Syrians hold funerals for people killed in US raid

reply to post by franspeakfree


Obviously the war is not illegal in everyones opinions, or we would have the UN here policing/sanctioning us over it. Since this is the case, then all the other things relating to a war are applicable, and this topic is a moot point. If they stuck one toe over the boarder, and engaged our troops, our troops have the right to fight back. If they did not wish to be valid targets, then they should have been spectators to the whole thing 100%.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

If they did not wish to be valid targets, then they should have been spectators to the whole thing 100%.

So what you are saying is:

Do what we say or die?

Or if you go sticking your nose in things, we'll blow your children up, so it's much better to just stand there and do nothing, allow us to walk all over you, otherwise we'll come and murder your kids???

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

Obviously the war is not illegal in everyones opinions, or we would have the UN here policing/sanctioning us over it.

In the majority of the non-sheeples the war is illegal and that to me speak volumes. As more and more people wake up the number will increase. As regards to the UN policing, only if there is something in it for them

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Pretty much covered in this thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Theres no new info in this thread, just an attempted hug at the emotional side of people by mentioning funerals, when it should be plainly obvious that dead people are usually given funerals.

Why are you trying to derail this thread if you want to talk about politics go on a political thread if you want to talk about something other than the funeral of the innocent civillians killed in Syria then please find another thread.

*Double post*



[edit on 27-10-2008 by franspeakfree]

reply to post by 44soulslayer


don't derail the thread ......

if you have a problem , then don't post .....

Originally posted by franspeakfree
What was the US doing there in the first place?.

According to some sources they were there because of a designated terror facilitator originally from Mosul Iraq.

One would presume since the helicopters landed to offload troops instead of just bombing the location, this op was intended to capture him.

Question is, did they get him? Alive?

Perhaps this action is the result of the recent events in Mosul.

reply to post by franspeakfree


Okay...
What your admitting then is that it is not illegal in fact, only in some peoples opinions. This is a legal issue, in that opinion does not matter, only the context of the law. If it is allowed in the context of the law, then those who enter a combat zone to participate in combat, either through engaging forces or aiding those who do, make themselves targets. If you make yourself a target, then you should expect there to be collateral damage when counterattacked. There is no point in whining about how the other guy is wrong in that instance, as the responsibility falls flatly on the side who endangered their own friends and family through getting involved in something that was really none of their business.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Again, if you make yourself a target by helping someones known enemy in a combat zone, then you should except to be counterattacked, and you should expect there to be collateral damage. It is their own fault for getting involved in a war of another country thus bringing danger to the doorstep of their own friends and family. If they did not want to be active participants, then they should have remained neutral, and if they did not want to endanger their fellows, then they should have remained in the combat zone, rather then running to hide behind civilians.



[edit on 10/27/2008 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


Is that how you feel about the Americans that lost their lives on 9/11? Collateral damage?

reply to post by intrepid


Did they enter a known combat zone to aid the enemy?
If not then I guess your talking apples and oranges.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by intrepid

 

Did they enter a known combat zone to aid the enemy?

Neither did the children but they still died. Your point is lost on me. It's only OK if it's not American lives?

Originally posted by mr-lizard

You're right and that's because foreign lives are worthless to American soldiers....

Apart from all the foreign lives they saved in World War I & II, the lives of you British residents too as you may recall.

The US military also has medical aid missions set up all over the world where we treat locals who would otherwise receive no treatment.

We kept the Russians out of Europe for 50 years and we are still holding back North Korea. If there is a war somewhere in the world, everyone looks to us to step in and end it. Your own little Northern Ireland problem was only solved when the Americans were asked to step in and act as arbitrators. How many lives did we save there, where's our thanks for that?

Or how about your little Falklands war, you know, the one that you needed emergency shipments of our latest AIM-9L missiles for, plus our satellite intelligence.

Come to think of it, we have been pulling your rear ends out of the fire for roughly a hundred years now.

Based on the British attitude towards America I'm suggesting that we block your immigration rights, and refuse you any assistance during your next war.

I think that is why British soldiers hold far more respect in war zones, not because we are better soldiers (although we probably are, less hot headed, less dependant on technology), but because we hold respect to our enemy and allies alike.

You have seen the videos on LiveLeak showing British soldiers beating children in Iraq, and you are aware of the squaddies currently in jail for prisoner abuse. All this from a force that is one twentieth the size of the US force in Iraq.

And you don't rely so much on technology simply because you don't adequately equip your forces with it. Why do you think the RAF never shot down a single Iraqi jet in Gulf War 1, plus the way they had to revert to medium level bombing when Tornados were getting hammered out of the sky attacking Iraqi airfields with obsolescent weapons (the Hunting JP-233). Plus the whole "Bravo Two Zero" fiasco of a special forces unit going into combat with ice cream containers filled with explosives because there were no Claymores, and radios that didn't work.

America respects nobody but their selves and that will be their downfall.

I see from your typically British anti-American bias that the propaganda of that the BBC pushes out is working on the sheep, no surprise there, the British are a downtrodden race who are now widely regarded as the pariahs of Europe by other Europeans.

For us to take criticism from such a soiled society is a bit much quite frankly.

reply to post by intrepid


No, the difference is the folks who go out across the boarder to play soldier all day in a war zone, then come home and mingle in with other civilians. This occurred A LOT in Vietnam, and there were many collateral casualties there. As a matter of fact, in most wars they are not even know as collateral casualties because they are known sympathizers who are aiding the enemy forces. IMHO, these are the lowest form of combatants, those who fight, then knowingly hide behind civilians for protection when they bring down the heat.

reply to post by defcon5


So you are saying that if the enemy targeted a base that had these helecopter personnel and their families that they are viable targets?

Originally posted by Retseh
Apart from all the foreign lives they saved in World War I & II, the lives of you British residents too as you may recall.

You are aware the US military support for Great Britain occurred after the battle of Britain?

Your own little Northern Ireland problem was only solved when the Americans were asked to step in and act as arbitrators. How many lives did we save there, where's our thanks for that?

Well, the IRA biggest funders came from the United States - your money helped kill 3,000 citizens. During the 60s and 70s, the United States refused to list the IRA and even ETA as terrorist organisations.

Or how about your little Falklands war, you know, the one that you needed emergency shipments of our latest AIM-9L missiles for, plus our satellite intelligence.

In fact, France provided more military intelligence than the United States during the Falklands. Chile even gave more support and assistance.

History isn't your strong point, is it? Got to love American revisionism. On the eight day God created America and Jesus was a Texan right?

We cannot be that bad, after all, Prime Minister Harold Wilson told President Johnson that Vietnam would end up in a massive bloodbath and a war America couldn't win

[edit on 27-10-2008 by infinite]

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to

No, the difference is the folks who go out across the boarder to play soldier all day in a war zone, then come home and mingle in with other civilians.

When I first read your post I thought what the! But I understand what you are trying to say now.

The problem I and I am sure many others will say the same, using the words Collateral Damage to describe Peoples lives comes across pretty badly.

The fact is innocent people are dying in this phoney (illegal IMO) war and nobody is doing anything to stop it because the machine is to powerful. my questions are who are we fighting and How can the Bush Administration sleep at night!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by intrepid


I am saying that anyone who is a combatant in a war zone, and where they bunker/camp/base, is a viable target under the terms of war. Gong to hide in amongst civilians is a cowardly act on their part. And you can bet that the noncombatant personnel that the US has in those zones have been subject to attacks by the enemy forces in the same manor, simply for working on the bases. I am rather surprised I have to even explain this to you:

112 journalists, 40 media support workers, and 95 aid workers have been killed. Totals as listed at source pages on 25 September 2007

Contractors: At least 1,186 deaths between March 2003 and July 2008. 244 of those are from the USA. Contractors are "Americans, Iraqis and workers from more than three dozen other countries." 10,569 wounded or injured. Contractors "cook meals, do laundry, repair infrastructure, translate documents, analyze intelligence, guard prisoners, protect military convoys, deliver water in the heavily fortified Green Zone and stand sentry at buildings - often highly dangerous duties almost identical to those performed by many U.S. troops." 182,000 employees of U.S.-government-funded contractors and subcontractors (118,000 Iraqi, 43,000 Other, 21,000 U.S.).
Among other confirmed contractors killed are: 174 British, 63 Turkish, 42 South African, 32 Fijian, 30 Nepali, 24 Filipino, 18 Bulgarian, 11 Italian, 6 Indian, 6 Jordanian, 5 Australian, 5 Canadian, 5 Egyptian, 4 French, 4 New Zealander, 4 Russian, 4 South Korean, 3 Croatian, 3 Lebanese, 3 German, 3 Macedonian, 3 Polish, 2 Bosnian, 2 Finnish, 2 Hungarian, 2 Pakistani, 1 Brazilian, 1 Colombian, 1 Japanese, 1 Czech, 1 Danish, 1 Dutch, 1 Guam, 1 Honduran, 1 Indonesian, 1 Kuwaiti, 1 Portuguese, 1 Romanian, 1 Somali, 1 Sudanese, 1 Swedish, 1 Syrian, 1 Ukrainian. The rest are presumed to be Iraqi.

Right or wrong, its a fact of war. If you don't want to be thought of as having a military outpost in your house, then don't go hide there between engagements against a combatant force, in any war.

reply to post by defcon5


No, you don't have to explain it to me. I wanted YOUR opinion as to whether what's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. You have stated it is. I digress.