Apparently there was a simultanious attack on Pakistan killing 20 people...I bet them thar whirly birds went west instead of east , and started shooting , after all one mooslim is much like another!!
God damn Bush and Cheney, those villagers are poor working men, happy to have a job, and death comes to them from the sky , may they rest in peace.

this attack is likely to achieve nothing and has most certainly raised the temperature a lot in this already unstable region.

More on BraveJeWorld.

These unilateral attacks without any evidence fly in the face of international law and norms.

Once again we see the yankees behaving as cowboys and killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Syria, afghanistan and pakistan without any remorse or mercy.

So much for 'they hate us because we are democratic and free'.

As IF Syria has not engaged in acts that "fly in the face of international law and norms". Have you heard of Hariri? Hmmm... Syria invading Lebanon and taking over a purportedly sovereign nation? How about harboring terrorists (as defined in the Geneva Convention and the protocols) in Damascus? Does THAT "fly in the face of international law"? If you acknowledge that the Geneva Convention is "international law", then you have to admit that Syria, by its past and present acts violates international law on a daily basis.
So the lame pretense that some country (here the US) that attacks TERRORISTS within the borders of a state that, by harboring terrorists, puts itself beyond the pale .. is somehow a cowboy... what does that make the Syrians? Indians?
What a strange analogy. American Indians used lower grade weapons, while Syria uses, well, very advanced Russian gear. And we never gave smallpox infested blankets to Syrians.
If you think we should, I will volunteer my time to help do so, though, as Syria is pretty much an Iranian puppet, and as such, dangerous. Assad is not his father, and wants to impress the crazies in Teheran by pushing Hisbulla against Israel...
Sadly, America does not attack Syria enough.
A nice glassy parking lot would be nice (sand melting turns into glass).

Hey anon (2) (Mr. I've heard of the International Law at school, and I hate you all!!!),

If you have any close look to the international law, or at least tried to read it, you will realize that actually your "terrorist heroes" i.e.: the US troops" committed a clear violation to the essential rules by killing unarmed civilians, and broke the first 2 Protocols of the convention.
Notice that all the non-sense you mentioned over Syria is just a hate statement, no evidences were provided and it was just BLABLING.

so please just for the sake of it, try to learn and know what are you talkinga bout.

This is an outrage! There is no excuse for the breach of Syria sovereign borders. Syria has been a staunch ally against AQ and this is the thanks they get? As an American who has traveled extensively in Syria including Mari and Dar Azor I can say I am horrified by my governments actions. Little solace though it might bring I want to apologize to the people of Syria. Maybe if we had an Ambassador in Damascus and normal, if not necessarily friendly relations, we could at least coordinate with Syria instead of creating a world wide crisis and further driving a wedge between what could easily be a ally in the region not to mention the Muslim world. I love Syria and its people and I'm furious at my fanatical gov'ts actions. We are a nation of ignorant hypocrites!

I hate to be the one to point it out, but...

Maybe there were al-Qaeda terrorists in that village and maybe the Americans killed them.

Is that not possible?

I appreciate Oliver's comment.

As for Matt's: It is possible that the people killed were al-Qa'ida operatives, but unlikely. Even if those killed were al-Qa'ida, the raid on sovereign Syrian territory is 1. counterproductive - it will further problematise security cooperation between Syria and the Iraqis and Americans for the foreseeable future, and it will make more Syrians prepared to listen to al-Qa'ida rhetoric. And it is 2. an act of war. Of course, third world Syria is in no position to respond militarily to the imperial fighting machine, but according to principles of law it has the right to respond. The empire has made it very clear that it no longer even pretends to recognise national sovereignty, which the global state system is based on. Worryingly, Obama was the first to suggest US bombing of Pakistan. The US really doesn't know what it's playing with.

Why is it unlikely they were al-Qaeda? The Syrian army isn't there to stop them.

Where are the statements denouncing al-Qaeda's presence on Syrian soil, their violation of Syrian sovereignty? It sometimes feels like, unless the Americans are doing it, it isn't happening.

How much of an impact would a raid like this have on Syrian opinion in terms of supporting al-Qaeda?

Don't you get it? The U.S. said the raid was a complete success at decapitating the terror-funneling network. That means all that Syria has to do is sit on its hands and do nothing, and in a few weeks or months it will be removed from the "terrorism list"!

Another victory for Arabs over terrorism, brought to you courtesy of U.S. armed forces! Cheers and thank-yous are in order - if not now, then soon.

This is outrageous and I refused to believe it’s true for a while but I just don’t know what to expect anymore! I guess after this anything’s possible…
@Anonymous # 2 I can’t figure out if u r Lebanese or Israeli but whoever u r u’re absolutely despicable!!!

First of all even if they were so called AQ there they weren't there until we invaded Iraq! Syria has been in a war with Isalamists for years and an ally against AQ (They've been happy to torture our prisoners).
I'm all for going after and assassinating the people who attacked us on 911. If you had anything to do with that attack than look out. However just saying that someone is an "associate" and flying wily nilly all over the world calling people AQ is not the same as them being AQ, the AQ who attacked us on 911. Pursuing the "folks" who attacked us from their base in Afghanistan into Pakistan makes sense to me. OBL is, uh, over there you idiots! If you invade and occupy an Arab/Muslim country they are going to fight back. If you attack the US we are going to fight back. What on earth has Syria done to the US? Not control the border? Well I know a border 100 miles from me that's flowing with guns, people, violence and drugs. You have to respect sovereignty, work, covertly if necessary, with the "enemies of your enemies" in order to effect success and build connections in the Arab world. Its not hard. You just have to be motivated by your own best interests and not by the foreign policy goals of Israel. Pull the fuck out of Iraq go over to Afghanistan and finish the job. I do have to say that Assad has been very weak in protecting Syrias borders and his PR handling of the Israeli attacks, and assassinations has been atrocious and makes the country look weak and disorganized. This is not a justification but in a democracy and least there is some accountability. En 'shalla Obama takes a different approach and tries reapproachment and true democracy comes to Syria. Let's make peace with people who are ripe for friendship, people like the Syrians and Iranians and put the interests of Israel on the same level as the interests of the others in the region. Peace is easy if you make a good faith effort.

I just love how Americans crow triumph about illegally, INVADE foreign countries, kill people, render, torture...

then babble about how 'democratic' they are????

Just lovely. So if someone were to wander into the USA, torture, kill, & then leave THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH AMERICANS, right?

I feel that the American military has sunk to the level of the terrorism.

Oliver, I'm not sure I follow your thinking.

You do not seem the least bit concerned that al-Qaeda has been using Syrian territory to mount attacks that have killed thousands of Iraqis. But you are obviously furious about the Americans crossing a border, until a few days ago, Syria did not care to enforce.

As for asking the Syrians to sort it out, (a) why do they need to be aksed and (b) do you really think nobody suggested to Syria they secure their border? The Iraq invasion was 5 1/2 years ago. They've had more than enough time.

How many car bombers have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Oliver? Apples and oranges.

Matt
We invaded Iraq and 10s of thousands of Iraqis are dead as a result. According to you anybody who sneaks into Iraq to fight is AQ? If you believe that because the US gov't says it then you are wildly naive and a hopeless case. Even Gates said that Syria has cut the number if fighters by 90% in the last few months. Syria borders Iraq, Iran borders Iraq. They have serious interests in the region and have a belligerent occupying army just over the border. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine if Iran invaded Mexico or Canada what do you think patriots would be doing up and down those borders. My point is we have no right to attack Syria as they are no threat to the motherland. Fighters are coming from all sides, Jordan, SA, Lebanon and Iran. You seem to be saying that all those people are terrorists or even AQ and that therefor they are a threat to the US. That is crazy. If there are fighters that the Iraqis think are a threat then let them invade Syria and or Iran. But to have the US Widening the battle to include a secular state with latent western tendencies will do nothing but exasperate your so called "terrorism" in the region. As for apples and oranges its ridiculous to expect Syria to have a 100% control of their borders any more than we can expect our own country to control our own borders which we don't. Under your logic we should invade Mexico, Again. You are completely ignorant of the political dynamics in the ME. Tell me what on earth is your goal/strategy over there? Mine is realpolitik diplomacy negotiated by informed diplomats and security officials with the result be normalized relation, security and national sovereignty for all players. That's what called for.

You are making numerous assumptions about me that I can only assume are due to stereotypes you hold. Let me help you with those so perhaps we can talk without my having to defend myself against silly accusations.

I do not think all the people fighting against U.S. forces are al-Qaeda or even terrorists.

I think that people who decide to travel to Iraq are often brave individuals.

If I were in the position of Syria or Iran I would act in a similar way in terms of making things hard for the Americans.

I don't get too concerned about combatants of any side using or abusing the sovereignty of other powers because I would do the same in their position. That goes for rules of war generally. Throughout history, people follow them until they have reason not to.

With that in mind, I do not hold it against al-Qaeda (or any others) when they violate the territory and borders of a technically neutral power. It would be hypocritical of me to hold it against the Americans for doing the same thing.

You are in the reverse situation. You don't seem to have any objection to al-Qaeda using Syria to invade Iraq, but are apoplectic about the U.S. using Iraq to invade Syria. I'm in the position of not really worrying about borders for either side, but you care only about one side violating borders. Care to explain?

The idea that the U.S. has no right to attack people waging war on the U.S. military, as well as a U.S. ally (the Iraqi government), is laughable from a legal perspective. I don't care much for the legal side, but I know you do so I thought I'd mention that.

I don't expect Syria to have full control of the border because Syria is a weak state. I do expect the U.S. to control their border because the U.S. a strong state. The invading Mexico idea is a strawman, although I wouldn't object if the U.S. decided to start killing Mexican criminals sending contraband north.

I don't think you understand realpolitik. Realpolitik is not about following rules, it is about doing what is necessary at a given time to advance your interests.

OH GOD!! This is a good reminder why I stayed away from politecal blogs …such coments can really ruein my entier day it is absulotly infureating…how hard is for u ppl. to understand?!!!
@Matt: “How many car bombers have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border” well u cant tell me there’s absoloutly no one is crossing the borders illigally!!! But here’s what I can tell u….a real life story…my cousin had a friend visiting from Sudan n’ u cant imagine how hard time they gave him to let him in Syria in fear of him “crossing the borders” n’ they kept track of him the whole time he were here!!!

One more thing “I do expect the U.S. to control their border because the U.S. a strong state”!!!! Last time I checked it was iraqi-syrian borders!!!

Sharks,

"well u cant tell me there’s absoloutly no one is crossing the borders illigally!!!"

I didn't tell you that. Many more people cross the U.S.-Mexico border than cross the Iraq-Syria border.

The difference is that Mexicans usually try to find jobs, whereas unfortunately many of the people crossing illegally from Syria to Iraq decide to kill many people. My point was that, if Mexicans were travelling to America to blow themselves up, the U.S. would secure it. So comparing the two is not sensible.

"But here’s what I can tell u….a real life story…my cousin had a friend visiting from Sudan n’ u cant imagine how hard time they gave him to let him in Syria in fear of him “crossing the borders” n’ they kept track of him the whole time he were here!!!"

I'm sorry to hear that your cousin's friend had a difficult time.

"One more thing “I do expect the U.S. to control their border because the U.S. a strong state”!!!! Last time I checked it was iraqi-syrian borders!!!"

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant to say that I expect the U.S. to control the American borders.

As for who is responsible for the Iraqi and Syrian borders, obviously it is Iraq and Syria. But no-one here denies that terrorists have entered Iraq from Syria, killing Americans but also many Iraqis.

And no-one here has condemned the breach of the Syrian border by al-Qaeda, or the violation of Syrian soil by al-Qaeda. Why is that? One rule for one side, one rule for another?

Matt
“So comparing the two is not sensible.” Let me tell u what’s sensible here...when Syrians starts crossing the US borders illegally even just to find a job I w’d totally understand if they ended up dead!!!!
“And no-one here has condemned the breach of the Syrian border by al-Qaeda” this shows how u ppl. have no idea how things work here with the Syrian government first of all if this is truly happening -and am not saying it’s not- the Syrian government wont be bragging about it at all...and al-Qaeda is a Salafi movement which originated and widespread in Saudi Arabia see how things r going between the two (Syria & KSA) n’ anything which is even remotely connected to Islamic fundamentalism is so welcomed to “Syrian GuantanamoS” good luck trying to locate that!! Now don’t start with Hezbollah cuz it’s a completely different story...bottom line the Syrian government hate al-Qaeda as much as u do n’ probably even more but we just don’t make a fuss about it! We just act quietly!!
Here’s another story for u I just remembered an Algerian friend of mine STILL receives regular phone calls and asked to pay visits to intelligence ppl. also for the sake of keeping track on him not to cross any borders!!!

Let me tell u what’s sensible here...when Syrians starts crossing the US borders illegally even just to find a job I w’d totally understand if they ended up dead!!!!

Are you being sarcastic? I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

u ppl. have no idea how things work here with the Syrian government first of all if this is truly happening -and am not saying it’s not- the Syrian government wont be bragging about it at all...

Are you a member of the Syrian government? I assume you aren't. I want to know why the individuals on this board are only upset about the U.S. violating the border, not al-Qaeda.

bottom line the Syrian government hate al-Qaeda as much as u do n’ probably even more but we just don’t make a fuss about it! We just act quietly!!

You're confusing two issues. I don't care how loudly or quietly Syria acts, so long as it does act. If it doesn't, it should not be surprised if the Americans act instead. There is a limit to patience, and I think five years is an unreasonable time to wait.

The other issue is people (not governments) condemning al-Qaeda for violating Syrian sovereignty. You know full well it has happened, and you probably have an idea of just how many Iraqis they slaughtered. For *years* al-Qaeda did this. And now you get upset about the Americans killing the people responsible? This is pure hypocrisy.

Here’s another story for u I just remembered an Algerian friend of mine STILL receives regular phone calls and asked to pay visits to intelligence ppl. also for the sake of keeping track on him not to cross any borders!!!

Algeria has a darker recent history than most Arab countries. It doesn't surprise me.

You know something good might come out of this after all. The Iraqi's are changing SAFO so that it states that the US can not attack its neighbors. So Syrians your sovereignty violation was not in vain.

Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian. Realpolitik is a depiction of foreign policy that should be based on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles. Henry Kissinger was a proponent of this belief as demonstrated in the Nixon administration's dealings with Communist China.

Its pointless to ague with someone who knows so little and is so biased and traumatized by 911 that they can not think straight. You might be suffering from PTS. Check with your psychologist.

LOL! That definition was an excellent summary of my views, as ought to be obvious from my comments. This: "based on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles" is much more suited to a cold approach like mine than your over-emotional one.

Its pointless to ague with someone who knows so little and is so biased and traumatized by 911 that they can not think straight.

For someone so enlightened, your willingness to use stereotypes is pretty funny. I'm going to take it that you can't actually come up with a counter-argument, or bring yourself to utter a single bad word about al-Qaeda using Syria to murder Iraqis.