't just illegal under international law, but also under American law. This is just pure madness.

This post? Only the Syrian's words beforehand?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140945&postcount=190

Hmmm....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14137962&postcount=51
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14138250&postcount=72

No.

You haven't been following the thread it seems.

Or, it could be that I came to the thread late, and was responding based on what I had seen at the time that I had posted it...

Nah, you're right, that's too obvious an explanation...
:rolleyes:

Or, it could be that I came to the thread late, and was responding based on what I had seen at the time that I had posted it...

Nah, you're right, that's too obvious an explanation...
:rolleyes:

There is an approximate 20 hour difference between your post at #190 and the two posts at #72 and #51 respectively. Either you are an extremely slow reader, or you did not finish reading the thread before posting, proving my statement.

There is an approximate 20 hour difference between your post at #190 and the two posts at #72 and #51 respectively. Either you are an extremely slow reader, or you did not finish reading the thread before posting, proving my statement.

This, so what?
It was a valid response to the post which I was responding to.

Isn't killing civilians in a country you're not at war with illegal? Shouldn't someone be prosecuted under syrian and international law? I don't understand why more people aren't pissed about the US invading soveign nations and killing civilians. It isn't just illegal under international law, but also under American law. This is just pure madness.
It is. But whatcha gonna do? Nuke'em?

Isn't killing civilians in a country you're not at war with illegal? Shouldn't someone be prosecuted under syrian and international law? I don't understand why more people aren't pissed about the US invading soveign nations and killing civilians. It isn't just illegal under international law, but also under American law. This is just pure madness.

If they were actually civilians, accounts as to who the people killed actually were vary a bit, as do the accounts of what actually happened.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War. When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.

First off guerilla warfare has a long history. And is likely the first system of warfare employed by primitive man when he had to first kill other men. seeing as we would have applied the same strategy in hunting etc.
2nd the french and American colonials applied guerilla warfare during the 7 years war.
3rd. all of Washington's major victories were by conventional warfare of the time.

There is no guerilla warfare in The Art of War.
It has sections on the deployment of special forces, though, which is pretty similar.
When George Washington used guerilla warfare against the Brittish, such tactics were unheard of.
Wut :D

What about the Germans against the Romans, or some of the wars inside China, which were the genesis of the ninja etc.?

Guerilla warfare is absolutely not an invention of the American Revolution. It was done with gunpowder weapons, which is an evolution of how it was being fought, but it is absolutely not new.

HOORAY!
GO America! Let's kick some Syrian ass!

Woot! Finally! It took us long enough!!!! Government can be so damn slow :(

Any body heard which branch of the service the helicopters involved in the Syrian raid belonged to? My baby Brother pilots an attack chopper for the Marine corp. and I kinda wonder if he finally got the trigger time he's been itching for ever since he was stuck in Okinawa during the invasion of Iraq...

Any body heard which branch of the service the helicopters involved in the Syrian raid belonged to? My baby Brother pilots an attack chopper for the Marine corp. and I kinda wonder if he finally got the trigger time he's been itching for ever since he was stuck in Okinawa during the invasion of Iraq...


I'll hazard a guess.
As it was a raid behind the lines of another sovereign nation, targeting a specific person. The personal involved were probably special forces. Rangers as a minimum I'd say. The Aircraft involved were probably from a typical US Army/Marine unit.

Hope that helps ^^

I'll hazard a guess.
As it was a raid behind the lines of another sovereign nation, targeting a specific person. The personal involved were probably special forces. Rangers as a minimum I'd say. The Aircraft involved were probably from a typical US Army/Marine unit.

Hope that helps ^^I think it would be Army SF, and they're supported by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. A.k.a. the "Nightsalkers".

I'll hazard a guess.
As it was a raid behind the lines of another sovereign nation, targeting a specific person. The personal involved were probably special forces. Rangers as a minimum I'd say. The Aircraft involved were probably from a typical US Army/Marine unit.

Hope that helps ^^Uh, it wasn't really a raid... it was an airstrike reportedly by four helicopters. No official word by the US on who took part, one independent report read "Air Force helicopters" but I don't really think the AF has attack helicopters. I'd assume such an attack would be carried out by ground attack choppers like the Apache which the Army uses or SeaCobras which the Marines fly.

HOORAY!
GO America! Let's kick some Syrian ass!

Newflash: It's not a football game. Something tells me you're not the one who'd actually have to go "kick some Syrian ass" or else you wouldn't be quite so eager for it.

Uh, it wasn't really a raid... it was an airstrike reportedly by four helicopters. No official word by the US on who took part, one independent report read "Air Force helicopters" but I don't really think the AF has attack helicopters. I'd assume such an attack would be carried out by ground attack choppers like the Apache which the Army uses or SeaCobras which the Marines fly.

Four Black Hawks were involved. Two dropped soldiers. More of a raid than an Airstrike ^^

Remind me - the US is part of the Axis of Evil right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm



Way to win hearts and minds.

Fuck hearts and minds. We had asked Syria to close down the terrorist organization at that site for a few years now.

If you don't close them down, we will.

Fuck hearts and minds. We had asked Syria to close down the terrorist organization at that site for a few years now.

If you don't close them down, we will.

...in a big penis waving way thats bound to create even more to follow them. Good plan there. I'm glad to see nothings sunk in.

Remind me - the US is part of the Axis of Evil right?

America, Israel, Russia and China, probably in that order.

...in a big penis waving way thats bound to create even more to follow them. Good plan there. I'm glad to see nothings sunk in.

Killing them wholesale as they cross has resulted in dramatic reductions.

Good thing you haven't kept up on the news.

Killing them wholesale as they cross has resulted in dramatic reductions.
.

But this wasn't "killing them wholesale as they cross", was it.

Four Black Hawks were involved. Two dropped soldiers. More of a raid than an Airstrike ^^Blackhawks eh, well I guess that precludes any possibility that my bro was involved. I guess he's still buzzing around the desert hoping for something to shoot at...

America, Israel, Russia and China, probably in that order.

Ahh...I'll take a large order of anti-Americanism with a side of anti-semitism and just a splash of sympathy for Arab-terrorists, if you got it.

If shooting up this site saves American soldiers lives in Iraq then I am all for it.
Seems justified to me. If Syria wants to fight about it they know where we are. its not like Syria has ever ignored international boundaries and shot other countries leaders unless you count Lebanon.

Ahh...I'll take a large order of anti-Americanism with a side of anti-semitism and just a splash of sympathy for Arab-terrorists, if you got it.

Criticism of Israel =/= anti semitism, and you know that.

Fail.

Fuck hearts and minds. We had asked Syria to close down the terrorist organization at that site for a few years now.

If you don't close them down, we will.

Change the record will you? You're not John Wayne and this isn't the Wild West. "Fuck hearts and minds" gets more of your army buddies killed and loses "long-wars".

Ahh...I'll take a large order of anti-Americanism with a side of anti-semitism and just a splash of sympathy for Arab-terrorists, if you got it.

I'm sorry, but could I have a quote of specific anti-semitism or a withdrawal of that accusation, if you'd be as good......

I'm sorry, but could I have a quote of specific anti-semitism or a withdrawal of that accusation, if you'd be as good......

You may not. If opposing an ideological belief or religion (islam and islamic values) can be considered racist on this forum, then being virulently anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, pro-PLO and pro Hamas (both anti-semetic terrorist organizations) and refusing to condemn arab terrorist attacks on Jews to the point of sympathizing with them can easily be considered anti-semitism.

You may not. If opposing an ideological belief or religion (islam and islamic values) can be considered racist on this forum, then being virulently anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, pro-PLO and pro Hamas (both anti-semetic terrorist organizations) and refusing to condemn arab terrorist attacks on Jews to the point of sympathizing with them can easily be considered anti-semitism.

Allow me to point some things out. Others problems with you are not my problem - I am neither emotional support or punch bag. Adjusting goal posts to justify your previous accusation isn't going to do you any favours.

Now, either produce anti-semetic quotes, by me, or withdraw your statement.

Now, either produce anti-semetic quotes, by me, or withdraw your statement.

He won't, because he can't. He'll either fudge the issue or simply won't bother returning to the thread - as he is wont to do. It's another drive-by.

You may not. If opposing an ideological belief or religion (islam and islamic values) can be considered racist on this forum, then being virulently anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, pro-PLO and pro Hamas (both anti-semetic terrorist organizations) and refusing to condemn arab terrorist attacks on Jews to the point of sympathizing with them can easily be considered anti-semitism.
Except for the fact that people equate Islam directly to the Arab race and consider everyone who looks Arabic a Muslim and are accordingly racist because all Muslims are teh ebil!.

I win.

You may not. If opposing an ideological belief or religion (islam and islamic values) can be considered racist on this forum, then being virulently anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, pro-PLO and pro Hamas (both anti-semetic terrorist organizations) and refusing to condemn arab terrorist attacks on Jews to the point of sympathizing with them can easily be considered anti-semitism.

Which actually hasn't been shown to have been said by Nodinia in any reasonable interpretation. But reason, facts, and reality do not appear to be your strong suit, especially if it allows you to play the whiny victim card.

One could be forgiven for thinking you are bedfellows with NS's known liar and genocide advocate, DK.