'US troops' strike inside Syria

[Nylan]

I agree, it was terrorism because it achieved a political aim; get us into a stupid war we can't win on military terms.

ummmmm, wat?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm so sick of hearing excuses for behavior by the US that would see any other nation castigated... stop pretending there are a different set of rules for america, there isnt, and the world as a whole is getting sick and sicker of US aggression.

RRW, the only thing I see here is that you advocate 'different rules' for states that allow terrorists to operate from within their borders. You lamented the same crap when Columbia blew the hell out of FARC in Ecuador.

Nations need to start figuring out that harboring terrorist bases from within your borders isnt what it used to be. The sooner that happens, the better off the world will be.

should the UK have bombed Dublin during the troubles?

Is every nation around the world like the UK and Ireland?

No?

Do you honestly think this is going to achieve anyhting other than make even more people hate the US and slightly cinrease McCain's chances?

This isnt about McCains chances. It was about a known Al Q coordinator and taking him out. And yes, if Syria has concern about its borders, then maybe it needs to start thinking about who it lets build training camps.

Dont give me this realpolitik BS, its the US acting however they wish because they know a tenth rate military power like Syria cant do anyhting about it,

What Syria CAN do about it is stop harboring terrorists and allowing them safe haven to attack their neighbors.

Course I know that option wont really occur to you.

either with us or against us... funny, last time I was tlkaing with a Danish soldier he seemed to actually have a lot of cop on, apparently its not universal though

Yeah, how dare a Danish soldier argue with you like that. He obviously doesnt have a lot of 'cop' on. Yeah.

4 of the dead were children incidentally, I'm sure I'll be told that was a mistake but its a mistake the Us keeps making... hope yer proud lads, 4 more dead kids

And one dead terrorist leader - who was probably responsible for a lot more dead kids than you can count.

 

[Patroklos]

It's no longer possible to simply take the US's word for anything. See above.

Thats the point, you don't have to take the US's word for it becasue everyone agrees with them anyway from Switzerland to China.

 

[Sui Generis]

Ah...the same old mantra.

Syria GOOD...USA bad.



Wrong. It absolutely was terrorism. You may want to brush up a bit on your understanding of what terrorism is.

There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. I believe that Terrorism is defined as any intentional attack on a mass group of civilians. The pentagon was a military target.

 

[IamJohn]

4 of the dead were children incidentally, I'm sure I'll be told that was a mistake but its a mistake the Us keeps making... hope yer proud lads, 4 more dead kids

To be fair the news reports I read said that the villagers said that no kids were killed in the attack, contrasting the Syrian government's point of view (which would be suspect in any case...).

In any case though the US military had no right to do that, it doesn't matter if it's 7 miles or 200, there was no immediate threat. Wait till they're in Iraq and nail them, otherwise find some other way.

There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. I believe that Terrorism is defined as any intentional attack on a mass group of civilians. The pentagon was a military target.

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense, by your definition a huge variety of things could be considered terrorism that aren't (such as many massacres), while ignoring many of the common parts of the definition. Simply because it's flexible doesn't mean that it means nothing, or that anyone can use it to mean anything under a such a broad definition as an attack on a mass group of civilians.

 

[Ecofarm]

There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. I believe that Terrorism is defined as any intentional attack on a mass group of civilians. The pentagon was a military target.

So they did not attack the people on board the plane?

Wait till they're in Iraq and nail them, otherwise find some other way.

Could this be any stupider? It suggests addressing the symptom and not the source... as a solution!

 

[Sui Generis]

So they did not attack the people on board the plane?

Could this be any stupider?

... good point. I stand corrected.

 

[Ecofarm]

@ Sui: The stupid part was not directed at you, it was directed at the statement quoted above it. You seem to be a person genuinely interested in knowledge and perspective. I've seen you stand corrected twice already; that's about all I have managed to admit in a year of posting


Anyway, the most amazing thing in this thread is the support of Russia and Turkey when they do the "same" thing but condemnation for the US (Russia violated a democratic nation's border and actually invaded the place without declaring war, but we will leave that detail out for the moment). I'm looking at you, RRW. How is the invasion of Iraq any different than the invasion of Georgia, except that Georgia is a democracy and Iraq had a genocidal dictator?

I told you that your support of Russia invading Georgia would hurt you politically and here it is, biting you on the butt.

 

[Sui Generis]

@ Sui: The stupid part was not directed at you, it was directed at the statement quoted above it. You seem to be a person genuinely interested in knowledge and perspective.

I know, I just didn't feel like editing your quote.

 

[MobBoss]

There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. I believe that Terrorism is defined as any intentional attack on a mass group of civilians. The pentagon was a military target.

The pentagon employs a massive number of civilians that work there. And fwiw, military forces can also be the targets of terrorism. You will always see instances like the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and/or the Khobar Towers referred to as 'terrorist attacks' although they were directed against military targets, largely because of the methods used (car bombs) and the affiliation of those suicide bombers in the attack.

Essentially, you are saying if a terrorist commits a terrorist act, its not terrorism if the target is military. I disagree, and I think you are in a very small minority making that distinction.

Again, you simply need to read up on the matter. While I agree that the definition of what is 'terrorism' is quite broad, there are some specific criteria that usually accompany a terror attack regardless of the target, and the attack on the Pentagon has those criteria.

 

[Sui Generis]

But I still like my definition of terrorism. lol

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I'm so sick of hearing excuses for behavior by the US that would see any other nation castigated... stop pretending there are a different set of rules for america, there isnt

But there ARE a different set of rules for America. Rules cannot be separated from the enforcement mechanism, and there is simply no mechanism to effectively enforce international law against the United States.

 

[MobBoss]

But I still like my definition of terrorism. lol

/meh. You might also call ketchup with some warm water in it, tomato soup, but it doesnt really make it tomato soup.

 

[Sui Generis]

The pentagon employs a massive number of civilians that work there. And fwiw, military forces can also be the targets of terrorism. You will always see instances like the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and/or the Khobar Towers referred to as 'terrorist attacks' although they were directed against military targets, largely because of the methods used (car bombs) and the affiliation of those suicide bombers in the attack.

Essentially, you are saying if a terrorist commits a terrorist act, its not terrorism if the target is military. I disagree, and I think you are in a very small minority making that distinction.

Again, you simply need to read up on the matter. While I agree that the definition of what is 'terrorism' is quite broad, there are some specific criteria that usually accompany a terror attack regardless of the target, and the attack on the Pentagon has those criteria.

I agreed with econfarm that the pentagon attack was terrorism, because of the use of civilian airlines.

Anyway, being in a minority does not confer an advantage or a disadvantage in regard to being "right".

Anyway, we agree to disagree. I believe that an attack on the military is an attack of agression but not terrorism, unless it is something like the pentagon, in which a massive amount of civilians were killed directly in the attack and killed.

 

[Sui Generis]

/meh. You might also call ketchup with some warm water in it, tomato soup, but it doesnt really make it tomato soup.

There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. Stop acting like yours is logically superior to everyone elses. It is an opinion of opinion, and nothing else.

 

[Ecofarm]

But there ARE a different set of rules for America. Rules cannot be separated from the enforcement mechanism, and there is simply no mechanism to effectively enforce international law against the United States.

How are the rules different?

Nothing happened to Lebanon when it violated Israel's border and captured soldiers (except Israel's response... no international action against Lebanon).

Nothing happened to Israel when it invaded Lebanon or when it struck the Syrian reactor months ago.

Nothing happened to Colombia when it invaded Ecuador and Chavistan.

Nothing happened to Turkey when it invaded Iraq.

Nothing happened to Russia when it invaded Georgia.

Nothing happens to Iran when it strikes into Iraq.

Nothing (until now and only because of the US) happens to Syria for launching attacks into Iraq.

The examples go on and on.

The people advocating punishment for the US are the ones wanting to change the rules to make special ones for the US.

 

[innonimatu]

It has nothing to do with guts. It's realpolitics. So now that we have established that US shouldn't declare war, which options are left? Do nothing? Ask them nice and politely to stop killing your boys? Or giving a rats ass about their dictatorial leaderships "rights", and targeting the people who are already at war with you.

Who is at war with who? And why?

Nations don't simply go to war without a motive. What are Syria's motives, if the US claims are true, and what are the US motives also? In fact we should go even further and check the motives of the different groups with a hand on running things on either side of that border...

I find it odd that he government of a country which invaded another across half the world and is trying to keep it as a puppet state should be claiming the (moral) high ground on issues of "border security"!

 

[Ecofarm]

I find it odd that he government of a country which invaded another across half the world and is trying to keep it as a puppet state should be taking the high ground on issues of "border security"!

So, Saddam had the high moral ground? No, of course not and, thus, the US maintains the high moral ground - it's not trying to take it.

 

[storealex]

and the world as a whole is getting sick and sicker of US aggression.

True, but why don't you save your breath for those who might wanna argue with you, and address my point instead? Im well aware of Americas faults, and unlike other posters, Im not going to defend everything America does.

However, I would like you to state what on earth you would have America do. Sit idle and watch suicide bombers kill people in Iraq, or declare war against Syria (And Iran for that matter)
Apparently, that's the only two moral options in your book.

should the UK have bombed Dublin during the troubles?

Different scenario and you know that. The Irish government didn't train, fund and equip IRA during the troubles.

do you honestly expect anyone to just take the Us excuses for aggression at face value anymore?

And do you honestly USA would take this course of action, knowing well the public relations and diplomatic crisis that would follow, if it didn't have a good reason?

either with us or against us... funny, last time I was tlkaing with a Danish soldier he seemed to actually have a lot of cop on, apparently its not universal though

Oh shut up. I never said you have to be with us - you were the one implying that you were against us. So the frase should be "If you're against us, you're against us"

4 of the dead were children incidentally, I'm sure I'll be told that was a mistake but its a mistake the Us keeps making... hope yer proud lads, 4 more dead kids

It's funny how quickly you rule statements by the US to be lies, and statements from Syria to be true. In all fairness, at least treat them equally and accept the fact that we don't know whether there were dead kids or not.

 

[Nylan]

/meh. You might also call ketchup with some warm water in it, tomato soup, but it doesnt really make it tomato soup.

I beg to differ. Then again, I'm cheap