US conducting raids into Syria.

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

The Syrian government says that there were no Al Qeada targets for the US to kill in Syria, but then again the Syrian government tortures its political prisoners by sticking a searing hot metal rod into their rectums. Not to mention, they leveled the entire city of Hama to eliminate a terrorist problem of their own some years back. Why should anybody believe what the Syrian government has to say?

Commy

sponger wrote:

The Syrian government says that there were no Al Qeada targets for the US to kill in Syria, but then again the Syrian government tortures its political prisoners by sticking a searing hot metal rod into their rectums. Not to mention, they leveled the entire city of Hama to eliminate a terrorist problem of their own some years back. Why should anybody believe what the Syrian government has to say?

may be true. And the US gov't directly funded the Contras, one of the most notorious and brutal terrorist groups of all time. They used torture as a form of public intimidation, leaving mutilated bodies in the middle of villages to scare the people into voting for the US candidate. they also hit "soft" target, churches, schools that kind of thing-to name one sordid intervention on the part of US officials.

So maybe we can't believe either source.

But what we do know is that the raid happened. Whether or not terrorists were killed is beside the point. the US violated international law.

Seems the biggest threat to stability in the middle east is the US.

Collin

sponger wrote:

The Syrian government says that there were no Al Qeada targets for the US to kill in Syria, but then again the Syrian government tortures its political prisoners by sticking a searing hot metal rod into their rectums. Not to mention, they leveled the entire city of Hama to eliminate a terrorist problem of their own some years back. Why should anybody believe what the Syrian government has to say?

The Associated Press got the news from witnesses and local residents.

sponger

Commy wrote:

may be true. And the US gov't directly funded the Contras, one of the most notorious and brutal terrorist groups of all time. They used torture as a form of public intimidation, leaving mutilated bodies in the middle of villages to scare the people into voting for the US candidate. they also hit "soft" target, churches, schools that kind of thing-to name one sordid intervention on the part of US officials.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the Sandinistas had committed much worse, and that the contras were the lesser of two evils.

So maybe we can't believe either source.

See above.

But what we do know is that the raid happened. Whether or not terrorists were killed is beside the point. the US violated international law.

Seems the biggest threat to stability in the middle east is the US.

So you support international laws that protect terrorists?

sponger

Collin wrote:

The Associated Press got the news from witnesses and local residents.

And, of course, local witnesses and residents would never lie to condemn actions of the west.

Collin

sponger wrote:

So you support international laws that protect terrorists?

Click

Falk pointed to a recent escalation in unauthorized and illegal cross-border attacks, calling the raid in Syria and similar US actions in Pakistan "a type of very dangerous diplomacy," which threatens to spark an international crisis and "further expand the war zone" in the region.

Violations of territorial sovereignty by the US military have stoked anti-American sentiment among civilians in the Middle East, leading to increasingly dire predicaments for political leaders trying to balance domestic circumstances with pressure from the US.

Resistance to US raids in Pakistan has escalated to the point of actual exchanges of fire between Pakistani and US forces, causing the US to roll back plans to expand military operations into the lawless Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.

Sunday's raids mark a significant step backward in the US's relations with Syria, hindering counterterrorism efforts instead of helping them, according to Erik Leaver, policy outreach director for Foreign Policy In Focus.

"This does further damage to US-Syrian relations, which have been very shaky over the past few years," Leaver told Truthout. "This attack will strain relations further, making it more difficult to track terrorist movement, not easier."

Collin

sponger wrote:

And, of course, local witnesses and residents would never lie to condemn actions of the west.

That's besides the point, like Commy said.

It happened and eight innocent people are dead, many more are wounded. The US claims they killed one al-Qaeda member.

So what exactly are you saying?

sponger

Collin wrote:

That's besides the point, like Commy said.

It happened and eight innocent people are dead, many more are wounded. The US claims they killed one al-Qaeda member.

So what exactly are you saying?

The fact that they might lie is besides the point? Of course it is, since it goes against what you want to believe.

What you're saying is who cares if the source is credible or not.

What's your real agenda?

PJ_Saluki

Apparently the U.S. is the only truly sovereign nation in the world. Fuck everybody else. We'll just enter their country and blow the shit out of them whenever we please. They hate our freedom.

sponger

Collin wrote:

Click

So, essentially, yes you do support international law that protects terrorists. Your link discusses hindered relations with countries that aid terrorists.

I guess it's safe to say that it's important to you that the US maintain diplomatic relations with nations that protect terrorists.

At least you're honest about it...

Vedderlution_Baby

So is it's the children's fault that they were there to be killed also?

PJ_Saluki

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So is it's the children's fault that they were there to be killed also?

What, are you in favor of international laws that protect children?

Vedderlution_Baby

PJ_Saluki wrote:

What, are you in favor of international laws that protect children?

As long as they bleed red white and blue.

Collin

sponger wrote:

The fact that they might lie is besides the point? Of course it is, since it goes against what you want to believe.

What you're saying is who cares if the source is credible or not.

What's your real agenda?

My real agenda? You tell me, dude :rolleyes:

We have certain sources. You claim side A is false, others claim side B is false.

We move on to the facts, the attack happened, innocent people died.

Commy

Collin wrote:

We move on to the facts, the attack happened, innocent people died.

and that is what it comes down too.

sponger

Collin wrote:

innocent people died.

At least that's you'd like to believe what happened. Any doubts about the source are doubts that you can do without.

PJ_Saluki

sponger wrote:

At least that's you'd like to believe what happened. Any doubts about the source are doubts that you can do without.

What about the foreign policy conduct of the Bush II administration would lead you to believe they're so damned trustworthy?

Collin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692411.stm

These filthy liars even wounded a woman so it'd look real...

Open

sponger wrote:

And, of course, local witnesses and residents would never lie to condemn actions of the west.

Yeah, cause you, being in California REALLY know what happened.

sponger

Open wrote:

Yeah, cause you, being in California REALLY know what happened.

And you, living in Texas, must know a lot more about the Bush family than I could ever know. Oil too, right? Because you're a Texan, you must know a lot about oil.

Geographical proximity is a weak and pointless argument.