Syria condemns 'US village raid'

v3locity

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Posts
584
Reaction score
1
Well unfortunately the Americans are a law unto themselves, not saying it is right or wrong for them to do what they did (certainly seems it was wrong), there is nothing to stop them doing as they wish.
 

AdmiralAwesome

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Posts
3,116
Reaction score
19
I'm of two minds...

Eight people died. How do we know that these weren't eight die-hard Jihadis waving AKs and strapping on suicide belts?

It's a difficult situation to judge. The Americans will tell you they killed eight terrorists, the Syrians will tell you they killed eight pregnant women on the way to market...
 
S

Sotiris

Guest
Well, one of the points here is that there was no communication between the US and Syria.
 

MAXPAIN

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Posts
506
Reaction score
1
Well maybe Syria should stop harbouring Terrorists, fcuk the media anyway you cant trust anything anyone says these days
 
S

Sotiris

Guest
So the Syrians can give the targets a couple of hours notice before moving in?


Hehe good point. That is to say, if the Syrians are actually in cahoots with the Taliban, something none of us can say.

However, the US do have a habit of going where they like, killing who they like and damn the consequences..of which, there are none.
 

Echus

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Posts
40
Reaction score
0
I personally don't think they would have done it unless they had good intelligence (ignoring notable exceptions to this point). Also a strike like this must have have authorisation from On High before commencement.
 

Chris_PRMC

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
19
Reaction score
0
irregardless of whether syria and *text deleted**text deleted*stan has the largest *text deleted**text deleted*ing population of terrorist, the US sending troops, into syrian and *text deleted**text deleted*stani terrotory without consent of either governments constitues a violate of those two countries territorial rights, and furthermore constitutes an invasion.

Americans think they can police the *text deleted**text deleted*ing world, what if both *text deleted**text deleted*stan and syria had retaliated? we my friends would be in a world of *text deleted**text deleted*, because of our dip*text deleted**text deleted* friends from across the pond, that we are so unfortunate as to be allied with, had screwed up. i cannot believe this stuff is even going down.

Edit: for some reason "p a k i" in p a k istan is cencored... me is not being a racist
 

JimB

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Posts
160
Reaction score
0
Mr Makdissi said the US government had "proved to be irrational and they have no respect for international law or human rights".

Think that's true enough. Americans are treading on a lot of peoples toes, including their allies - they need to grow up and wise up.



Maybe the Syrian government did twist things around though. I do understand that if there was terrorist activity or foreign fighters entering Iraq then it would be for the greater good to take action. But the Americas seem to think that the action can be a full on assault regardless of what the country's leaders say. Even if the American intel was 100% accurate they can't act like such cowboys. Make it a black ops mission - Afterall it was illegal what they done.
 

jim87spencer

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Posts
351
Reaction score
2
Edit: for some reason "p a k i" in p a k istan is cencored... me is not being a racist

I'll never understand why p a k i is racist, its just short for *text deleted**text deleted*stan... like you'd call a scotsman a scot or a chinese person a chink *shrug*
 
S

Sotiris

Guest
Well, it's like bullying isn't it? It doesn't matter with what intention we say something. If you call a man from P.a.k.i.s.tan a P.a.k.i. and he doesn't like it then you shouldn't say it. His opinion is the one that matters and he decides whether you're being racist.

In my opinion, I hate the abbreviation. It's cheap, rude and crude. What's wrong with saying P.a.k.i.s.tani?
 

JimB

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Posts
160
Reaction score
0
If i said you were racist for calling me a Scot you'd think i was an idiot. It's not a racist word.

I also heard saying Oriental was racist now. Political correctness has gone mad.
 

Paul-M

Valuable Contributor
Joined
May 31, 2008
Posts
241
Reaction score
0
In my opinion, I hate the abbreviation. It's cheap, rude and crude. What's wrong with saying P.a.k.i.s.tani?

People from Afghanistan are Afghans, people from Kazakhstan are Kazakhs, people from *text deleted**text deleted*stan are.....people from *text deleted**text deleted*stan? P4ki is the correct word however it has been changed by chavs using it as an insult, which is disgusting really. I agree with you that if a person finds it offensive then it shouldn't be used, I was just making the point that it was originally the correct word to use.
 
S

Sotiris

Guest
I don't agree though.

The people of P*akistan have and will always be referred to as P*kistani. The work P*ki is purely slang.

You wouldn't say that a person from Afghanistan is an Afghan, but an Afghani.

Or at least, that's how I would always refer to them. Certainly in any formal medium.
 

Tom

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Posts
28
Reaction score
0
Yeah Political correctness sucks nowadays! Back to the point though, I think it is justified as if you where pursuing a group of terrorists who hide behind the border line in country B after causing death and destruction in country A it seems crazy to have to stop, how is the problem of terrorism ever going to be stopped if the bad guys keep relying on border lines to harbour there safety. Personally if i had just witnessed a Taliban attack on my men and then they departed accross a legal border I'd want to go and make sure there finsihed with or else there going to return and cause future harm.
The radical nature of Terrorism needs new radical tactics to fight it and I know America are going against international rules but in the end what are Syria going to do about it, if they are harbouring terrorists they should have to suffer the consequences!
 

Chris_PRMC

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
19
Reaction score
0
Well, it's like bullying isn't it? It doesn't matter with what intention we say something. If you call a man from P.a.k.i.s.tan a P.a.k.i. and he doesn't like it then you shouldn't say it. His opinion is the one that matters and he decides whether you're being racist.

In my opinion, I hate the abbreviation. It's cheap, rude and crude. What's wrong with saying P.a.k.i.s.tani?

well the proper term for an afghan is... and afghan not an afghanistani, likewise a british person can be a brit, but a japanese person cannot be a jap.

if you ask me its all stupid, because i used to think "jew" sounded cheap rude and crude, but it is the accepted term.

you should learn from the cantonese, gweilo used to be an ultra racist term for white people, but because everyone used it so much its considered technically on par with caucasian.
 

MrSkippy

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Posts
874
Reaction score
0
Americans think they can police the *text deleted**text deleted*ing world, what if both *text deleted**text deleted*stan and syria had retaliated? we my friends would be in a world of *text deleted**text deleted*, because of our dip*text deleted**text deleted* friends from across the pond, that we are so unfortunate as to be allied with, had screwed up. i cannot believe this

Not really mate, they'd first need to get the balls to attack, and then wonder why they are losing alot of american aid.

On the other hand - im sure israel would love an excuse to bomb the crap out of syria so who knows :P
P*kistan would always worry about india up their ass if they got dragged into a war (which they cant afford anyway, so no problem there..)
 
Top