US Attacks Syrian Border Town Killing Eight
MrBrian
Posts: 2,672
Posted October 26, 2008
Updated 10/26 6:20 PM EST
In a report from local witnesses later confirmed by a Syrian government spokesman, Two US helicopters landed in the Syrian border town of Al-Sukkariya while others remained in the air and eight American soldiers exited. The soldiers killed at least eight people in the attack, and wounded 14 others before reboarding the helicopters and returning to Iraqi territory.
The US military has yet to officially confirm the strike, the first US strike on Syrian soil, but an unnamed US official confirmed the strike, saying that due to Syrian inaction they were now “taking matters into our own hands” with regards to foreign fighters.
Israel’s Channel 10 reports that unnamed western defense officials told them that the troops were carrying out a military operation against “al-Qaeda activists” in Syria. Witnesses say those killed were construction workers.
It has been speculated that the attack might be related to US military operations in the area, but there really haven’t been any. Major General John Kelly described security incidents in that area of Iraq as “almost meaningless now” and was reportedly optimistic about cutting troops in the area.
The attack comes as particularly surprising considering the US was reported earlier this month to be mulling lifting sanctions against Syria in light of their indirect peace talks with Israel. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem had said there was “good progress” in a dialogue aimed at improving US-Syrian relations. Syria has reportedly summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to officially complain about what it calls an attack on its sovereignty
Updated 10/26 6:20 PM EST
In a report from local witnesses later confirmed by a Syrian government spokesman, Two US helicopters landed in the Syrian border town of Al-Sukkariya while others remained in the air and eight American soldiers exited. The soldiers killed at least eight people in the attack, and wounded 14 others before reboarding the helicopters and returning to Iraqi territory.
The US military has yet to officially confirm the strike, the first US strike on Syrian soil, but an unnamed US official confirmed the strike, saying that due to Syrian inaction they were now “taking matters into our own hands” with regards to foreign fighters.
Israel’s Channel 10 reports that unnamed western defense officials told them that the troops were carrying out a military operation against “al-Qaeda activists” in Syria. Witnesses say those killed were construction workers.
It has been speculated that the attack might be related to US military operations in the area, but there really haven’t been any. Major General John Kelly described security incidents in that area of Iraq as “almost meaningless now” and was reportedly optimistic about cutting troops in the area.
The attack comes as particularly surprising considering the US was reported earlier this month to be mulling lifting sanctions against Syria in light of their indirect peace talks with Israel. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem had said there was “good progress” in a dialogue aimed at improving US-Syrian relations. Syria has reportedly summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to officially complain about what it calls an attack on its sovereignty
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem also warns that if there is a repeat of the weekend raid Syria will "defend our territories." Al-Moallem was in London on Monday for talks with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband
Syria says U.S. troops in four helicopters attacked a building in a village about eight kilometres from the Iraqi border and killed eight people, including four children.
The U.S. military says it was targeting al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq through Syria.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081027/world/syria_unrest_us_britain_fm_1
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081027/world/syria_us_raid_6
---
Looks like it's true, let's see what happens.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Didn't see many people fretting over Pakistans' border being breached...doubt this will be any different.
Was wondering if this would be it's own thread, or show up in the "How not to end terrorism" thread...same ol same ol...
Lemme get this straight: You've got a Ron Paul quote as your sig stating that both major candidates -- McCain and Obama -- are equally hawkish, but you write that you have no problem with this? Does your sig imply that it's a good thing for both pols to be hawkish? Do you think neither is war-hungry enough? Are you commenting negatively on one or both candidates?
I guess it's just a different point of view, but I have a big problem with all of this. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. We're there. Syria has never been friendly, is located next to Iraq, and has now been raided by U.S. troops. There are possible civilian casualties. Pres. Bush went on his own to load up troops in Iraq with the surge and the military is now inciting more violence with neighboring countries.
There is a problem.
I'm not for being in Iraq and never have been.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
and if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now, you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?
Does your thinking then change? Or like you said in an earier post, "I see no problem with it"
A-Q is now in Iraq thanks to Bush and a Congress filled with cowards.
That would be a good plot for a new movie. I'm thinking Will Smith can play Barry. Maybe it would be a good plot for the 24 movie. Huh?
Indeed.
So, if you're for eliminating A-Q where ever they are, and if they're in Iraq, doesn't that mean that you are now for being in Iraq?
No smart reply, so you try and make some joke.
Really, I was expecting more from you.
Well I didn't think it was a serious question. When is that last time anything like that took place here? We have systems set up where we are in place, not remotely targeting them because we are unable to set up shop.
The way things are now is that countries are not our real enemies, it is becoming radical populations within countries. The only real reason a country is mentioned is for geography. Now Iraq of course throws that a bit out of whack but it is a special screwed up situation. I don't know what the right answer is there.
I do believe al-qaeda was probably not there when we got there and because of our actions that have set up operations. However do we just leave now and give them the rule of the land? I don't believe that is the answer either.
Interpret it however you decide to mangle it.
If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So once you're gone they can bomb and kill innocent people and yes, of course, some al-Qaeda.
naděje umírá poslední
8 civilian deaths.
http://www.truthout.org/102808R
My point is that you would move too.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
First of all, prove to me that "the overwhelming majority of people" in that town were al-Qaeda, and prove that the people in this town knew that "the overwhelming majority" was Al-Qaeda. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
Then, answer the question. It's a simple one. Would be okay with it if the US dropped bombs, or attacked a US village in which they know there are terrorists, knowing full well that there are also innocent people living in that town.
naděje umírá poslední
I didn't say that the overwhelming majority were al qeada. I said they supported Al Qeda.
It happened sooner than expected, but I knew there would come a point when the only way you could respond was by changing my words around.
First, you answer my question without switching my words around.
Would you live in a neighbordhood that actively supported Al Qeada?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
And Syria won't retaliate, fearing relations with the new US president. Bush did this knowing there would be no reprisal, knowing the Syrians could do nothing about it, and while Congress, that worthless group that is supposed to be holding the president accountable, is out of session till the election.
once again Bush gets away with murder. literally.
I probably wouldn't. But did you ever consider that some people might not have the luxury of dropping their life and moving?
Furthermore, does the "overwhelming majority" actively support al-Qaeda? Where did you read that? Please provide sources that say that the majority of this town actively supports Al-Qaeda.
Bombs and rockets aren't exactly known for being accurate in who they kill. They kill indiscriminately. But the ends justify the means, right?
So, I believe I answered your question quite straightforwardly, now please answer mine (or rather MrBrian's).
Also, I didn't twist your words intentionally.
naděje umírá poslední
I used to be a hardass about it not mattering as long as the U.S. accomplished its goals. I know see that I was wrong to believe that. All it took was an unjust war under false pretenses to give me back a little of my soul.
Provide me evidence that residents don't actively support Al Qeada. Let's talk common sense here. Do you really think that when Al Qeada operatives move into local towns villages, they are treated as unwelcome invaders? If that's what you think, then that would explain a lot about your point of view.
You haven't really answered my question because you changed the circumstances of the hypothetical scenario upon which the question is based.
It's apparent that you think it's relevant whether or not the residents support al Qeada or whether or not they can willfully move.
I'm not the one who volunteered those changes. You were. So, that begs the question: Why does it matter if the residents support Al Qeada or if they can willfully move? They're still civilians, right? If so, then what difference does it make?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Why is it so bad for these people to support al-qaeda? It's a fucking war, right? Are they supposed to be supporting the people launching the missiles that are killing their countrymen? ...but let me guess, we're doing them a favour by getting the 'terrorists' out, right?
If you were a Syrian, which side would you consider terrorists?