US attacks Syria?

[dorbie 0]

US strike in Syria "decapitated" al Qaeda's facilitation network

By Bill Roggio
October 27, 2008 4:51 PM

Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated.

Ghadiya was the leader of al Qaeda extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq along the entire length of the Syrian border. Ghadiya was first identified as the target of the raid inside Syria late last night here at The Long War Journal. The Associated Press reported Ghadiya was killed in the raid earlier today.

Several US helicopters entered the town of town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. US commandos from the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 88 assaulted the buildings sheltering Ghadiya and his staff.

The Syrian government has protested the attack, describing it as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" carried out by the US. The Syrian government claimed eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in the strike. But a journalist from The Associated Press who attended the funeral said that only the bodies of seven men were displayed.

The US official said there were more killed in the raid than is being reported. "There are more than public numbers [in the Syrian press] are saying, those reported killed were the Syrian locals that worked with al Qaeda," the official told The Long War Journal. "There were non-Syrian al Qaeda operatives killed as well."

Those killed include Ghadiya's brother and two cousins. "They also were part of the senior leadership," the official stated. "They're dead. We've decapitated the network." Others killed during the raid were not identified.

The strike is thought to have a major impact on al Qaeda's operations inside Syria. Al Qaeda's ability to control the vast group of local "Syrian coordinators" who directly help al Qaeda recruits and operatives enter Iraq has been "crippled."

etc. etc.

[dorbie 0]

The terrorist network decapitated in this attack clearly shows that it was authorized under article 51 of the U.N. charter. Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

So when they kill US soldiers in a war zone, they are murderous terrorists, and when we kill them in a country not at war, we are heroes?

Do you also blame the US for harboring the 9/11 terrorists (who actually intended to strike civilian targets in an area of peace, as opposed to military targets in a war zone)?

It sounds like we hit a solid target, and I'm glad of that. Even better would be if we had a decent working relationship with Syria so that this wasn't such an affront to them. I imagine the chance of improving the relationship has suffered as a result. Hopefully it was worth it.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Our countries are not making friends by attacking other nations

And, what do you make of the attacks on your own nation?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

So you'd be OK with the Mexican military attacking and destroying a Border Patrol station in Brownsville, Texas - as long as they were protecting Mexican citizens? After all, if we don't like it, we should mind our own country and not let Minutemen/terrorists attack Mexican citizens.

Are we the Mexicans or the Minutemen?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Who's to decide it?

The winner.
And, sometimes it comes to that in life.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

I continue to be stunned at how many people on this forum have the view that "we're the bad guys". That's a simplification of many views here, but it's relevant in what is happening today. We're about to elect a radical liberal who's good at being opaque, while saying all the right things to whoever happens to be standing in front of him.
Biden was right. Obama will be tested. And, it's not going to stop, for years to come.

We are all engines of karma

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Who's to decide it?

The winner.
And, sometimes it comes to that in life.

The winner? Not any longer in actual times. The winner already started to be the loser. Remove the sun glasses.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mpohl 1]

Thank goodness, collateral damage was limited to several women and children; seven in total, I believe.

Way to go, American hero warriors.

Quote

Quote

That's some pretty serious shit to send what I presume to be delta force into Syria. Pretty brazen act.

It was only 5 miles. It was a seriously important target. It did severe damage to the terrorist network. It will improve conditions in Iraq.

If Syria doesn't like it, they should mind their own country and not let terrorists use them as a home base.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The winner already started to be the loser.

Only because we've lost the will to be a clear winner.

We are all engines of karma

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

The winner already started to be the loser.

Only because we've lost the will to be a clear winner.

No. You lost more than just the "will". The world around you grew up and "you" did not realize it, did not grow accordingly.

Believing in former glorious cowboy times is no more à jour, mon grand.

You're outfashioned.



edited for typo

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The world around you grew up...

Good. They should know how to defend themselves. But, you don't. I am all for letting Western democracies pay their own way wrto defense.

We are all engines of karma

[ferdberfel 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

I continue to be stunned at how many people on this forum have the view that "we're the bad guys". That's a simplification of many views here, but it's relevant in what is happening today. We're about to elect a radical liberal who's good at being opaque, while saying all the right things to whoever happens to be standing in front of him.
Biden was right. Obama will be tested. And, it's not going to stop, for years to come.

I continue to be stunned how many people on this forum have the view that "We're the good guys, so anything that we do is OK.", no matter what treaties, international laws, national borders, etc, that are violated by our actions.

When we violate national borders while executing military operations, according to the rest of the world, we ARE the bad guys. When we invaded Iraq, we committed a premeditated war of aggression against a country that NEVER attacked us. We ARE the bad guys, as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

What part of this is hard to understand? It really is very simple, if you have even a remote understanding of international politics.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When we violate national borders while executing military operations, according to the rest of the world, we ARE the bad guys. When we invaded Iraq, we committed a premeditated war of aggression against a country that NEVER attacked us. We ARE the bad guys, as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

What part of this is hard to understand? It really is very simple, if you have even a remote understanding of international politics.

Well, if you had a remote understanding of international politics, you'd recall that Iraq attacked Kuwait. (It also long supported the attacks on our allies in Israel.) That started the chain. Non of this 'premeditated war of aggression' nonsense.

History is full of smaller bullies trying to become bigger bullies. Sometimes they succeed and live at the top for a period. Often they fail in their attempt. They don't become good guys just because they lose to a bigger bully. Just loser bullies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

US strike in Syria "decapitated" al Qaeda's facilitation network

By Bill Roggio
October 27, 2008 4:51 PM
...
The Syrian government has protested the attack, describing it as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" carried out by the US. The Syrian government claimed eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in the strike. But a journalist from The Associated Press who attended the funeral said that only the bodies of seven men were displayed.

Dorbie, what is the source for this article. Who is Roggio?

If this article is factual, then it would appear that the Syrian government is lying, and that suggests they condone and support the activity of our enemy. As I mentioned earlier, they are in no position to whine, esp after their recent NPT violation.

and that's just on the moral court. In the world court where might is right, 'suck it up, cupcakes.'

[kallend 2,027]

Meh! Syria isn't the issue. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan is where the root of the problem lies, and we're not even close to "winning" there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

So when they kill US soldiers in a war zone, they are murderous terrorists, and when we kill them in a country not at war, we are heroes?

You are confused. They are disguised as civilians hiding behind civilians and carrying no national flag although in this case they are mostly Syrians. Yes they are indeed terrorists.

A country may say it's not at war but if it commits an act of war it undermines that claim. I refer you once again to Article 51, I suggest you read it. Again you are confused, you at once want to claim we attacked them when they were not at war yet claim they were attacking us in a war zone. That's the central point isn't it and thanks for highlighting that.

Article 51 is indeed a practical section of the U.N. charter that really helps cut through the bullshit. When some-one's attacking you all semantics aside, you can go after them in the name of self defense. In this case that's what happened.

A decent working relationship with Syria is not a practical option when they are training and abetting terrorists to attack Iraqis and Americans. We can wish for it all we want but if we let terrorist training and harbouring go on in the name of relationships it's a fools quest. You should read the broadcast testimony of captured Syrian secret service agents. They were training these guys to behead people on video and practicing on animals. That's not war or insurgency it's terrorism.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Meh! Syria isn't the issue. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan is where the root of the problem lies, and we're not even close to "winning" there.

Of course, for you the important fight will always be the one we're not involved in or is not going as well until someone of the correct political affiliation orders some shots fired.

This does seem like an indication you think Iraq is going well though.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you could spare some outrage for Syria having harboured a terrorist network intent on murdering U.S. soldiers.

So when they kill US soldiers in a war zone, they are murderous terrorists, and when we kill them in a country not at war, we are heroes?

You are confused. They are disguised as civilians hiding behind civilians and carrying no national flag although in this case they are mostly Syrians. Yes they are indeed terrorists.

A country may say it's not at war but if it commits an act of war it undermines that claim. I refer you once again to Article 51, I suggest you read it. Again you are confused, you at once want to claim we attacked them when they were not at war yet claim they were attacking us in a war zone. That's teh central point isn't it and thanks for highlighting that.

Article 51 is indeed a practical section of the U.N. charter that really helps cut through the bullshit. When someone's attacking you all semantics aside, you can go after them in the name of self defense. In this case that's what happened.

A decent working relationship with Syria is not a practical option when they are training and abeting terrorists to attack Iraqis and Americans. We can wish for it all we want but if we let terrorist training and harbouring go on in the name of relationships it's a fools quest. You should read the broadcast testimony of captured Syrian secret service agents. They were training these guys to behead people on video and practicing on animals. That's not war or insurgency it's terrorism.

You clearly misinterpreted my statement, I suggest you go back and read it. I didn't say "they" weren't at war with us, I said we struck at them in a country that is not at war. I also said it was a good hit. You do have me on the point that I don't consider combatants attacking military targets to be terrorists. You ignored the point that the US harbored *real* terrorists in the days leading up to Sept 11, 2001 ("terrorist" is loosely defined in my head as those who make indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets for the purpose of causing "terror" among others).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[dorbie 0]

Quote

against a country that NEVER attacked us.

Sovreignty is important however when terrorists use it as a shield from which to attack us it invites a violation of that sovreignty. The Syrian secret service has been helping these guys, much as you'd like to claim plausible deniability and immunity from attack for the guys murdering our troops and Iraqi civillians it just doesn't fly.

The result from this well planned and well executed operation makes it clear that this was a legitimate target. The difficult questions now are those Syria is left to answer, but those are the questions you have no interest in asking.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You clearly misinterpreted my statement, I suggest you go back and read it. I didn't say "they" weren't at war with us, I said we struck at them in a country that is not at war. I also said it was a good hit. You do have me on the point that I don't consider combatants attacking military targets to be terrorists.

There was no misinterpretation, I agree that's what you said. We have every right to attack people waging war against us from a safe haven in a nation that claims not to be at war with us. If you choose to think that these people were not assisted by Syria committing covert acts of war against the USA that's your business. The Syrian cover-up suggests otherwise as do their captured agents in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure there was no sound practical alternative, other than allowing 25 trained terrorist murderers to sneak in per month and wreak mayhem. Having seen what one; Timothy McVeigh or two; John Malvo & Dad can do, 25 a month seems like a flow worth stopping. We had already been successful in stemming the flood, hopefully this helps further.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Meh! Syria isn't the issue. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan is where the root of the problem lies, and we're not even close to "winning" there.

Of course, for you the important fight will always be the one we're not involved in or is not going as well until someone of the correct political affiliation orders some shots fired.

This does seem like an indication you think Iraq is going well though.

Ummm - NO. Iraq is a sideshow and distraction in the WWWOT and has been all along. Afghanistan is NOT going well, due to gross mismanagement by the Bush administration allowing AQ and Taliban to regroup while Bush was playing his "war president" game in Iraq.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ferdberfel 0]

Quote

Quote

against a country that NEVER attacked us.

Sovreignty is important however when terrorists use it as a shield from which to attack us it invites a violation of that sovreignty. The Syrian secret service has been helping these guys, much as you'd like to claim plausible deniability and immunity from attack for the guys murdering our troops and Iraqi civillians it just doesn't fly.

The result from this well planned and well executed operation makes it clear that this was a legitimate target. The difficult questions now are those Syria is left to answer, but those are the questions you have no interest in asking.

If China invaded and occupied Mexico, would the US be morally correct to aid and abet Mexican citizens in fighting back against the occupying army?
Would China be doing the right thing if they conducted military operations on US soil in pursuit of those that were siding with the Mexicans?

Same situation, different players.
How sturdy is your moral compass? Pretty flimsy, would be my guess.

[Trent 0]

Quote

If China invaded and occupied Mexico, would the US be morally correct to aid and abet Mexican citizens in fighting back against the occupying army?
Would China be doing the right thing if they conducted military operations on US soil in pursuit of those that were siding with the Mexicans?

Just to play along with the metaphor here... if we were helping Mexico fight China, we'd probably be aware of what we were doing and would expect China to be none too pleased with it. If we had any tactical foresight... we would expect retaliation.

Oh, hello again!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

If China invaded and occupied Mexico, would the US be morally correct to aid and abet Mexican citizens in fighting back against the occupying army?
Would China be doing the right thing if they conducted military operations on US soil in pursuit of those that were siding with the Mexicans?

Just to play along with the metaphor here... if we were helping Mexico fight China, we'd probably be aware of what we were doing and would expect China to be none too pleased with it. If we had any tactical foresight... we would expect retaliation.

Who is "we" in this metaphor? The state or some portion of the populace?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)