'US troops' strike inside Syria

Is it ok for Mexico to strike inside the US to target (something Mexico dislikes)?


  • Total voters
    52

Phlegmak

Deity
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
10,966
Location
Nowhere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7692153.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_us_raid

US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night.

The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.

Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.

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

If confirmed, the raid would be the first known attack by US forces inside Syrian territory, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus, our correspondent adds.

Crossing point

"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 1645 local time [1345 GMT] on Sunday," Sana said.

"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters and "attacked a civilian building under construction and opened fire on workers inside - including the wife of the building guard - leading to [the deaths] of eight civilians", it added.

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

The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages.

The village was named as Sukkiraya, 8km (5 miles) from the Iraqi border.

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.

The area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money travelling into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

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.

Washington has in the past accused Damascus of turning a blind eye to the problem.

Poll included for alternate scenario.
 
¡Viva Pancho Villa!

And yes, if Mexican authorities were in pursuit, or faced an imminent attack and the US was unable or unwilling to respond / help, Mexico would have such a right.
 
Mexico does it all the time, so what?
 
Is it ok for Mexico to strike inside the US to target (something Mexico dislikes)?
Yes, Mexico should be allowed to strike all Taco Bells because of that stupid dog.

Seriously? Syria is a terrorist state who is actively harboring, training and transporting terrorists. Screw them. We should invade that craphole and install democracy.

Syria's sovereignty. lol

Ask them about Lebanon's sovereignty. If this constitutes an invasion and act of war, what do you call what Syria does in Lebanon?
 
9/11 was an act of war. They started this.

Saudi Arabia is more to blame then Syria.

But wheres the big war, and booming bombs?

Hypocracy at its best it appears :rolleyes:
 
Hypocracy at its best it appears

More like priorities. Ever heard of priorities? They are what happens when one cannot do everything at once.

It's amazing that some people think the US can invade 6 countries at one time and if they don't they are hypocrites.

You realize that, if we invaded Saudi, Iraq Iran Syria Lebanon and every other craphole in the ME would have been at war with us? Do you realize how ignorant the statement quoted above IS?
 
More like priorities. Ever heard of priorities? They are what happens when one cannot do everything at once.

It's amazing that some people think the US can invade 6 countries at one time and if they don't they are hypocrites.

You realize that, if we invaded Saudi, Iraq Iran Syria Lebanon and every other craphole in the ME would have been at war with us? Do you realize how ignorant the statement quoted above IS?

if the us can only handle so many wars then why the hell are you always the first one to suggest going to war whenever something like this happens?
 
if the us can only handle so many wars then why the hell are you always the first one to suggest going to war whenever something like this happens?

I believe in war to spread freedom. But it needs a plan, it needs priorities. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan was brilliant. Now we have not one but two major bases in places that we did not before and have spread democracy to the Heart of Darkness. This has advanced democracy in the world far beyond anything else this decade.

But I am not for invading Saudi before Iran and Iraq... that would be STOOPID.
 
More like priorities. Ever heard of priorities? They are what happens when one cannot do everything at once.

It's amazing that some people think the US can invade 6 countries at one time and if they don't they are hypocrites.

You realize that, if we invaded Saudi, Iraq Iran Syria Lebanon and every other craphole in the ME would have been at war with us? Do you realize how ignorant the statement quoted above IS?


I find it more amazing that rather then striking at the center the US goes popping off caps in the outskirts...

I can understand hitting Afganistan... Not so much Iraq... Maybe Syria...

But meanwhile the US happily sucks the oil from Arabia's sick... why not grow some balls and step up, or atleast bite down.

You say invading Saudi before Iraq and Iran would be stupid... you say that America cant invade six countries at one time, and yet above it seems you support extending the front to Syria and Iran...

I shall say once more, hypocracy.
 
I believe in war to spread freedom. But it needs a plan, it needs priorities. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan was brilliant. Now we have not one but two major bases in places that we did not before and have spread democracy to the Heart of Darkness. This has advanced democracy in the world far beyond anything else this decade.

But I am not for invading Saudi before Iran and Iraq... that would be STOOPID.

I hope you are being sarcastic.
 
I shall say once more, hypocracy.

I shall say once more, priorities.

Only a ****** would think we should invade Saudi before Iraq and Iran. Further, only a ****** would think we should stop taking oil from Saudi during our wars.

Your argument to hypocrisy is ******ed.
 
I shall say once more, priorities.

Only a ****** would think we should invade Saudi before Iraq and Iran.

I suppose it takes a couple throws of the dart before you hit center... though in this case you hit the board completly.

The US has missed the inititive and I doubt they'll get the chance anytime soon to strike at Arabia...
 
Blatant violation of Syrian sovreignity, and an act of war.

It's only a violation of international law if somebody actually tries to enforce said law against us. Any volunteers?

Thought not. We've been "violating Pakistani sovereignty" for months now; even Obama said he would do it if necessary. They're a country with nukes and they haven't done anything except send us letters.
 
The thing is that the US has no idea how it feels to be attacked.
I know some of you think 9/11 was an attack but there is a serious difference between terorism and a military strike.
This just proofs once aggain that the US is the real rogue state.
 
Top Bottom