PDA

View Full Version : Syria: US choppers attack village near Iraq border



SarasotaRepub
10-26-2008, 04:41 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. military helicopters attacked territory inside Syria close to its border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people in a strike the Syrian government condemned as "serious aggression."


A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.


Link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942DS980&show_article=1)

Bubba Dawg
10-26-2008, 06:21 PM
I saw this earlier on BBC and thought...no....that ain't right. Couldn't be.

I hate the damned Syrians, but this sounds dangerous.

megimoo
10-26-2008, 07:12 PM
US special forces launch rare attack inside Syria.
"We will go after them where ever they are !"

"Ubaidah Al-Saif, who is associated with Al-Fajr Media in Iraq, as part of what is called "The Islamic State of Iraq," said on April 25: "The plans of the cross worshippers and their henchmen have collapsed." He quotes "House Majority Leader Harry Reid" (he means Senate majority leader) as saying, "The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is the same as it was in Vietnam."

Al-Saif declares American morale is declining and "Öour battle against the enemy is first and foremost the will to fight and the length of the battle does not rest with the cross worshippers." He calls for his fighters to "be patient" and Allah will give them victory. Patience is not one of America's virtues."

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq.

The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.

The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.

A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. The witness spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information,

Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike.

"Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said.

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

Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Farhan al-Mahalawi, mayor of Qaim.

On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story."

"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."

He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border.

"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said.

The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, the U.S. military official said.

He said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach.

"The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," the official said.

The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out.

The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942EFR80&show_article=1

Goldwater
10-26-2008, 07:24 PM
Did the President get congressional approval?

Bubba Dawg
10-26-2008, 07:32 PM
Did the President get congressional approval?


Your guess is as good as mine but i doubt it. Probably considers it as falling within some of the war powers of the executive. Maybe it does, I just think of this whole region as being on a hair trigger.

AmPat
10-26-2008, 07:55 PM
Did the President get congressional approval?

The Bush Doctrine. Also authorized (somewhat vaguely) by the U.N. ;)

Bubba Dawg
10-26-2008, 07:58 PM
The Bush Doctrine. Also authorized (somewhat vaguely) by the U.N. ;)

Interesting. Makes sense. The whole region is a powderkeg but maybe the worst thing to do is to allow a situation like the open border with Syria to continue and fester.

Goldwater
10-26-2008, 08:12 PM
The Bush Doctrine. Also authorized (somewhat vaguely) by the U.N. ;)

This saddens me.

AmPat
10-26-2008, 08:59 PM
This saddens me.

The warning has been posted almost 6 years. Syria (Assad) has learned nothing from Saddam's legacy. I don't like it either but this border has been an open door and we KNOW what is coming and going from there. This was not an errant strike regardless the inevitable spin from the Liberal media.

Goldwater
10-26-2008, 09:26 PM
The warning has been posted almost 6 years. Syria (Assad) has learned nothing from Saddam's legacy. I don't like it either but this border has been an open door and we KNOW what is coming and going from there. This was not an errant strike regardless the inevitable spin from the Liberal media.

I'm aware there was reason for the attack, and I'm not neccessarily against it, however proper channels aren't used anymore, and they make frightening precidents.

AmPat
10-27-2008, 03:15 AM
I'm aware there was reason for the attack, and I'm not neccessarily against it, however proper channels aren't used anymore, and they make frightening precidents.

I can imagine that Syria hasn't exactly cooperated using the normal channels. They have had plenty of time to cease and desist. The writing is on the wall. I agree with you. It is too bad.

cat714
10-27-2008, 03:40 AM
Of course Syria comes out and says children and civilians were killed. :rolleyes: It doesn't matter what good America tries to do, it's always wrong. Other countries bitch at us for not doing enough, doing too little or doing nothing at all. It's like working for a boss who is never happy.

We always need checks and balances when we take military force, but we should do what's best for our country. The safety of our troops is #1. I don't care about dead terrorists because they would not think twice about killing you or me.

GrumpyOldLady
10-27-2008, 05:39 AM
8 funerals today. 8 less terrorists in the world. No problem.

marinejcksn
10-27-2008, 06:15 AM
I don't know if I believe the level of validity to this. Was there any US media source or did the story originate from Syria? I know I'm not high up the chain and privy to this kind of stuff but I think we'd hear chatter if there was a mission crossing the line, I dunno.

Either way, we can't continue to allow these idiots to flood into the country and if this is the only way to stop them so be it. Obviously it's not wise to stir up a hornet's vest with Syria since we're already thin as it is fighting 2 wars, so I doubt we'll do much in way of striking them without real credible knowledge of the area. I just can't see us getting clearance to cross into Syria like that, my friend is providing security on the Syrian border right now so I'll ask if he knows anything. He said they get shot at from inside Syria every day, can't do anything about it so if we hit them back this time F*ck 'em. Hope this doesn't turn out bad though.

Odysseus
10-27-2008, 09:06 AM
I don't know if I believe the level of validity to this. Was there any US media source or did the story originate from Syria? I know I'm not high up the chain and privy to this kind of stuff but I think we'd hear chatter if there was a mission crossing the line, I dunno.

Either way, we can't continue to allow these idiots to flood into the country and if this is the only way to stop them so be it. Obviously it's not wise to stir up a hornet's vest with Syria since we're already thin as it is fighting 2 wars, so I doubt we'll do much in way of striking them without real credible knowledge of the area. I just can't see us getting clearance to cross into Syria like that, my friend is providing security on the Syrian border right now so I'll ask if he knows anything. He said they get shot at from inside Syria every day, can't do anything about it so if we hit them back this time F*ck 'em. Hope this doesn't turn out bad though.

Syria is only a threat so long as they are useful to Iran as a staging base for Jihadis and for funneling ordnance to Hezbollah. Syria's economy is a basket case and they are completely depending on Iran for their survival (think of the relationship between Cuba and the USSR). The best COA for dealing with Syria would have been to allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah when they had the opportunity, while taking out their staging bases and encouraging their Kurds (a significant presence) and the Lebanese to expel the Assad regime from their territories.

LogansPapa
10-27-2008, 09:14 AM
Ignorance of the tribal nature of these people, terrorists usage of that culture away from major urban areas and the importance of Damascus in Arab and Middle East history will cause excursions like this to go deeper into yet another country. And like Israelís into Lebanon recently - it could end up expensive.

bluemeenie
10-27-2008, 09:55 AM
you know logan.....I can't tell by your sig if your just that racists...or if it was meant to be funny in some off sort of way.



would have made much more since if you'd substituted "socialist" in that remark.

LogansPapa
10-27-2008, 09:59 AM
you know logan.....I can't tell by your sig if your just that racists...or if it was meant to be funny in some off sort of way.

Itís not racist. It is historical in nature. The American voter would have defeated Obama in an incredible landslide if not for McCain following in the footsteps of "W". Itís is no more complicate than that. Put whatever semantics on that reality that makes you feel comfortable - but there it is.

Odysseus
10-27-2008, 10:09 AM
Ignorance of the tribal nature of these people, terrorists usage of that culture away from major urban areas and the importance of Damascus in Arab and Middle East history will cause excursions like this to go deeper into yet another country. And like Israelís into Lebanon recently - it could end up expensive.
Wars are always expensive, especially when you try to fight them on the cheap. The cost of not winning is always higher. Had Israel's leadership understood what was at stake in Lebanon, they would have destroyed Hezbollah, and if the world understood the future that we are facing, they'd have cheered them on instead of restraining them. As for Damascus' value as a cultural center, don't overestimate the ties that Arabs have to history. They are loyal to their tribes, but pan-Arabism is always a non-starter. Pan-Islamic jihads are far more dangerous, and we ignore those at our peril.

Itís not racist. It is historical in nature. The American voter would have defeated Obama in an incredible landslide if not for McCain following in the footsteps of "W". Itís is no more complicate than that. Put whatever semantics on that reality that makes you feel comfortable - but there it is.
No, you've got it bass ackwards. If the media weren't constantly telling us every awful thing that they could find or make up about Republicans and hiding everything that they find about Democrats, Obama would have been laughed off of the ballot, regardless of his race, because of his utter lack of experience and association with the most radical elements in our political class. He's a slick but empty suit, and the fact that he's leading against a man of McCain's caliber is an indictment, not of Bush, but of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times and the WA Post.

Goldwater
10-27-2008, 12:19 PM
No, you've got it bass ackwards. If the media weren't constantly telling us every awful thing that they could find or make up about Republicans and hiding everything that they find about Democrats, Obama would have been laughed off of the ballot, regardless of his race, because of his utter lack of experience and association with the most radical elements in our political class. He's a slick but empty suit, and the fact that he's leading against a man of McCain's caliber is an indictment, not of Bush, but of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times and the WA Post.

If it was only that, McCain would still win. It does have a little to do with people's general happiness at the moment. A center-right country going for such a leftie takes some bad people before him (like Ford and Nixon to the Carter).


8 funerals today. 8 less terrorists in the world. No problem.


Three children and a married couple were said to be among the dead

I hope you're right Old Lady, but initial reports from media outlets suggest otherwise.

Odysseus
10-27-2008, 12:47 PM
If it was only that, McCain would still win. It does have a little to do with people's general happiness at the moment. A center-right country going for such a leftie takes some bad people before him (like Ford and Nixon to the Carter).

People's general happiness has a lot to do with the constant drumbeat of negativity that they get from the media. The MSM learned their lesson well from Nixon and Ford. If the president is a Republican, vilify or ridicule him at every opportunity. They failed with Reagan, partly because he was incredibly successful, partly because the American people remembered Carter, but succeeded with Bush 41, where a minor recession was trumpeted as the return of the Great Depression. Going into the campaign, Bush was riding high after Desert Storm, with over 90% approval ratings, but constant attacks by the Clinton machine and the media, not to mention a truly wretched campaign by Bush, sealed the deal for the Dems. From 2000 through 2008, the media has done everything short of blood libel to attack Bush 43, including the presentation of fabricated documents, publication of classified documents that were deliberately leaked to undermine the war on terror and the relentless mischaracterization of the administration as corrupt, incompetent and evil, in order to hand the presidency to their handpicked candidate. The MSM lessons learned are:


Attack, attack, always attack.
Do not allow Republicans to respond to the left's talking points (seen any McCain spokesmen on CNN?) and ensure that their message is diluted by a rebuttal from the Democrats when they do get something out.
When Republicans do get their message out, attack it as dishonest, unfair, racist, sexist, fattening, whatever it takes to create the impression in the public's mind that the Republicans are the bad guys, then go to a Democrat for the last word (this is what the MSM considered being evenhanded).
Do not cover negative stories about the Democratic nominee unless you're forced to, and then complain about how this distracts from the important coverage of the campaign and how unimportant it all is.
Investigate and undermine the reputation of every person who supports the Republican ticket, and lie if you can't find any ugly truths (Sarah Palin's kid is fair game, as is Joe the plumber's background, but Jeremiah Wright???).
Ignore the investigations of the Democratic nominee's background (see #4)
Remind the voters that it's in the bag for the Democrat, and they all need to get on the bandwagon.



I hope you're right Old Lady, but initial reports from media outlets suggest otherwise.
Initial reports from media outlets always suggest otherwise. Sometimes, they're even true, although that's not the critical criteria. The terrorists like to surround themselves with women and children because they know that we will hesitate to attack them, and if we do attack, the media will present the collateral damage as our fault, rather than as the result of a war crime on the part of the terrorists.

LogansPapa
10-27-2008, 12:53 PM
Bush41 was defeated for a single ideal:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Read_my_lips.jpeg.jpg

"Read my lips: No new taxes."

Odysseus
10-27-2008, 03:08 PM
Bush41 was defeated for a single ideal:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Read_my_lips.jpeg.jpg

"Read my lips: No new taxes."

And because there was a recession. People forgave Reagan for a slight tax hike after he'd made deep cuts, because the economy kept getting stronger, but when they were told, day-in and day-out, that the economy was in the toilet and it was Bush's fault, and he couldn't respond effectively, it eroded his favorable ratings. Also remember that Clinton ran on a promise of middle class tax relief (just like Obama is now) and hardly anyone in the press questioned why a governor who'd never cut taxes had suddenly decided that he was a supply-sider, just as Obama's hostility to any tax cuts over his pitifully minimal time in public office doesn't seem to have registered. Can anyone point to a tax cut that Obama voted in favor of? Ever?

Goldwater
10-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Initial reports from media outlets always suggest otherwise. Sometimes, they're even true, although that's not the critical criteria. The terrorists like to surround themselves with women and children because they know that we will hesitate to attack them, and if we do attack, the media will present the collateral damage as our fault, rather than as the result of a war crime on the part of the terrorists.

Maybe so, but an initial report is better than nothing.

AmPat
10-27-2008, 04:00 PM
No, you've got it bass ackwards. If the media weren't constantly telling us every awful thing that they could find or make up about Republicans and hiding everything that they find about Democrats, Obama would have been laughed off of the ballot, regardless of his race, because of his utter lack of experience and association with the most radical elements in our political class. He's a slick but empty suit, and the fact that he's leading against a man of McCain's caliber is an indictment, not of Bush, but of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times and the WA Post.
You left off another important element, the American public. We have an incredibly ignorant and gullible voting public. Blacks for example have been ensuring their own slavery by sucking off the DIMocRAT's breast every election. They have no knowlege of nor do they have any interest in learning the facts of history. They vote for the short term givaways of the Liberals thus ensuring their continued entrapment in poverty.

The young in this country all fall victim to the FEELING they are Liberals. They are excited about the political process and that in their minds is enough. To the American voting public, we deserve what we get. If Uh-Bama is elected, more proof of our political idiocy.

The American public is falling prey to the hand-picked Obamessiah of the media. No one seems the least bit alarmed that Uh-Bama Liberals are buying this election. One look at the Chris Mattthew's and Kieth Olbermann's adoration of their chosen clown is enough to make mature adults vomit.

SarasotaRepub
10-27-2008, 06:59 PM
Well I heard on Fox a while ago we got who we were after.

Some bozo who was "removed" from the scene. Hopefully in pieces.

M21
10-27-2008, 11:35 PM
They won't be missed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDqlvbu1CFc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrzW7peOlmw

crockspot
10-28-2008, 01:34 PM
At this point, Bush has nothing to lose. If I was him, I would dedicate the rest of my Presidency to killing every terrorist I could get the crosshairs on. If anybody doesn't like it, so what? What are they going to do? Call him mean and belittling names?

marinejcksn
10-28-2008, 09:53 PM
At this point, Bush has nothing to lose. If I was him, I would dedicate the rest of my Presidency to killing every terrorist I could get the crosshairs on. If anybody doesn't like it, so what? What are they going to do? Call him mean and belittling names?

According to Joe "Plugs" Biden, the Obama Campaign will charge Bush & Cheney for war crimes. :rolleyes:

GrumpyOldLady
10-29-2008, 05:07 AM
I hope you're right Old Lady, but initial reports from media outlets suggest otherwise.

Syrian media. The same folks that say they are not invovled in terrorist attacks and are not involved in sending insurgents into Iraq. Completely unbelievable.

Unless something reliable says otherwise - 8 dead terrorists. No problem.

SarasotaRepub
10-29-2008, 06:29 AM
According to Joe "Plugs" Biden, the Obama Campaign will charge Bush & Cheney for war crimes. :rolleyes:


LOL! Even Biden isn't that stupid. Something like that would open a can of worms
the Dems would best leave closed. Talk like that is for the MoonBats like the idiots
on DU.

marinejcksn
10-29-2008, 07:30 AM
LOL! Even Biden isn't that stupid. Something like that would open a can of worms
the Dems would best leave closed. Talk like that is for the MoonBats like the idiots
on DU.

They'd never do it. But Biden said he would when a person asked in a recent rally, I heard the audio. He's so damn dumb...I can't believe nobody makes a big deal about it. Last week he said, "Barack Obama knows the most important job in America today is a 3 letter word: Jobs. J-O-B-S!'

I laughed my ass off over that one. The man in incoherant. :p

crockspot
10-29-2008, 09:31 AM
According to Joe "Plugs" Biden, the Obama Campaign will charge Bush & Cheney for war crimes. :rolleyes:

Well, he did say that, but when someone asked him about it the nsxt day, he said "I dont know where you people get this stuff!"

The guy doesn't even remember what he said the day before. lol He may be five years younger than McCain, but hs is ten times more senile.

Odysseus
10-29-2008, 09:52 AM
LOL! Even Biden isn't that stupid. Something like that would open a can of worms the Dems would best leave closed. Talk like that is for the MoonBats like the idiots on DU.
What do they have to lose? If they can "prove" that Bush and his cabinet were war criminals, they can ensure that even when they are out of power, that no one will take action to defend America without getting every i dotted and t crossed, from the UN to the League of Women Voters, and even then, they'll be able to threaten future prosecution. This is how they use civilian complaint review boards and frivolous prosecutions to keep police from doing their jobs. After the LA riots, the LAPD was completely demoralized and spent the next decade in CYA mode. It was the same in NYC under Dinkins, when police knew that doing their jobs could cost them their jobs. Fortunately, Giuliani turned that around. What the left wants to do is make sure that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine keeps a copy of the Miranda warnings in their cargo pockets and is prepared to stop fighting long enough to read a terrorist his rights.

They'd never do it. But Biden said he would when a person asked in a recent rally, I heard the audio. He's so damn dumb...I can't believe nobody makes a big deal about it. Last week he said, "Barack Obama knows the most important job in America today is a 3 letter word: Jobs. J-O-B-S!'

I laughed my ass off over that one. The man in incoherant. :p

Oh no, they'll do it. This isn't the first time that they've promised it. Check out the Obama campaign flyer here. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/Obama_oct13_rallyflyer.pdf) And they'll also trump up charges against anyone who they can convict, from the top down. The Democrats have learned one critical lesson from Vietnam, which is when you screw over the troops, you have to make us into the villainst of the piece. They have to produce a narrative that makes us out to be war criminals, psychos or dupes to justify their conduct during wartime. If we're not monsters, then they've done the nation a huge disservice by undermining our efforts, but if we're clueless screw-ups, then they have saved the rest of the world from us. That's why every mainstream studio release about Iraq has attacked us, it reinforces their narrative, justifies their contempt and erodes public support for us. They won't be happy until they're spitting on us in airports again.

crockspot
10-29-2008, 10:46 AM
The key words are "if they can prove".

They can't prove. If they could, they would have started impeachment proceedings already.

marinejcksn
10-30-2008, 03:48 AM
The key words are "if they can prove".

They can't prove. If they could, they would have started impeachment proceedings already.

Point. Set. Match.

Nicely done crock. :cool:

Odysseus
10-30-2008, 09:15 AM
The key words are "if they can prove".

They can't prove. If they could, they would have started impeachment proceedings already.
Ah, but they don't have to prove anything. They just have to create a wall of inuendo. They'll have two venues for this, congressional hearings and show trials. The beauty of congressional hearings is that there is no standard of proof. The majority can stack the deck with any witnesses that it wants, feed them questions that lead to their pre-chosen conclusions and then issue a scathing report that has nothing to do with reality. The committee's report then gets repeated ad nauseum in the media. Remember John Kerry's testimony in the senate? Not a word of it was true, but it was repeated so often that the perception of Vietnam vets as out of control monsters was perpetuated for decades. That was the high point of liberal anti-war activism, and they'll cheerfully do it again.

The show trials are going to be where this gets truly ugly. The individual prosecutions of war crimes will be announced loudly, with lots of photo ops of troopies in handcuffs doing the perp walk while prominent Democrats denounce the actions of the accused as if they are already guilty (think Murtha and Haditha). It won't matter if the accused are ultimately acquitted, they'll have been dragged through the process and treated like criminals, and the acquittals will get far less press than the initial charges. And, of course, there will be isolated cases where the charges are true, and convictions occur. Those will be trumpeted throughout the media as typical, and they'll be given maximum exposure. Remember, these aren't going to be real trials based on evidence, but show trials for propaganda purposes. They'll also put tremendous pressure on the defendents to cop pleas and accept lesser sentences, which some troops will take, just because they don't have the resources to defend themselves. The end result will be that the media/Democratic alliance will have fabricated the impression of criminality among servicemembers, and that will be the big lie that they will repeat over and over again, until they no longer have to even pretend to support the troops.

Point. Set. Match.
Nicely done crock. :cool:
See above, and watch your back.