Wait, our country attacked Syria and won't tell us why? Seriously?

sadly, im not surprised.

But of course when we attack civilian buildings and kill innocent people, that must be justified, right? It's just collateral damage in the Global War On Terror!

I completely agree Jude!

Jude - did we go into that village with the intention of killing innocent people? That's what you're implying. That's horrible and wrong.

More irony - many Iranians (from articles I've read) complain that Ahmadinejad is too far right, brings religion into politics too much, says inflammatory things that are divisive, and makes the country less safe with his east v. west rhetoric....

Sound familiar?

Dave, it was reported that US helicopters attacked a Syrian farm and killed eight civilians. If this is indeed true and intentional, then it is indeed horrible and wrong. If it was a mistake, then a lot of apologies and explanations will need to be made.

I took it that she meant we were probably not as careful as we should be when human life is at stake and maybe we acted without proper intelligence (shocking!).

We should stop taking every criticism in such unpatriotic light.

Thanks, Zeze. Couldn't have said it better myself.

And it is aggression. How would Americans feel if, say, France attacked a target on our territory and killed our civilians for supposedly harboring enemies to their nation or for other slights to them?

and 4 of them were children

Dave, are you suggesting that if we fire weapons into a country that we're not at war with, but only WANT the bullets to strike confirmed bad guys, the attack is somehow okay, no matter who does die? If a guy shoots up a store at the mall, but only means to kill his girlfriend, do the other deaths he causes count - or are they okay because they weren't targeted?

"Jude - did we go into that village with the intention of killing innocent people? That's what you're implying. That's horrible and wrong."

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

"But of course when we attack civilian buildings and kill innocent people, that must be justified, right? It's just collateral damage in the Global War On Terror!"

Que sera sera...whatever will be will be...

But there is a difference between intentionally killing someone, and accidently killing someone. I'm not saying that you don't count the deaths, but don't compare those deaths to a terrorist attack, because they aren't the same.

Well, they're outraged over the incident and they see it as terrorism. Are we seriously going to argue with the Syrians that it wasn't? In their eyes, it was murder...intentional or not. No free passes should be given here. Just because Bush links Syria to Iran it doesn't mean that these deaths are, in some way, 'justified'.

Agreed Jude and unfortunately this is nothing new for the US. Somehow because we have honorable intentions, it excuses us from terrorists acts.

I'm pretty sure most countries think that they are right. People wonder why other countries harbor all of this anger toward us. We have one of the best military in the world and we bully people with it. It is a disappoint to hear, but it doesn't shock me.

"But there is a difference between intentionally killing someone, and accidently killing someone. I'm not saying that you don't count the deaths, but don't compare those deaths to a terrorist attack, because they aren't the same."

When you send several armed helicopters to attack a village, you aren't taking the time or making any effort to distinguish between civilians and bad guys - to the victims and the families of the victims, it's a terrorist attack.

Well said, Jessie.

I don't and won't deny anyone the right to be outraged about the death of innocent civilians. I'm going to argue long and hard about calling something terrorist activities that isn't. If we made a mistake, we need to take actions to correct that mistake, and pay reparations if there is no other way to correct it. I believe that we didn't go into that village with the intention of killing civilians. It doesn't make their deaths irrelevant, but it isn't terrorism.

"Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"... it's terrorism.
One man's soldier is the other's terrorist - everyone thinks their ends justify their means.

Ok, so can you prove that we used violence to intimidate, or coerce? Doesn't that assume that we went into that village with the sole purpose of firing apon and killing those civilians?

If the raid was intended to kill or capture al-Qaeda members, that would intimidate both al-Qaeda and anyone in the area who might consider supporting al-Qaeda. It doesn't assume we came in targeting civilians, it assumes whether civilians were present or not was not a major concern.

I'm glad someone (country) is coming out publicly and without any hesitation in saying that this is clearly an act of terrorism. They hit 2 of our buildings and this kind of crap happens on a weekly basis for these people.

I'd be willing to bet that the governments of both Syria and Iran are secretly thrilled that this has happened, because now they get to try to make America look like the bad guy. Those governments don't give a damn about their people. They care about money, oil and power. These are not good leaders with good intentions that we're talking about here. And how do we know that the civilians that were killed were innocent either? For all we know every one of them could have been terrorist supporters.

"I'd be willing to bet that the governments of both Syria and Iran are secretly thrilled that this has happened, because now they get to try to make America look like the bad guy."

Bush is helping Syria in their fight against their own people! I knew it! I bet he gets a kickback from bin Laden himself for every child he kills!

And, once again, the time-tested strategy of calling a government illegitimate in order to justify our own actions against them

"And how do we know that the civilians that were killed were innocent either? For all we know every one of them could have been terrorist supporters."

Yes, even the four children.

>And how do we know that the civilians that were killed were innocent either? For all we know every one of them could have been terrorist supporters.

Holy sh*t, seriously?

So, perhaps we either just happened my sheer luck to knock off some bad guys or the U.S. secretly figured out who would be affected, secretly looked into them, secretly conducted trials, and then made sure they were the only ones to be hit?

"If the raid was intended to kill or capture al-Qaeda members, that would intimidate both al-Qaeda and anyone in the area who might consider supporting al-Qaeda."

So, what does this mean? What is the end result of not killing or capturing al qaeda members? I am curious as to where this definition applies. Does this also apply to skinheads? Dissatisfied husbands? Gang members? Should we just stop capturing people who kill or plot to kill because we appear to be terrorists by killing or capturing them? And around and around we go.

Given, crossing the border with Syria probably needed some coordination with the Syrian government. Maybe they got it and Syria doesn't want to appear to be a U.S. ally. As a member of the American public, I'm not so naive to think that we are given all the details of anything going on in this world, including this incident. I'll just add: al qaeda has never had an issue with using human shields. Who do we blame for that? Oh, right. The U.S.

"HOW DO WE KNOW THE PEOPLE WERE INNOCENT?" Either way if they were American Hating Syrians or just innocent civilians ( which they probably were) there is a thing called a court in which we take up legal matter on all levels. We don't just go bomb a building and kill 4 children. Imagine the hysteria if that would have happened here in America. We are such hypocrites.

Choo - Dave asked if it could be proven that we used violence to intimidate or coerce: if the purpose of the raid was to kill or capture al Qaeda members, then it would fall under the definition of intimidation - where you're going with not capturing al Qaeda members, skinheads and dissatisfied husbands isn't clear to me.

Given our history with Syria, I sincerely doubt we coordinated our violation of their territory with anyone in Damascus.

Prncssann1, I bet they tricked the Americans
into killing civilians,
so that America would look like the Terrorists!
And of course, Syria and Iran do not care about
their citizens, not like the American govt,
who sent young soldiers to war on a misguided premise,
to die for reasons totally unrelated... to MONEY, POWER or OIL.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective.

isn't it just sad that people are even debating this? sigh. i can not comprehend how anyone can defend this behaviour, but i suppose americans love to pull wool over their eyes.

wake up and accept it for what it is. terrorism.

OK, I'll accept this for what it was, a military mission with the purpose of killing members of Al Qaeda terrorists, which also, unfortunately, killed civilians.
Steph - We are at war with Al Qaeda, right? So, to attack a position where Al Qaeda is is not terrorism. I find it unfathomable that anyone in America would side with Al Qaeda.

steph-
You defined terrorism for us. The way you defined it leads me to believe that even our police can't go in to kill or capture anyone who kills or plots to kill others, thus the mention of skinheads (who just plotted to kill many people recently), dissatisfied husbands (almost a daily thing these days) and gang members (continuing violence). So, where's the line?

"I find it unfathomable that anyone in America would side with Al Qaeda."

As do I, but lately, not so much.

I cannot fathom how people are able
to think of WAR, as if it is a TEAMSPORT.
Having said that,
Even in sports, there are RULES that
apply to BOTH teams.
If "OUR" team does something wrong
do we just overlook it or risk appearing disloyal?
Nobody is siding with Al Qaeda, It is innocent
civilians getting murdered that we are outraged about.
Do you think that the parents of the 4 CHILDREN,
hurt any less because,
according to you this is an act of war,
not an act of terrorism?
Try explaining the difference to a mother with
a dead child in her arms.
Just remember, that this fuels the hatred of America
and fills them with a desire to bring the SAME level
of GRIEF and SUFFERING to our SHORES.

we dont know the mission, the objective, what went on , etc. So I cannot comment about this story. (other than to make this non comment)

OK, you are missing the point (as usual). I'm not saying that we shouldn't be outraged because innocent civilians were accidently killed. However, an accident doesn't equate to terrorism. Can anyone agree with that?