It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush authorizes Feb. attack on Syria?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Britguy
And that makes them different from our western leaders how?

Oh clearly there's no difference. Ask your average American suicide bomber.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:41 PM
I was referring to them sending the sons and daughters of others off to die whilst sending their own kids off to exclusive schools.

Suicide bomber, infantry cannon fodder... not much difference really, death is final and just as messy whichever way you go.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Souljah

one other thing:
was this just a big coincidence,
or is this topic CLOSELY connected to death squads to be deployed?
deployed in syria.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Souljah]

Thanks for the link I was not aware of US organizing this type of offensive.

Dr.Horacid the middle east problems and the US involvement are older than you and me, perhaps is started the day that the middle east discovered that they held the biggest reserves of oil in the world.

This all started in the garden of Eden. It's been all downhill ever since.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by DrHoracid]

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Britguy
Suicide bomber, infantry cannon fodder... not much difference really, death is final and just as messy whichever way you go.

So you're equating the intentional murder of civilians to killing enemy combatants in battle? Sure sounds like it. When you figure out the difference let me know.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by DrHoracid
This all started in the garden of Eden. It's been all downhill ever since.

[edit on 11-1-2005 by DrHoracid]

Yeah you are right , the boy met girl in the ancient garden.:Lil::Lil::Lil:

But it change to US met Oil, superpower against littler power, but littler power hold the key to energy.

US will never reduce itself to a beggar's class.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:49 PM
I think the term is "Collateral damage", or is that only a valid excuse when used by the US military? There are always plenty of civilian deaths in conflicts, is HOW they died really more important than WHY they died.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:03 PM

This all started in the garden of Eden. It's been all downhill ever since.

You mean this is all because some wench took a bite of an apple?

I seriously doubt the accuracy of this article... I haven't checked this yet, but does anyone know offhand as to if there are currently some nearby carriers in the Med? Surely, this would be one indicator..

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:10 PM
When we aim for ONE military/goverment person and kill 20 innocents its called collateral damage.

Now look at the "terrorists" in Iraq. They arent specifically targeting normal Iraqi citizens. They are targetting foreign interests almost exclusively which to them are all enemies. Iraqi police are enemies to them just the same as US troops because they help to defend our puppet goverment we will install.

When they target a enemy and kill 20 innocents its called terrorism.

Now when YOU figure out the difference YOU let me know....

Iraqi insurgents are terrorists just the same as the North or South could have been called during the American Civil War. NEITHER are called that even though they blew up banks, factories, railroads, burned whole towns, shot anyone in their way. They aren't called terrorists because they were american, not because they were any better then those we label terrorists today.

Also as much as I'm going to get flamed to heck for this 9/11 even if it happened exactly the way they say then it was NOT a terrorist attack. They were both very good targets if you are at war. One was the financial head of the country you wish to bring down, the other was the military head of the same country. Both could have been devasting blows to their enemies ability to extend power around the world.

Their attacks killed ~3,000 innocent people. If we had bombed three buildings in Iraq or Afghanistan and killed 3,000 people that would be collateral damage necessary to fight the war.

Instead we have leveled cities, killed tens of thousands in "collateral damage". WHO are the terrorists?

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:18 PM
wouldnt invading syria be the last straw with alot of people towards the american government.
the situation is bad enough in Iraq, invading syria would probably be another Iraq, the soldiers who are doing there job getting shot in the back, having to worry about suicide bombers, getting there vechicles hit by RPG's.
they should priotise keeping Iraq stable first then go after Syria and Iran (which should be the main target)

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:20 PM

They arent specifically targeting normal Iraqi citizens. They are targetting foreign interests almost exclusively which to them are all enemies.

Yes, like Ms. Hassan and the 35 kids who wanted some candy seen here:

Oh yeah... the enemy carried a lollipop and was 3 years old.

We have two choices here: Either the US was training 3 year olds with explosive lollipops and no one but you and the insurgents knew about it, or your theory about the insurgents only attacking "enemies" is simply flawed.

Other noble activities included using the heads of truck drivers who delivered supplies and aid to rebuiling THEIR areas as fear tactics to get them to leave. Yes, you read correctly, not using enemy combatant hostages to scare people, using non combatants who were actually helping out.

Doing spin for the insurgents doesn't work well. They go on TV and undo their nobility all by themselves, they don't need me or anyone else to make them look like that.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Djarums]

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:21 PM
xerrog, your point would have already been very valid if the Iraqi people or even Saddam had carried out 9/11. OBL was operating from Afghanistan and could very well at this time be in Florida for all we know.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:23 PM
I have been reading Richard Marcinko books since they first were published. Richard Marcinko was a Navy Seal who was in counterterrorism. He started Seal Team 6 and was involved in alot of other stuff.

The impression I got from his books is that the US has been at war with the Middle East for a long time already covertly. He says the biggest fear is a Revolution in the US or the Arabs.

This was a guy who managed to break into US nuclear bases and commandeer Nuclear weapons. Kill terrorists plotting to attack the US.

He says basically the world world is screwed and alot more bad things happen then we would like to hear about. Russia and the US. CHina. Europe. The middle east.

All supposedly bad.

The middle east was the one that the US government should of done something already about, but he says politics are seriously hurting our national security.

He already recommended war with Syria I beleive. Or Iran. Or Iraq. One of those anyways.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:36 PM
If the President of the United States was planning on attacking
Syria in the coming weeks, I highly doubt any of us would know
about it ahead of time. I'm sure that kind of thing would be
ultra-top secret and unless someone (like Berger) snuck the
ultra-top secret files out of meetings stuffed inside their pants,
we won't know about it until it happens.

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 10:53 PM
While US soldiers were handing out Candy..

Ya I'm sure their target was the children.. Their target was the soldiers and they didnt care that children were there.

How about US bomb hits the wrong house? Oops..

How about our bombs that do hit the right house kill 4 insurgents and take out many other innocents including children? Collateral Damage.

It goes both ways. I'm not saying the insurgents/terrorists are right or clean of wrong doing. I'm just saying we aren't either.

As for the 9/11 reference I know Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with it. My point there was I do not consider OBL a terrorist. I do consider him our countires enemy even my own personally. Several years before 9/11 he openly declared war on us. It was a nieve mistake not to wipe out him and his orginization then. Then again we liked the Taliban at the time and didnt wanna make a stink.

I may be wrong.. you might be able to convince me that OBL is a terrorist and so are the Iraqi Insurgents. All I need is someone to show me one instance were their overall goal wasnt a govermental target, or a military one. The beheading while extremly brutal and barbaric still serve a purpose to remove the US and Coalition from Iraq. They are not a effective means which is why they have slowed down and probably will continue to slow down.

If we went to war with a country that had targets such as the WTC and Pentagon both would definatly be deemed viable targets. The WTC would be considered a teritary target as it is not a direct military target, nor is it a direct link to the military, however it was a large player in providing a stable economy which is a key to waging war.

And again I assert we are doing more damage to Iraq as a whole then Saddam had in the last 10 years or longer.

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:43 AM
Well what a bloody suprize, another plan to invade a sovergin nation, on faulty intel or some bet that bush has with daddy that he can invade every middle east country by the end of his second term and make them puppet states and keep all the oil for themself.

Maybe syria is a supply line for the insurgent attacks in iraq,. but then im sure the irainian border is the most secure thing,

Irainian broader guards are properlby operating an insurgent stop & shop for all sorts of fun things like explovise,rpgs,ak rounds, beheading kits, and a web cafe for them to broadcast their propganada to the world.

Does Bush want to stir up a hornets nest by invading syria, iran is possibly justifable if they keep playing hide the nuke and the un backs an invasion, which will never happen in a millon years.

Iran is a far greater threat to world peace then syria, but then we have all know for years that syria is playing both sides of the fence. trying to have it cake and eat it, play nice to the arab world and still try to be the west friend. but iran has big ideas, like seeing israel glow in the dark for a couple of 100 years and is not afraid to put those ideas into action.

If Bush must invade somewhere, then for god sake let him finish what he starts 1st, afghanistan is still no where near sorted, iraq is a bloodbath, no he want to open up anthor front. even hilter wasn't that silly as too fight a war on three fronts. does the US has that many troops if can afford to throw them away as cannon fodder

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:40 AM
Well, firstly I think we're taking this a bit too alarmist-like - war plans are developed for every possible contingency, and revised constantly. Somewhere in the Pentagon, there are plans to launch invasions of Colombia, nuclear strikes on Western China, and all manner of other marvelous adventures...just in case (not being sarcastic here, seriously, it saves time on having to draft them WHEN something happens).

That said, IF the US is going to attack Syria in Feb (or any time in the near future), it would be a colossal mistake. Now, to clear things here, I am fully in support of the Iraq war. In my opinion, terrorism can be clearly linked to the fact the majority of the governments in the middle east rely very much on blaming the rest of the world for their problems to hold on to power - hence the tight control of the media, the removal of corrupt western influences (which they label as corrupt often without their people's input). And frankly, this is a sensible strategy on their part: it's so much easier to make mistakes and continue inept strategies if their people blame Israel or America for everything that happens to them.

That said, I understand that the US is responsible for the fact that some of those governments are actually in the region. During the Cold War, the most pressing threat to American National Security was the spread of communism, hence it was justifiable to topple governments and install them to counter the USSR - the alternatives being doing nothing, and thus losing the Cold War, or confronting the Soviets directly, and thus risking nuclear Fallout. As for Saddam Hussein, who shared no contiguous borders with Soviet Bloc states, the reason for keeping him in power was to contain the spread of radical Iranian theocracy, which was seen as the Next Big Threat after the Soviets.

Of course all this sucks for the poeple who live in these areas, but understand that ALL NATIONS act in their OWN interests most of the time, and the US is no exception. However, I do believe that it is better that it was the US acting effectively in it's own interests during the Cold War than the USSR. If anyone is socialist on this board, I mean you no disrespect - just saying that I personally prefer the American way of life to be better.

Now, how does all that relate to Today? Well, now that the Cold War is over, the fallout from it is attacking the US. The governments that we propped up are struggling to remain in power, hence they resort to distracting their people by saying that the US is to blame for their current problems, which is true to some extent, but I believe that they are responsible for most of their current problems. In any case, the fact that these governments exist promotes terrorism.

In my opinion, the strategy behind the Iraq War was not just WMDs or Oil (although stopping Saddam from getting those, as well as opening up Iraq's oil supply to counter OPEC MUST have been on the agenda). In my opinion, the main motivation to attack Iraq was to change the government of an Arab country that American would have had the MOST justification to attack (hence, while Iran might be a bigger threat, it would have been LESS justifiable to attack it, in the eyes of most poeple).

The reasoning behind this is that if America can establish democratic governmance in that country, it would offer the people to move past regimes that promote hatred and terrorism. So it is really important to make Iraq work, because if it does, then there COULD be changes accross the mideast, which, I believe, in the long term, could reduce the steam of terrorism (although I won't deny that terrorism has definetely increased in the Short Run).

So why does this neocon believe that attacking Syria is a bad idea? Well, IF we can withdraw from Iraq anytime soon, I don't believe it would be a good idea to get into this situation all over again so soon. I believe that it would be better for America to reduce it's overspending, and replenish its armed forces while forces within Syria (or for that matter, Iran) work to establish democracy on the model of their neighbor (assuming Iraq develops such a government, which, I believe, it can). Attacking Syria would only derail the original plan as I have outlined it above - which is why even a neocon like myself would be against it.

Now, this is a very contraversial topic, and I realize that many people believe that US strategy is centered around Oil, or an anti-Muslim campaign, or some other nefarious scheme. I understand where those people are coming from, and I respect their opinion, while I strongly disagree with it. But I have described the Bush Administration's Strategy as I see it, and why I am for it - I don't believe that attacking Syria would be wise under this strategy, and I don't seriously believe that it IS an imminent event (or a near future one, for that matter).


posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:25 AM
Well thought out and presented, ArchAngel76.

As for the others that have commented to this thread and have seemingly mis-understood the word and meaning of "mulling" options, as per this article's mentioning, there is no concrete plan of action set in stone here. Though, increasingly, the word "yet" may still possibly come into consideration.

Least we forget, in regards to Syria and Iran, and there continued unauthorized dubious participation in Iraq:
No Distinction Between Attackers and Those Who Harbor Them

And this article may further prove to bring some here back to reality concerning Syria and its relation to terrorism and then applied to the known facts that Syria is and has a hand in what the terrorist and insurgents in Iraq are doing:
Why Syria Backs Iraqi Terrorists

As controversial as the following comment may be or seem, hence I offer my apologies in advance, but you peaceniks need to get a grip and realize that the terrorists don't give a flying crap about you or me, and that they don't give a crap about your continued efforts to seemingly support their positions. You keep contining to cover their collective butts and then seemingly try and continue to cover their inhumane, terrorist acts. Syria and Iran are apart of this continued terrorist factor. Non-action leads to more like terrorist acts. Action seeks to deter it, whether you agree with the action or not. Pacifying such acts with your pacifist nature, and be assured that they will simply bend you over and bonk KY or Vaseline to boot. Both Syria and Iran have been adequately warned of such continued practices. If an action to deter is taken, it is them that will have to own up to the blame and the consequences of their continued participation, support, and approval/backing of such continued practices. Again, they have been warned. They can either heed the warning or suffer the consequences. No tissues, remorse, or peacenik'ing required after....


[edit on 12-1-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:45 AM
it would not surprise me one bit that the US would want to attack a poor third world country that can't defend itself.

Not one bit. Another Israeli target and Americans are the blood that pays for it.

Yeah. Go Israel. Go to hell.

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:59 AM
To me this makes perfect sense. Check out a map of the middle east. After syria is taken we not only take out israel's enemy but also have exclusive access to their border. After that israel, who is quite powerful as well, can easily combine forces with us to bring an all out assault against Pallestine then Iran then pakistan, then anyone else who gets in our way. This is very scarey. The US is getting in too way deep. If this happens there will definately be a draft, and world war 3 will have officially commenced. Bush is the antichrist. I wonder what excuse he'll use for syria? Hopefully it will be better than the last one...

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:00 AM

as posted by Justanotherperson
it would not surprise me one bit that the US would want to attack a poor third world country that can't defend itself.

Your implying that Syria can't defend itself?
Why's that?
Just what makes Syria incapable of defending itself?


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in