Is Syria Next?

Actually, terrorism as I define it is the use of weapons to kill, wound, or maim by an individual or party that doesn't identify themselves or their actions directly. The give no warning, or any opportunity for innocent civilians to flee the scene. They routinely attack non-military installations in an attempt to generate fear among the citizens, in an attempt to have the citizens pressure their governments into actions of a political nature that is supportive to the political cause of the terrorists. They exist in secret, and implement tactics that are usually considered brutal. The technique is used when a small group of people want to exert political influence, but lack the resources/patience/popular support to act in a conventional manner.

A modern war is when a person, or country makes a declaration of their intentions, warns the people they are declaring war against such that they have a window to surrender or be attacked, and do nothing much in secret. When one country attacks another without warning, it is an act of agression.

The IRA is/was a terrorist organization, one among many who have littered the history of post WWII.

Some will look upon the actions of the CIA as acts of terrorism, as they secretly carry out the intentions of the US government. I tend to agree in principle, however, like most of us who live in the real world, we condone certain activities like those of the CIA in our view that "the end justifies the means" reality of life in a messy world.

 

re: Terrorism

March 31, 2003

'The Yank opened up. He had absolutely no regard for human life. He was a cowboy out on a jolly'

Patrick Barkham meets the "friendly fire" victims

THREE wounded British soldiers described yesterday how they survived a terrifying attack by an American anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.

One of the survivors criticised the American pilot for showing “no regard for human life” and accused him of being a cowboy who had gone out on a jolly.

Another survivor said that he had stumbled out of the burning wreckage of his light tank and waved frantically to the pilot of the low-flying A10 to try to halt his “friendly fire” as he returned to attack again.

The blunder, 35 miles north of Basra, left one soldier missing, presumed dead, and another in intensive care on the hospital ship RFA Argus. A sixth Household Cavalry soldier escaped without injury when the two Scimitar light reconnaisance tanks were destroyed.

Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, 25, Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33, and Trooper Chris Finney, 18, were flown home last night with shrapnel wounds and burns. Before leaving the Argus they spoke of their bewilderment and anger that, despite flying very low over their heads, the pilot apparently failed to recognise markings on their British-made tanks, which were carrying coalition identification aids. Another machine in the five-vehicle convoy patrolling through the marshes near the meeting of the Euphrates and Shatt al-Arab rivers bore a large Union Jack.

“All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They’ve said if you put this kit on you won’t get shot,” LCoH Gerrard said from his hospital bed on the Argus. “We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 metres.

“You’ve got an A10 with advanced technology and he can’t use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It’s ridiculous.

“Combat is what I’ve been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me.”

The two Scimitars, followed by two armoured engineers’ vehicles and another Scimitar light tank, were on a “recce” of a road north west of al-Dayr, 25 miles north of Basra in southern Iraq, on Friday. After coming under fire from Iraqi artillery, they were instructed to investigate a shanty town when another light reconnaissance tank troop captured several white pick-up trucks laden with armed Iraqis.

Troop leader Lieutenant MacEwen — who now has special plastic bags tied round his hands to treat his burns — described how the convoy tensed, fearing an ambush, as they watched villagers waving white flags approach from behind a large bank.

“My heart started pounding,” he said. “You could see the white flags above the bank, but you didn’t know whether they had any intention of surrendering or ambushing us.”

LCoH Gerrard, the commander of the leading tank, described “frightened and curious” villagers waving white flags. “I stuck my hand up and waved at them. I could see they were frightened. I felt sorry for them.” Suddenly, LcoH Gerrard heard the distinctive, relentless roar of an A10’s anti-tank gunfire. “I will never forget that noise as long as I live. It is a noise I never want to hear again,” he said.

“There was no gap between the bullets. I heard it and I froze. The next thing I knew the turret was erupting with white light everywhere, heat and smoke. I didn’t even have time to close my eyes or blink. I don’t know why I’ve still got hair or eyebrows.

“I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted, ‘Reverse, reverse, reverse’. My headset had come off. My gunner was screaming, ‘Get out, get out.’ I was out of the turret in milliseconds. How I got out of that hole I don’t know. Then I saw the A10 coming again and I just ran.

“I’ll never forget that A10. He was about 50 metres off the ground. He circled, because he can turn on a 10-pence. He came back around. He was no more than 1,000 metres away when he started his attack run. He was about 500 metres away when he started firing.

“On the back of one of the engineers’ vehicles there was a Union Jack. It’s about 18 inches wide by about 12 inches. For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics. How he could not see that Union Jack I don’t know. It was like Platoon. I was stood there on a little bank 25 metres away from my tank waving.”

The front two Scimitars, packed with ammunition, grenades, rifle rounds and diesel tanks, exploded into flames. One of the crew did not escape the inferno.

Trooper Finney was injured when the A10 returned for a second run. He said: “The plane came over again and it started shooting. I saw sparks coming from the ground or my leg. It didn’t hurt, it felt like someone had kicked me in the back of my leg. I felt warm down the back of my leg. Blood was spurting everywhere. I thought I was dead.”

LCoH Gerrard criticised the A10 for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks. He said: “There was a boy of about 12 years old. He was no more than 20 metres away when the Yank opened up. There were all these civilians around. He had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy.

“There were four or five that I noticed earlier and this one had broken off and was on his own when he attacked us. He’d just gone out on a jolly. I’m curious about what’s going to happen to him. He’s killed one of my friends and he’s killed him on the second run.”

Lieutenant MacEwen described how he saw the A10 return after he stumbled, burning, from his flaming tank and ran for the cover of a reed bed on the marshes. “There was a horrible smell of what I though was something burning, but then I discovered it was a bit of my own eyebrows. That lingered with me for a good hour or two.”

He added: “After this I am quite pleased to be going home. ‘Blue-on-blue’ has always been one of my biggest fears. It is something that my friends and family joked about. ‘Don’t worry about the Iraqis, it’s the Americans you want to watch.’ The proof is in the pudding really.”

 

Anatomy of a closed mind, a.k.a. Wild's creed and logic:

"If I am against something, I will find and quote the obscure exception to the rule and use that to support my position.

If I am for something, I will find and quote the obscure exeception to the rule and use that to support my position.

I will ignore any and all evidence that contradicts my position.

I will assume the minorty is right when it supports my position.

I will assume the majority is wrong when it contradicts my position.

I will believe without thought that anything that in any way lends support to my bias to be correct, and anything that contradicts my bias to be incorrect, no matter how much reason, fact, or common sense I have to deny to do so."

 

Perfectly Stated!!

Yup.....this is why I used the word "murder" rather than "kill"

 

The same army commanded by the same despot that's been murdering them for decades.

Murder implies intent to kill. There is a difference between collateral damage and purposely killing Iraqi civilians. It is not in the US' interest nor a matter of policy that our forces target civilians. You know that msfe. I know you're not that stupid. If we wanted to murder Iraqi civilians, instead of carefully selecting targets we would be carpet bombing entire cities indiscriminately.

 

The even greater danger is the attack that leaves no fingerprints.

There are certainly many historical examples of warfare "working" against terrorism. I'm thinking in part of the kind of thing that real imperial powers have done when the "natives" have gotten too restless. If you wipe out an entire populace, then it's obviously unlikely to produce many terrorists, and a roughly equivalent effect can often be achieved short of total annihilation. Other traditional, somewhat milder alternatives include the taking of hostages (and the execution of them when prompted), or the perpetration of harsh punishments, measures such as rounding up and executing some significant fraction of the male population of a village in which partisans have been active.

It should be obvious that what the US and its allies are attempting to do in the Middle East doesn't approach the level of genocide or even of classic "imperial punishments," whatever the hysterical left, the Arab and European media, or Saddam's functionaries like to say. There is much more that can be said on this subject, but, in short, I think the hope is that the most implacably murderous actors in the world can be either annihilated, neutralized, or forced to change their ways, and that their sponsors, followers, and possible successors can be coaxed or where necessary shocked or forced into facing reality - before the conflict reaches the levels of death and destruction that such clashes of civilizations have historically tended to reach, even without modern WMDs. Getting rid of the most flagrant and dangerous state sponsors of terrorism, while sending a strong message to the somewhat less flagrant and dangerous regimes and independents, is seen as a necessary step. Liberating oppressed populations would be the positive side of this project, and likewise represents a decision to treat root causes rather than waiting for chronic problems to flare up into overwhelming catastrophes.

One of the most ambitious attempts to address the current situation and to summarize the US response to it, with a focus on terrorism in the age of WMDs, is Lee Harris's "Our World-Historical Gamble." I believe that aspects of his argument may need re-consideration, but I think you'd find it very interesting, if you haven't read it:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A

I'd also highly recommend Fouad Ajami's seminal Foreign Affairs essay "Iraq and the Arab Future."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10218/fouad-ajami/iraq-and-the-arabs-future.html

Even if you don't end up agreeing with those writers, they might give you more insight into what has been influencing "neocon" foreign policy.

Let me know what you think...

 

Syria accuses allies of 'illegal invasion'

From Richard Lloyd Parry in Damascus


SYRIA accused the United States and Britain yesterday of an “illegal invasion” and of perpetrating “crimes against humanity” in Iraq, in the latest round in an increasingly bitter exchange of accusations between Damascus and Washington.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry in a statement proclaimed its support for the Iraqi people, after the United States had accused Syria of supporting President Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups. The statement reflects a growing anti-American anger in Damascus and a widespread fear that Syria may one day find itself facing American military action.

“Syria has chosen to align itself with the fraternal Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified invasion and against whom are being committed all sorts of crimes against humanity,” the statement said.

“Syria has chosen to be with the international consensus, which has said ‘no’ to aggression against Iraq, ‘no’ to the bombing of cities and the massacre of innocent civilians, ‘no’ to the destruction of houses, power plants and water stations.”

Syria has consistently used its non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council to oppose war in Iraq.

Tension increased dramatically over the weekend, with separate statements by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, which singled out Syria for reproach. “Syria now faces a critical choice,” General Powell said on Sunday to a gathering of pro-Israel lobbyists. “Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and for the consequences.”

A day earlier, Mr Rumsfeld accused Damascus of allowing the export of military equipment, including night-vision goggles, across its land border with Iraq and said that it would be “held accountable” for such “hostile acts”. An indignant Syrian Government has denied the accusation.

Last night demonstrators gathered close to the US Embassy in Damascus for what has become a daily protest against the invasion of Iraq. About 500 marched peacefully from a spot close to the embassy, chanting. “Our blood, our souls, we sacrifice for you Iraq!” Ironically the protesters were members of the Syrian opposition and democracy movement, which opposes Saddam as intensely as their own President Assad but rejects what it sees as self- interested US intervention.

“We believe that the Americans already have Syria in mind for the second stage,” Haitham Maleh, a prominent human rights lawyer who has been imprisoned by the Syrian authorities said.

Salim Kheirhek, another marcher and former political prisoner, said: “If the US invades Syria, democracy will be a second priority because (first) we will defend our country.”

For all its indignation, the Syrian statement yesterday contained no words of personal support for Saddam, with whom Damascus has had a hostile relationship. Its language was of solidarity with “the Iraqi people” rather than the Baghdad regime.

A popular theory in Damascus is that US statements have been encouraged by Syria’s arch-enemy, Israel, which seized the Golan Heights in 1967. On Monday, General Yossi Kupperwasser, a senior Israeli intelligence officer, suggested that the reason why the invading coalition has failed to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was because they have been moved into Syria.

 

Sounds about right

 

Candle, I thought you were a peace-lover.

 

whose intentions? stated by whom? which version, which motive of the several?

naturally human rights matter - but 3/4 of the planet have an unfair system of justice. are you implying a serial conversion of all of it? and if not, why not?

is there anything in (modern) history that serves as a basis of comparison with what the bush administration has apparently undertaken, and how it has done so?

why is Alphonso dangerous? he may be dead wrong, or right, for that matter, but why does that make the situation 'dangerous'?