US Attacks Syrian Border Town Killing Eight

Collin

sponger wrote:

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.

So once you're gone they can bomb and kill innocent people and yes, of course, some al-Qaeda.

Commy

Princeton international law scholar Richard Falk, calls the US action "a serious violation of international law," which allows for the use of violence only in self-defense.

8 civilian deaths.

http://www.truthout.org/102808R

sponger

Collin wrote:

So once you're gone they can bomb and kill innocent people and yes, of course, some al-Qaeda.

My point is that you would move too.

Collin

sponger wrote:

My point is that you would move too.

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.

sponger

Collin wrote:

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.

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.

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.

First, you answer my question without switching my words around.

Would you live in a neighbordhood that actively supported Al Qeada?

Commy

http://www.truthout.org/102808R]

The US attacks come at an odd time, because Syrian border control has been improving recently, according to Leaver. Salkini even pointed to recent encouragement from the Bush administration.

"A few weeks ago we had a positive meeting with Secretary Rice and the Syrian foreign minister," Salkini told Truthout. "They talked about positive steps forward; they complimented our efforts in the region."

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.

Collin

sponger wrote:

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?

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.

PJ_Saluki

There seems to be this attitude in the U.S. that foreign lives are somehow worth less. Maybe it's the term "collateral damage" that diminishes the reality that the innocents killed every day overseas are human beings.

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.

sponger

Collin wrote:

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.

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.

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).

I probably wouldn't. But did you ever consider that some people might not have the luxury of dropping their life and moving?

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?

Drowned Out

sponger wrote:

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?

What I don't get....
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?

Vedderlution_Baby

4 more kids dead because of shit they didn't do.

sponger

PJ_Saluki wrote:

There seems to be this attitude in the U.S. that foreign lives are somehow worth less. Maybe it's the term "collateral damage" that diminishes the reality that the innocents killed every day overseas are human beings.

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.

That's not true. If the US Government suddenly declared the Los Angeles Crips a terrorist organization, advised Los Angeles resident to either vacate or to cease assistance of the crips, most people in the US would not have any sort of problem with Compton being bombed to smithereens.

Whether or not you agree with that method of dealing with the Crips is irrelevant. My point is that it's not a matter of "foreigners are less important than we are."

PJ_Saluki

Drowned Out wrote:

...If you were a Syrian, which side would you consider terrorists?

Nice way to put it. Easiest question of the day, too.

sponger

Drowned Out wrote:

What I don't get....
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?

The question is really if I was a Syrian, and I considered my side to be terrorists, my own government would torture me by sticking a searing hot metal rod into my rectum.


What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.

So, this means that they saw their own government as the terrorists.

PJ_Saluki

sponger wrote:

That's not true. If the US Government suddenly declared the Los Angeles Crips a terrorist organization, advised Los Angeles resident to either vacate or to cease assistance of the crips, most people in the US would not have any sort of problem with Compton being bombed to smithereens.

Whether or not you agree with that method of dealing with the Crips is irrelevant. My point is that it's not a matter of "foreigners are less important than we are."

OK, that's just a silly hypothetical question that has nothing to do with fighting a war in the Middle East and killing civilians in Syria.

Collin

sponger wrote:

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.

I'm not saying they are treated as unwelcome invaders. People might be neutral, they might be afraid, they might think it's the best thing ever.

Al-Qaeda is fighting the US because of their presence in the Middle East. The US continues to kill innocent people and destroy infrastructure. I wonder how many will now, because of this, actively support al-Qaeda.

You haven't really answered my question because you changed the circumstances of the hypothetical scenario upon which the question is based.

I said I would move too but it was you who mentioned moving away, so it was you who changed the circumstances of the scenario, remember?

MrBrain wrote:

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?

sponger wrote:

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.

So, please... just answer the question instead of avoiding it. The question was not what you'd do if you knew al-Qaeda lived near you. The question was and still is:

"you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?"

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?

As I cleary and irrefutably pointed out, sponger, it was you who changed the question.

sponger

PJ_Saluki wrote:

OK, that's just a silly hypothetical question that has nothing to do with fighting a war in the Middle East and killing civilians in Syria.

You mean you didn't know there's a congressional effort underway to declare major US street gangs as domestic terrorists? That there is a "war" being fought between US authorities and street gangs? That "innocent civilians" are often caught in the crossfire of this war? And that Americans generally feel that those deaths are acceptable given the severity of gang activity?

It's not a silly hypothetical scenario. It's a relavant hypothetical scenario that needed further explaining so that you could understand it.

Drowned Out

sponger wrote:

The question is really if I was a Syrian, and I considered my side to be terrorists, my own government would torture me by sticking a searing hot metal rod into my rectum.


What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.

So, this means that they saw their own government as the terrorists.

huh?
actually no, the real question was, "If you were Syrian, which side would you consider a terrorist?" nice attempt to dodge it with the graphic depiction of those savage Syrians, tho :rolleyes:
Pretty sure you just confirmed that the US is doing them a favour, just like they did the Iraqi's a favour...and the Afghani's....and the Iranians...and and and... I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years.

PJ_Saluki

sponger wrote:

You mean you didn't know there's a congressional effort underway to declare major US street gangs as domestic terrorists? That there is a "war" being fought between US authorities and street gangs? That "innocent civilians" are often caught in the crossfire of this war? And that Americans generally feel that those deaths are acceptable given the severity of gang activity?

It's not a silly hypothetical scenario. It's a relavant hypothetical scenario that needed further explaining so that you could understand it.

Hey, if there is a "congressional effort" to designate those gangs as terrorists, it's well hidden. The only reason the gov't would want to do that is to use Patriot Act investigatory tools against those gangs.

The U.S. gov't couldn't (and wouldn't) level L.A. because of gangs, but they will do that in foreign countries. It's not the same. It's a silly hypothetical.

sponger

Drowned Out wrote:

huh?
actually no, the real question was, "If you were Syrian, which side would you consider a terrorist?" nice attempt to dodge it with the graphic depiction of those savage Syrians, tho :rolleyes:
Pretty sure you just confirmed that the US is doing them a favour, just like they did the Iraqi's a favour...and the Afghani's....and the Iranians...and and and... I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years.

The world isn't as simple as what country you live in. That is, it isn't a matter of "Are you a Syrian or aren't you?"

Within the country of Syria, there may very well exist varying levels of sentiment toward the Syrian government.

And, as I tried to illustrate this rather simple yet truthful point, you think I'm dodging the question? I know you are smarter than that.

I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years

So the Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam toppled? You mean they didn't want him hanged after all?