Syria blasts US 'terrorist aggression'

[L. Coyote]

Source: THE AUSTRALIAN

London | October 28, 2008

SYRIA today accused the United States of terrorist aggression over a deadly weekend raid on a village near its border with Iraq that a US official said had targeted foreign fighters.

After several hours of silence, a Washington official confirmed US forces in Iraq had crossed into Syria yesterday and mounted a "successful" raid against foreign fighters.

A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a top agent smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq was believed to have been killed in the raid. ....

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24563530-12335,00.html

---

Just what the US needs, another war and another enemy state.

[Oregone]

1. But isn't this essentially Obama's policy too?

Extrapolating from his position of going after high valued terrorist targets unilaterally in Pakistan, wouldn't this apply anywhere?

[Robbien]

2. Sadly yes

When this election is over, we shouldn't be under the false impression that our activism is to be over.

Things need to change and we need to keep on it until they do.

[Dogtown]

3. You've missed the point.

Bush has committed an act of war against a non-aggressor in the twilight of his party's loss of control. It's another attempt to fan the flames of war and hijack the election.


Do you actually believe they had their sights on a high-value target?

[Oregone]

4. But my point is that this "act of war" is and will continually be US policy

To have a policy that justifies unilateral, pre-emptive strikes in another region with an excuse of a "high-value" target, allows you to strike anywhere at anytime with "terrorism" as your excuse. Once you set that precedent, you just invent an Al Quida #2 for each strike. This policy is just an excuse to justify continual US military intervention in any country on the face of the globe.

To say we can attack anywhere if it is important for us to do so is more cowboy diplomacy, sad to say. Truth be told, Obama is essentially just putting another face on what you have just labeled an "act of war".

[Dogtown]

6. You continue to miss the point

perhaps because you wish to.



Do you have any other objections to our candidate?

[Oregone]

10. I guess so...

...being that this same policy isn't going to be changed any time soon, I don't see a specific problem with its usage here, but rather its usage and endorsement in general. I doubt it will be used instrumentally to start any sort of conflict it hasn't started being used thus far.

> Do you have any other objections to our candidate?

Of course, no one is perfect. Don't tell me you are 100% behind everything Obama has ever said...

[Dogtown]

12. I'm tired now.

!Adios!

[qwlauren35]

14. I agree with him, sadly.

I think Obama had a political need to make an aggressive statement, but I still didn't like it. I don't like pre-emptive strikes under any pretext, I don't like the idea of invading another sovereign state for any reason.

I am a staunch Obama supporter and campaigner. But I cannot endorse that particular approach.

[Dogtown]

15. I don't disagree

I really think it's a digression, though. I'm less concerned about Obama misusing power than the present administration or the McCain/Palin ticket.

I do *not* support any preemptive action; I have very deep concerns about violating any nation's sovereignty over suspicion of harboring terrorists.

To be honest, my 1st response in the thread was in suspicion; I was afraid that Oregone might have been disrupting. Apparently my concern was baseless. I hope I didn't sound too accusatory. Apologies to Oregone, if required.

[Oregone]

16. No apology needed at all

I understand where you are coming from

Despite the primaries though, an event like this is just a good opportunity to bring up this point. If enough people are aware of this, perhaps they can pressure the establishment to change it. And yes, we should *hope* that Obama has the judgment to only use this appropriately, but it still creates/reinforces precedent for future leaders.

BTW, Im not completely against intervention like this. I just think it should be done quite a bit differently than by sending in the cowboy military. They are good at what they are trained to do -- blow shit up. If something MUST be done, you don't use your largest rockets, and plant a flag when finished.

[StarryNite]

5. Yup

Trying to bring about an October surprise.

[Dogtown]

7. Yup

:hi:

[Arctic Dave]

8. Depends on how low you want the bar for a HVT.

A smuggler is not Bin Laden. If he was smuggling a nuke or something that would be different. If its about human traffickers we would be killing a lot of people.

[Solon]

9. A military response wouldn't be appropriate for either in any case...

Too broad, and the military isn't equipped with dealing with international criminals, let experts, such as Interpol, with cooperation from local and national law enforcement agencies deal with this stuff. The military should stay out of law enforcement.

[Oregone]

11. "The military should stay out of law enforcement"

No doubt.

[Arctic Dave]

13. I think your right. However they should have the military assist.

Some of these people are sporting more then a pea shooter.

[Pavulon]

17. This was overt.

We kill people covertly if they are interfering in a war. This was done overt and on purpose. If they are moving people in to kill our people, being dead is a risk you take.

Publicity is not needed.

[struggle4progress]

18. We will defend territory against attack, vows Syria

• Damascus accuses Bush of 'terrorist aggression'
• Crowds gather at funerals chanting anti-US slogans
Ian Black, Martin Chulov in Hilla and Julian Borger
The Guardian, Tuesday October 28 2008

... Walid al-Muallem, Syria's foreign minister, used a visit to London to lambast the US for its "cowboy politics" and hinted that Sunday's raid was designed to halt Syria's gradually improving relations with the EU and Britain. Iran and Russia also condemned the US for aggravating tensions in the region ...

Muallem had been due to hold a press conference with David Miliband, the foreign secretary, but the event was cancelled by mutual agreement, apparently because Miliband did not want to be questioned about the raid. Miliband said Britain was concerned about the growth of al-Qaida groups and insurgent networks developing along the Syria-Iraq border. British officials claimed Muallem did not deny the seriousness of the problem and the need for better cooperation with Iraq, but gave no firm commitments. In Baghdad, the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, appeared to support the US by calling the area of the attack "a staging ground for activities by terrorist organisations hostile to Iraq". He added the US operation "was targeting smugglers who transferred people to Iraq" ...

The attack in Syria also provoked new concerns about the deal extending the legal basis for US forces in Iraq after a UN mandate expires in December, with a prominent Kurdish politician, Mahmoud Othman, saying Iraq's government had no prior knowledge of the raid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/28/syria-usa-iraq-bush-terrorism

[tendtoagree]

19. Bush wanted to start something

Before the elections, seeking to boost McCain's chances. Syria is being provoked.

[ohio2007]

20. According to one eyewitness, the Americans took two men, alive or dead, back with them.

This story is far from over for the next commander and chief will need to rely on good intelligence before striking.

Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid

Syria has denounced a US strike on its territory but sources say Damascus secretly backed the raid
nov 2
snip

The Syrian regime immediately denounced the raid for violating its sovereignty, froze high-level diplomatic relations with Washington and protested at the United Nations in a ritualised show of anger.

However, sources in Washington last week revealed to The Sunday Times an intriguingly different background to the events in Sukariyeh.

According to one source, the special forces operation had taken place with the full cooperation of the Syrian intelligence services.

“Immediately after 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperation was remarkable,” said the Washington source. “Then ties were broken off, but they have resumed recently.”

Abu Ghadiya was feared by the Syrians as an agent of Islamic fundamentalism who was hostile to the secular regime in Damascus. It would be expedient for Syria if America would eliminate him.

The threat to the Syrian government has made the regime of President Bashar al-Assad jittery. In September a car bomb exploded in Damascus near its intelligence headquarters. Many of the 17 victims were Shi’ite Muslim pilgrims at a nearby shrine.

snip


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece

Of course, the public doesn't have a need to know much about the closed door dealings.