'US troops' strike inside Syria

Sometimes it's hard to give a source... Especially if it has to be in English.

You have to be aware that a lot of the people on this forum live in a world in a different language.

But BlackEagle, you have to be aware that without sources, people can make a lot of stories...
When you dont have sources, use the same tactic and ask for sources to the people who say the opposite of what you said, or just otherwhise...
 
When I want you to interpert something or give me advice. I will let you know. Until then you may keep your opinion of a moderators instructions to yourself.
 
03USMC said:
You were advised by a moderator to post your sources, when making your accusations. If you continue to ignore the mod's and argue, you will be shown the hatch. Got it?
Click to expand...

hey!
have you learnt in a school?you seem an uneducated person whose mentality like a stone.
oh, really i got tired from speaking to you.
plz try to read on sth called flexibility.
anyway i did not deny the importance of evidence,therefore i agree with that.but there are things that do not need to sources.such as
thinkings,openions,personal views,personal ideas,personal analysis and facts.

understood??????:crybaby:
if you did not got that.i will kill myself.
 
Actually, for all of the above, especially facts, sources are necessary. It is not enough to just say "I think option X is better." You need to provide evidence of how you came to this view, hence why authors have bibliographies in the back of their books, and if your claiming something is a fact you definitely need supporting evidence. Your personal views are not facts simply because you believe them to be, you must provide empirical evidence when called out on it. Trust me, I've been in your position, on these boards if someone asks you to provide sources you have to provide some links or else face eventual ban. It's just part of the rules on MilForums.
 
A`HOY, first of all I must note form my experience on IFM for the most part our foreign members are much more level headed and polite. Sadly it seems to be the US members who are rude etc. We Americans are well on the way to winning hearts and minds world wide lol.

On this whole reference thing, really, I would like to remind everyone that there are those terms of Revealed/official truth vs The Kings/actual truth. I mean just because CNN sad it dose not make it so. One could find one self listing sources of sources and or references. And as a matter of fact a well read person should be able to recognize the associations of certain opinions and references of one camp or another, (Right wing vs Left wing) that’s what it comes down to, my scientist vs your scientist. A good example is the global warming debate. So if someone hears an opinion and want's to disprove it let them research and counter attack or just snuggle up to there camp fire. But that’s just IMO.

But what-do-I-know, I’m just the 800 lbs guerrilla in the room… lol

G-day!
 
But can someone tell us if these attacks were really a violation of international laws? I mean someone who actually knows something about international laws...

I personnaly dont care if they are terrorists or civilians... There is laws downhere, and they have to be respected.

There is a huge list of international violations, and the US army have to explain its actions.

I just saw a documentary yesterday about a siege in Fallujah, and there was reports about the US snipers blockading the area killing civilians and shooting on sight regardless of the threat Etc...
Even humanitarian groups have trouble doing their duties... reports of shots on ambulances Etc...

I have a video, but it's unfortunately in french, it was documentary I saw on national TV here.
http://www.dailymotion.com/CiCi_26/video/x781h1_dans-la-fournaise-irakienne-partie_news

I can give you some spots on the video you could understand...
At the 3:05 you can see some members of a humanitarian group trying to ask cross a street, but they couldnt because there was snipers in the area.
At 7:58 you can see the pictures of two french journalists who got arrested by Marines. They tried to meet US soldiers to ask them questions, and the soldiers arrested them and kept them in captivity for hours... They treated them like terrorists and one of their captor took pictures of them with their own cameras "as a souvenir"... It was funny... but the unfunny part was to abandon them in the desert the next day...

If you are interested by a spot on this video, just tell me where and I will provide a translation, the best I can anyway ^^

You have to know that the "global war against terrorism" doesnt mean a free kill card...
And the list of violations is long... And if the soldiers feel like they can do anything they want because nobody will tell them to stop... They will start doing what they want...
 
About the humanitarian workers trying to cross a street covered by snipers: It's for their own good. Would you want humanitarian workers walking down a street that's smack in the middle of a sniper war? I don't think so.

About the French journalists arrested: Unless you have permission to be there, you have to be considered a possible hostile. Many times over people have used the "journalist" cover to get close to their targets before either opening fire or blowing themselves up. If the Marines weren't expecting them, this is normal. If the journalists were not compliant, they could be shot.
 
Please Redneck, share your wisdom.

Can you explain me how humanitarian workers can disturb soldiers holding interdiction positions with sniper fire.

I'm not stuck with my position. If these workers really endangered the soldiers working there, I would agree with you. but I fail to see how some ambulances can endanger sniper positions...

But I dont understand your comment on the journalists.

There is people living in these areas... I can understand if the military take some rights for a short period to do an operation... but if this state last for months and years... the damage will be too high on the human level.

You can block access to ambulances for a day... but not for a month or several months...

What about the civilians who are wounded? what about the pregnant women living there? It's not worth it.
 
Massoud was the target of a suicide attack which occurred at Khwaja Bahauddin on 9 September 2001. The attackers were two Arabs, Dahmane Abd al-Sattar and Bouraoui el-Ouaer, who claimed to be Belgians originally from Morocco. However, their passports turned out to be stolen and their nationality Tunisian. The assassins claimed to want to interview Massoud and set off a bomb in a belt worn by the cameraman while asking Massoud questions.
Click to expand...

Source

The military has no reason to trust reporters in the first place, if the journalists aren't looking to blow themselves in the middle of the largest group of American soldiers they can find they're just looking for an excuse to call them a bunch of baby killers.
 
LeMask,
Humanitarian workers being told not to cross into a sniper area where snipers are operating is for the workers own good. Obviously the area has some hostile personnel or may even have enemy snipers. Is this really THAT hard for you to comprehend?
And as for journalists that were arrested, I told you. The Marines must be told ahead of schedule that journalists from a certain company are coming and the journalists have to have the proper papers. On many occasions throughout history, enemy combatants have pretended to be journalists to carry out surprise attacks or assassinations. Actually a Northern Alliance general was taken out this way just before 9/11. Again, is this really that hard to understand?
I think I've explained it the best I can. If you still don't get it that's your problem.
 
A`HOY AikiRooster did you happen to read my post # 15 (I underlined the sentence for you now) it looks like were making same point. What is it that you have seen that leads you to have same idea. G-day!
 
But Redneck, what you said doesnt make a lot of sense...

You cant protect these humanitarian workers by shooting them.
And these "enemy snipers" arent targeting them. They are unarmed civilians from the red cross and such organisations. And a lot of these groups are in Iraq before the beginning of the war, the people there know them...

And I understand what you said about the journalists... I definetely agree with you. But you have to understand that the journalists cant always tell where they are and what they are doing.
They have to approach the both sides to know their story... and they shouldnt tell in advance what they are doing because it may change the events they will see.

People's attitude changes when they know that there is a journalist filming them. And the journalists have to show the world as it is, not as it is when they are there...

And they are journalists, they have to be neutral... Anyway...

Journalists shouldnt get arrested by soldiers like that. How can you work in a battlefield if you have to be arrested every time you meet a patrol of soldiers? it's not professionnal.

It's my opinion of course, but I call that abuse... All of this is just a huge abuse of power... And a total direspect of the Geneva conventions, human rights, international laws and the rights of the reporters/journalists...
 
LeMask, you IDIOT. The humanitarian workers are being told NOT to go into dangerous areas because they might get shot. You protect them by telling them NOT to enter an area that has bullets flying around. Is it THAT hard to understand? As for enemy snipers, not ALL of them are from the area. Some are, some aren't and in many cases there CAN be accidents. Hell you have accidents occuring on firing ranges for Chrissakes don't you think you could have an accident in identification in a combat zone with people sleep deprived and under pressure to hit hostile targets? Yeah, I think so.
As for the journalists, if they have the right to go around not telling people, the Marines have the right to detain them for questioning. In either case, journalists are let go once their identity is checked out. They are not sent to Guantanamo Bay or exxecuted on the spot.
Not professional? Who the heck are you to judge what's professional and what's not?
It's my opinion of course, but I call it stupidity on your part. All of this is just your lack of understanding and a total disrespect for people who can die at any moment if indeed the journalist is a suicide bomber or whose careers can end if humanitarian workers are killed inside their field of fire (even if they didn't shoot them)...
 
I feel that American government feels they are above the laws, if any other country does what America did their would be hell to pay. The American government never confirmed if any Al Qaeda suspects were killed in the operations; therefore, those killed were Syrian citizens, and killing another countries citizens is a form of terrorism in itself.

The UN charter forbids the violation of another member country's territorial integrity. American government states that foreign operatives are violating Iraqi's sovereignty but they hypocritically violated Syria's, Pakistan's, Iraq's and many other countries sovereignty. You can't have it both ways, how can America who went against the UN, the international community and invaded Iraq illegally then claim others are violating Iraqi's sovereignty? American policies are the number one destabilizing factor in the Middle East.

Every day we hear about Pakistani citizens dying from American missile strikes and later confirmations that no Al Qaeda was present. Imagine if someone was bombing American states and killing American citizens with impunity? That is what America is doing regardless if Al Qaeda presence is found in the aftermath.

If America did not illegally invade Iraq the world would not be in this position. Everyone even the UN agrees regardless of Saddam's politics that Iraq was better of before the invasion. The social fabric and order of that country was torn apart with the illegal and hapless invasion of its sovereignty and millions of Iraqis died because of unneccessary and illegal war. Now the American government is further destabilizing more countries in the Middle East and South East Asia illegally. The Middle East was way more stable before this illegal invasion and occupation.
 
tribal leader

The tribal leader revealed that everyone in the village knew that “jihadis” – extremist Islamic fighters – were operating in the area.
Click to expand...
So why didn't they move the families away to safer places or better yet drive the extremist out. They did nothing and in a sense the so-called tribal leaders are as much to blame for the deaths because didn't drive away these extremist Islamic fighters. This is the same thing that happens in Pakistan these so called tribal leaders turn their backs as long as it's Americans or others being killed but when some locals dies it's so sad and such a shock. These extremist Islamic fighters should have been turned in and not allowed to operate there period. When will the tribal leaders be held accountable for their lack of action. When will the people in the Middle East and elsewhere see every place extremist Islamic are it's bad I can't understand why people follow them or turn their backs and let them operate. Every single place in the world where they operate senseless killings takes place and where the stupid people in the west?



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece
 
Last edited:
I would think someone from Somalia would have at least a basic understanding of the impotence of the United Nations.
 
I understand that the UN sometimes being slow to react or carry out missions but I believe that international organizations such as the UN is the best way to have justice in the world, not through gun-ho and dictating nations such as the U.S. government. We have seen what American arrogance and violations of international laws and treaties in the unipolar world since the collapse of the Soviet Union does to world stability, if America listen to the UN and the international community in 2003 the world would not be in this position.

The Americans mobilized against Iraq in 1991 because we argued that Iraq invaded Kuwait which is a sovereign nation and that Iraq broke the UN law, but America turned around hypocritically in 2003 and invaded a sovereign Iraq against international law and the UN. Hmmm, it sounds like America feels they are above the law and that they can break the law without paying the consequences and others can't. And further destabilizing the region by attacking sovereign countries from Syria to Pakistan. Now any objective person will tell you who is the destabilizing factor in that region.

I work with the Somali delegation to the UN and I believe that the UN is the best venue to solve problems and not through arrogance, hypocrisy and violations of international law. If the U.S. is not going to respect international law, Geneva conventions and UN charter then they should not complain hypocritically when others act the same way.
 
Last edited:
You are entitled to your opinion Redneck, but my argument still stands that international organizations such as the UN is the best way to solve world problems in a just way. Arrogance, impunity, hypocrisy, destabilization of sovereign nations, the breaking of international law, Geneva conventions, and UN charter which America all so well carries out is not the way to have a just world nor is it the way to achieve peace or stability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top