Syria claims US troops conduct raid inside Syria

frankly i would not put it past the Syrian government to have staged the whole thing

Within a year or two the Americans will withdraw from most, or possibly all, of Iraq. The Sunnis, who inhabit the vast but oil-less and unprofitable areas of western Iraq, will not be happy with this, and are trying -- as it was predicted here years ago they would, even as they were then engaged in fiere fighting to drive the Americans -- to keep the Americans around, but it will be to no avail. And then the real fighting, with a Shi'a despotism that will have replaced the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein, will begin, at levels still to be determined, and with aid from abroad -- on both sides -- naturally unclear.

Which brings us to Syria. What will the Alawite rulers of Syria, who are now so closely linked to Shi'a Iran, and to the Shi'a forces of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Syria supplies and collaborates with, and which, in turn, furthers Syrian control in cash-cow Lebanon, do when their own Sunni population tries to continue not only to give aid to Sunni forces in Iraq, but more and more agitated at the encroaching Shi'a, those Sunnis, and others in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Jordan, try at long last to bring down the Alawite rulers themselves. What then?

Or is this so unlikely, so un-verisimilar a script, that this particular movie will never appear on the television screens during the Nightly News?

"Syria condemns this aggressive act and holds American forces responsible for this aggression and all of its repercussions."

Ooh...I'm skeert. HA!

Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
(That and a whole lotta converts to other religions...)

The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages....

No kittens or puppies?

Taking military action against our enemies in either Syria or Iran sounds so unlike our stalwart, stuttering, dimwitted Commander-in-Chief. There must be some other explanation.

It's about time. Notice how it takes 3 to 5 years for the proper response to be implemented. How many troops lost their lives due to this lag? US military commanders have known about the "ratlines" from Syria for YEARS and only now decide to start terrorizing the terrorists. Notice the same patterns in Afghanistan/Paki border as well as Somalian pirates.Remember the deadly shape charge EFP's coming in from Iran and how many servicemen have lost their lives or have been greivously wounded. We have cowards, metrosexuals, and incompetent "Peter Principle" fools in charge. No wonder Operation Iraqi Freedom goes on and on.

By the way, I served with Brigadier General Janice Karpinski at MP Corps HQ Europe when she was a captain. You may know her as the commander of the Abu Graib Prison when the degrading sessions were taking place. You should know that she was an adulterous, unit-moral and discipline- ruining officer who we all errouneously were allowed to call by her first name. I have had drinks with "Janice" in what I later discovered was inappropriate fraternization between enlisted and officers. Take it for what it is worth JW readers. While our ranks are filled with brave people, there are always a few corrupt people to ruin the good name of the rest. I encountered huge fraud instances involving senior personnel and "per diem" payments for travel that never took place. She and her cohorts should have been drummed out years ago and put up on formal courts-martial proceedings IMO. We must get rid of these types if we want to quickly defeat the jihadists.

Yes, I have friends who were in other parts of Iraq with similar stories to tell.

No More Ham Ed

What is "Janice's" status? I seem to recall a sour grapes lawsuit with her as plaintiff. Don't worry about shocking me as that is impossible. Thanks

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMNpdzzc8k&feature=email

A bit off topic but, after I saw this... I feel a bit sorry for India

Back to the topic, why do I have a feeling that these people who died are not civilians, nor a family? Even if they were, why do I feel that it was not done by the american hand but instead as a bargaining chip or as a threat to the american soldiers?

Because lets face it, the Pc world of today will only see the deaths, and will not think about the why or the reason, and will, without a doubt fall prey to the islamic taqyyia...

I just wish they would free the Iranians from this hardass regime of Imnutjob and its mohammedans followers.

NoMoreHam Ed,

Wasn't "Janice" either National Guard or Reserve and not active duty?

HUGH: "Or is this so unlikely, so un-verisimilar a script, that this particular movie will never appear on the television screens during the Nightly News?"

You may be right about the national news; for as long as Bush was in the White House, bad news from Iraq was welcome. With Obama, the media will attempt to minimize any repercussions related to his early withdrawal plans.

As for Iraq itself, should it implode in a post-withdrawal orgy of sectarian blood-letting, I will tip my hat to you for the accuracy of your prognostications. If it doesn't, I wonder how you'll rationalize?

I'm surprised that the Syrians didn't use the whole, "The shooting in the air was a wedding celebration" line. Muslims lie out of reflex. It is as natural as breathing, only the vocal cords become engaged.

Captain Karpinski was active duty when I knew her. She somehow made it up through the ranks and even received a generals' star which is a very exclusive club, as I understand it. It did not surprise me to see her face associated with undisciplined, out-of-uniform soldiers who also probably had her permission to call her by her first name. She was married to an Army Captain who was going through Ranger School stateside.

Please remember that our HQ unit had several terrorist bomb threats from the likes of the Red Brigade, Red Army Faction, and the Bader-Meinhoff terrorists. That she could be so cavalier is now astonishing to me. She, and others like her, through neglect or omission give aid and comfort, let alone fury, to the enemy IMO. All real miltary personnel have my indefatigable love and support. We knew about these ratlines from Syria during the first battle of Fallujah years ago! No drones, no minefields, no sensors in the desert, no area denial. Mr. Rumsfeld, where are you sir? Centcom Commander, where are you? Jorge Bush (VP of Mexico), what is your response, moron?

"As for Iraq itself, should it implode in a post-withdrawal orgy of sectarian blood-letting, I will tip my hat to you for the accuracy of your prognostications. If it doesn't, I wonder how you'll rationalize?"
-- from a posting above

Go back, and re-read a dozen or so of my posts about what is likely to happen after an American withdrawal. At no time do I predict an "orgy of sectarian blood-letting." I predict hostilities, that will continue, possibly at a low level, for ever, without either side giving what the other demands, and with -- I think -- the very strong possiblity of aid coming from co-religionists outside, and the certainty -- I think -- that this constant source of Sunni-Shi'a hostility (not that "orgy of sectarian blood-letting" whe confident prediction of which you wrongly, carelessly, ascribe to me) will have its effects on Sunni-Shi'a relations far beyond Iraq and even beyond the Middle East.

From article: The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages...

What evidence is there of that, or do we have to take Syria's word for it?

Syria wouldn't lie would it?

No more ham...this aint the
place for your rant.
Too bad you did'nt have the balls to say something then. Or is it simply your aim to give our enemies encouragement? Either way...this aint the place.

Well then, if the “Sunni-Shi'a hostility” will merely continue ”at a low level, for ever” (after U.S. Forces leave in defeat) then it doesn’t seem that the present situation would change all that much.

Except that both Shia and Sunni would then be totally free to devote the time that they now spend dealing with the U.S. Army and Marines, to plotting new and innovative ways to advance the Greater Jihad.

Some more information on the raid confirming what No More Ham, Ed said about the ratlines:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/syrian_strike_aimed.php

Oil is now down to about 60. I just read this morning that there was a run on a Kuwait bank. Now there's an upside to this crisis. It's expensive to be a jihad bankroller.
Let the markets go to zero and let those freaks go back to eating sand.

HUGH: "At no time do I predict an "orgy of sectarian blood-letting." I predict hostilities, that will continue, possibly at a low level, for ever, without either side giving what the other demands, and with -- I think -- the very strong possiblity of aid coming from co-religionists outside, and the certainty -- I think -- that this constant source of Sunni-Shi'a hostility (not that "orgy of sectarian blood-letting" whe confident prediction of which you wrongly, carelessly, ascribe to me) will have its effects on Sunni-Shi'a relations far beyond Iraq and even beyond the Middle East."

RESPONSE: If I had the time, I'd like to go back and cull some of early your statements on Iraq, specifically your enthusiasm for exploiting the Shia-Sunni divide...and determine the extent to which it has been tempered by today's realities.

For example, this mornings qualifier that "hostilities...will continue...possibly at a low level"...at least implies the prospects aren't the strategic windfall you once thought they were.

Perhaps I'll find the time to do so.

The Sunni-Shia fissure is very real...and has been a factor for centuries as Persia became a major distraction for the Ottomans as the latter pursued their European ambitions. But my guess is that Iraq will survive as a unitary state and that whatever continued violence between Sunni and Shia there will resemble that in Pakistan, i.e., episodic and largely geo-politically irrelevant.

In my opinion, Iran's nuclear ambitions are much more pertinent to the Shia-Sunni rivalry than internal conditions inside Iraq.

I found your posts interesting, No More Ham,Ed; not rants at all. Demoralization of our troops is a serious matter. And if they can't respect their officers, do we really think they will be effective in protecting us? (Which is, bottom line, their job.)

So thanks, from this JW reader.

No, the only thing I said was misleading was your business about an "orgy of blood-letting." There is no "orgy of blood-letting" in Lebanon right now, between Shia Hezbollah and the Sunnis, though in Tripoli there has been fighting between Sunnis and Alawites seen, not quite accurately, as Shi'a; there is no "orgy of blood-letting" between Sunnis and Shi'a in Bahrain, or in Yemen, or in Pakistan, though in the first a Sunni ruler lords it over the Shi'a who constitute 70-75% of the population; in Yemen there has been intermittent fighting between the Sunni-ruled government and some Shi'a tribes; in Pakistan a Sunni terrorist group, Sipaha-e-Sahaba enjoys blowing up Shi'a professionals. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia rightly resent their ill treatment and the anti-Shia rhetoric of Saudi rulers and imams. One does not need an "orgy of blood-letting" for there to be constant unsettlement and unease and to see tensions increase all over.

As for Iran, are you now suggesting that Iran's race to acquire nuclear weapons is a good thing, because it is in your view "more pertinent to Shia-Sunni rivalries"? Should one conclude that you think Iran's nuclear project should be allowed to continue, because this is a better way to encourage "Shia-Sunni rivalries"? Or did you merely mean, that Iran's power, and aggression, and its meddling in Syria (where the Alawites are happy to be treated by Iranian authorities as real, albeit Shi'a, Muslims, which certainly represents an improvement over their treatment by Sunni Muslims), is made still more frightening by the possibility of nuclear weapons? But surely you don't mean that the Western world should permit, or tolerate, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran? Think of how gingerly we now find Pakistan must be treated, because of its handful of nuclear weapons, and what might become of them.

In many posts and articles, I have discussed Iran's nuclear project and the need, no matter what, to remove that threat. In fact, I early on suggested, while all kinds of posters were crowing about how there were sure to be a dozen "permanent bases in Iraq" because the Americans held all the cards, that there would be no such bases, that Iraq constituted a squandering of men's lives, war materiel, and money, and that it distracted from, and got in the way of, dealing with -- or allowing others to deal with -- Iran's nuclear project. And now we find that the Bush Administrationi appears, through statements by Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates, to have refused to allow Israel the kind of cooperastion it would need to take on the task itself because this would "interfere" with the (vain, hopeless, wasteful, pointless) efforts in Iraq to...well, to do something, though what that something is, at this point, and how that something will somehow lead to something else, is completely unclear, and always has been.

But even as for four years I have talked about the need to disrupt and delay Iran's nuclear project, I mentioned the possible advantage to be obtained in leaving Iran's conventional forces unannihilated so that Iran could remain a threat to the Sunnis up and down the Gulf, and I even mentioned, with pleasure, Iran's seizure of the three islands (Lesser Tunb, Greater Tunb, and one more whose name I keep forgetting) in the Gulf that the U.A.E. also claims, a seizure that worries Sunni regimes and that -- not an "orgy of blood-letting" -- is quite enough for now.

I found your posts interesting, No More Ham,Ed; not rants at all. Demoralization of our troops is a serious matter. And if they can't respect their officers, do we really think they will be effective in protecting us? (Which is, bottom line, their job.)

So thanks, from this JW reader.
Posted by: Vee

i agree. we need to get this out. if we don't do so, we are doomed to failure...

I would find this report highly suspect Robert. This was sent to me yesterday and I did some digging. here is the link to the story> http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=73357§ionid=351020206

I checked the site and it appears that PressTV is Iranian. The "About Us" page says: Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.

Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.

Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's most strategic cities.

Considering that Iran has arrested squirrels, rats and other rodents for spying and blamed Israel and the U.S. for training them, ("it wasn't us man"), I think I will wait for a more reliable source...lol.

Sir, you must know we've always agreed on Iran.

My observation that "Iran's nuclear ambitions are much more pertinent to the Shia-Sunni rivalry than internal conditions inside Iraq" in no way implies that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is "a good thing"...or that we should "permit, or tolerate, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran"

That you would extrapolate such assumptions from my point - assumptions I'm certain you know were false - was more an expression of pique on your part than anything else.

My point was to

1) highlight the proliferation nightmare should Iran acquire the bomb; the Sunni/Shia divide will just further incentivize the Saudis and the Egyptians to follow suit

2) counter your continued insistence that the Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq is a civil-war in waiting. Once again, if the "real fighting" (your exact words) doesn't happen, your "explanation" will be interesting to read.

"Real fighting" means combat, means violence at some level, but does not mean what is usually meant by an "orgy of blood-letting." I would never have said that an American withdrawal would be followed in Iraq by "an orgy of blood-letting." I don't believe it, but even if there were that (unlikely) possibility, I wouldn't use such a phrase, for fear that it would be invoked by others as a reason to remain.

You have yet to withdraw your phrase wrongly summarizing what I noted would be the inevitable consequence of an American withdrawal. Perhaps, eventually, you will see fit to do so.

Did I ever put "orgy of bloodletting" in quotes? I never meant to suggest that you used those exact words. For your satisfaction, I acknowledge to all that it was my expression, not yours.

I liked the no puppies and kittens line. You are on it. Officals from the area said that 7 men, no juveniles were killed that day. No children, women or kittens. Strange how the media loves to trash our elite commando forces by saying they alway attack the wrong house, alway kill women and children and innocent day laborers. Another international jounalist saw 7 men being buried. I am suprised that you Robert did not write a scathing comment as an entry to the article. Let's not let the leftist media get away with this one.

It is an 'aggressive act' to allow terrorists to conduct operations in your land.

Assad should be happy the American forces stopped only 4 to 5 miles inside his border. Maybe American forces will go further next time.

Assad...come out, come out, where ever you are??!!

I truely believe that the results of an American withdrawal from Iraq would be exactly what you both, ( Hugh and Cornelius), are disputing who quoted who. The FACT is that if we leave, there WILL be an ORGY OF BLOODLETTING! As well as public beheadings and torture, mass rapings of the woman as well any other savagery the 7th century brainwashed army of insane murderers can think of doing to those who tried to build a better Iraq for themselves.
Not to mention the effect it would have on the armed services of our country and the disgrace that would reverberate all the way up to the WHITE HOUSE. If you could just try to understand the way a mind that has been conditioned to HATE all people who don't follow a strict interpatation of Islam and the Qu'ran and Hadiths operates.
To even set a date for withdrawal would, (in their minds,) concede defeat and the terrorists would immediatly begin declaring a DEVINE VICTORY over the evil kaffir and proof of the "Power of Allah" as well as the validation of the words of his so called "messenger," Muhammad!
Our position in that part of the world would suffer irreputable damage. We must (and can) finish our mission in the middle east, not only in Iraq, but in Iran, Pakistan and Afganistan!!
Gentleman, Evil DOES exist in this world, and those who use terrorism against innocent people are proponants of that EVIL.

From above: Our position in that part of the world would suffer irreputable damage. We must (and can) finish our mission in the middle east, not only in Iraq, but in Iran, Pakistan and Afganistan!!

That sounds really good. Can you tell us what the mission is in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan?

No one seems to know for sure, and Bush has never made it clear.

'Our' position'...Who is 'our'?

No kittens or puppies?

Posted by: km

--

No drive-by media types? Damn.

Alaskan- you can shove your criticism up your rectum. I DID have the balls to say something and was subjected to an extensive investigation whereby I requested a general Court martial proceeding. I was the classified document custodian for an entire corps and was in charge of tabulating timesheets and TDY travel, as well as per-diem payments.I had the evidence in hand, and numbers don't lie.

I hope you have to fight or run for your life someday. Then I hope you have the realization that the word "extinct" actually applies to you, as your feel you are about to lose your one and only life, and there will never be another you, ever.

No More Ham, Ed...

Thank you for your service... :)