BF2S Forums Syria

You can blame the US, but you can also blame Syria for being so pathetically weak. Look at how they let those Israeli jets bomb their nuke facility. Look at how they don't do jack shit when people fuck around in their own country. Pakistan, they're supposed to be an Ally of the US yet even they do stuff. Iran does some shit too (UK navy capture, for example)

All these little events matter. It's just like playground/school psychology. You let someone fuck you around in the first place and you'll never get rid of it.

usmarine wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

I also like how people assume Middle Eastern countries are all full of oil.

lots of countries have oil.  but people who know how to find oil cant go to syria cause they will get beheaded or something

You're joking, right?

12/f/taiwan wrote:

usmarine wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

I also like how people assume Middle Eastern countries are all full of oil.

lots of countries have oil.  but people who know how to find oil cant go to syria cause they will get beheaded or something

You're joking, right?

in case you haven't noticied, oil workers get kidnapped in various countries all the time.

.Sup wrote:

You watched Syriana?

yes i have seen it.  but i said various, not syria.  read.

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

You watched Syriana?

yes i have seen it.  but i said various, not syria.  read.

Did I say Syria? Just asking if you watched the movie thats all.

what does a movie have to do with it?

tbh i don't even remember much from it.  kind of sucked.

Not to disrupt the discussion here, where ever it may be going, but speaking of recent movies regarding the ME, has anybody seen Body of Lies directed by Ridley Scott and starring DiCaprio and Crowe? I thought the movie was freakin' brilliant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No reports on any collateral damage on the news last night. Of course any dead or injured non-combatants is horrible.

It was in the article referenced in the OP, try to keep up, and as far as I am aware Syria and the US aren't at war so all the dead are likely to be non-combatants. Strange that didn't occur to our resident Geneva Convention expert.

I'm sorry. I thought you had said four children were killed...not that Syria claimed four children had been killed. I assumed there was new information corroborating what media had reported as the Syrian party line. But you take what they say as the gospel...so long as it reflects negatively on the US. Should've seen that coming.

Whether or not two nations are at war has no bearing on the combatant or non-combatant categorization. But being a GC expert, you should know that already. Probably just testing me or something, right?

BTW, to you, Aussie, and GTT: I clearly stated "on the news last night" in my initial response. Should've made it pretty clear, but I guess you all "only read what you choose to".

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not all of Syria's (or the US's) policy decisions in the ME are (or will be) hinged on this one incident. It won't prevent Asad from talking with Israel. It won't prevent Syria from establishing diplomatic ties with Lebanon (which it still dominates both politically and militarily, though not directly).

Uh huh and what would the US attitude have been if the Syrian govt had sent soldiers into the US and killed a bunch of civilians building a house?
All the US policy decisions in the ME have hinged on one incident, why shouldn't the Syrians do the same?

And do you know that it was a bunch of civilians building a house? Of course you don't...you only have what Syria says was there. Kind of like all those "wedding parties" where dozens of insurgents get taken out by airstrikes. All that talk of dozens of civilians being killed kind of goes away when they can't produce any evidence, doesn't it?

Just keep buying the other sides' propaganda right off the bat. Don't bother to wait and see what comes out of the investigations. As always, innocent until proven guilty for everyone but the US on BF2S.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And clearly they haven't done enough to stem the flow of militants into Iraq, or the action wouldn't have been needed.

If thats true then thats something to be dealt with through diplomacy, not helicopter gunships.
And its not up to nations to prevent people travelling through them.

And what do you think has been done over the past 5 years? And what has Syria done about it? The square root of fuckall, that's what. Hence the SOF mission.

And it is completely up to a nation to police its borders, both inbound and outbound.

CamPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

Rather smug of you to assume that our leadership did not consult directly with the leadership of the other nation before we attacked.

Well the Syrian government press releases seem to suggest they didn't.

"If [the US has] any proof of any insurgency, instead of applying the law of the jungle and penetrating, unprovoked, a sovereign country, they should come to the Syrians first and share this information," he [Syria's press attache in London, Jihad Makdissi] said.

Rather naive of you to assume that the Syrian government would publicly admit to allowing the US to hit a target in their country.

rammunition wrote:

no one seemed to mention this but, America violates a country's borders and kills its civilians, but it's perfectly ok, but we get "international" outrage when Russia does it. Can I hear double standards?

i am fed up with U.S terrorism, 60 years non stop death and destruction, and now Europe is next with the offence shield, there is only one solution for world peace and that is nuking America off the map and i hope gordon brown and other E.U members have there nukes facing west

NOTE: needs updating, http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818

Oh, did the US invade a predominantly American enclave in Syria and hold it for a while, then "withdraw" from Syria into that enclave while maintaining "peacekeepers" who don't have a UN mandate?

They didn't?

Really?

I guess the two situations have exactly fuckall to do with each other then.

Go quote yourself some more. Or read.

.Sup wrote:

Its sad when a conflict arises and the first thing you think of to solve the problem is military intervention.

It's sad that you think this is a new conflict. Or that the first thing that was done was military intervention.

.Sup wrote:

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Its sad when a conflict arises and the first thing you think of to solve the problem is military intervention.

It's sad that you think this is a new conflict. Or that the first thing that was done was military intervention.

Wasn't necessarily talking about Syria.

Then just what were you talking about? There hasn't been a single conflict in recent history where military intervention was the first thing done.

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's sad that you think this is a new conflict. Or that the first thing that was done was military intervention.

Wasn't necessarily talking about Syria.

Then just what were you talking about? There hasn't been a single conflict in recent history where military intervention was the first thing done.

I think you misread my post. "Think of" not "done". If anyone throws poop at you, you want to invade him.

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then just what were you talking about? There hasn't been a single conflict in recent history where military intervention was the first thing done.

I think you misread my post. "Think of" not "done". If anyone throws poop at you, you want to invade him.

Regardless of the wording, your position is wrong.

Diplomacy has been going on for years with Syria on this issue.

They weren't "invaded".

Yet, if we look at Middle Eastern's history. What about Iran. Bush refuses diplomacy with Iran. And theres only either diplomacy or military intervention. Since theres no diplomacy...intervention seems inevitable.

FEOS wrote:

But you take what they say as the gospel...so long as it reflects negatively on the US. Should've seen that coming.

And you take your govt line as gospel, as long as Arabs are being killed and the rapture is a little closer you're happy.

FEOS wrote:

As always, innocent until proven guilty for everyone but the US on BF2S.

Because the US has such a consistent track record of covering up the truth over incidents like these.

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A U.S. military probe has found that an airstrike in western Afghanistan killed at least 33 civilians last month -- in sharp contrast to the five to seven civilian deaths initially reported.

The August 22 airstrike in the Shindand District of the western Afghan province of Herat also killed 22 militants, said the report to Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, acting commander of the U.S. Central Command.

"This investigation was comprehensive and included independent information from witnesses in Azizabad and from previous investigations," the report said.

"Additionally, the investigating officer found that while there were increased numbers of civilian casualties, coalition forces acted based on credible intelligence, in self-defense, and in accordance with the Standing Rules of Engagement and the law of war."

The investigation, which does not assign blame for the civilian deaths, focuses on why the military initially reported that only five to seven civilians were killed, the official said.

The military stood by that death toll despite assessments from the Afghanistan government and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan concluding that 90 civilians were killed -- most of them women and children.

But when cell phone pictures were later provided to the U.S. military showing dozens of bodies at the scene of the strike, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, asked U.S. Central Command to review the initial investigation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiap … airstrike/