US conducts 'self-defense' strike in Syria
The targeted weapons systems posed a "clear and imminent threat to US and coalition forces," according to the Pentagon
You're viewing a single thread.
Ah yes, the famous defensive first strike.
"The self-defense strike occurred after the mobile multiple rocket launchers fired rockets in the vicinity of MSS Euphrates and mortars were fired toward U.S. forces,"
Yes the US already were invading Syria, an offensive operation. This ain't self-defense.
the same exact logic of russian self defense in ukraine.
"Yes, they fired mortars in a westerly direction, and we all know the US is 6,891 miles west of Syria therefore we see this as a direct attack on the US and will deal with it harshly."
Highly doubt that Syrian army were interested in opening a front with the strongest military in the world, when they're getting pounded by Al-Qaeda on the other side of the country.
I don't believe a single word of that justification.
Cool
The tactic that is done all the time and has been since the first hominid saw the other hominid from the group on the other side of the hill running at them with a rock and decided to throw their spear before the rock got to be a threat is indeed famous.
Considering the region and "step on me harder" Blinken, I don't believe a goddamn word of that justification and I'm surprised you do.
This has nothing to do with their justification and everything to do with your suggestion that attacking what you believe to be a credible threat in self defense isn't a thing.
I didn't say it wasn't a thing. I'm saying that anything involving "defensive" and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.
Are you actually making the bizarre claim that no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first?
Because I think that's pretty much the entire tactic when it comes to the Houthis.
Sorry... you're saying it's never self-defense if you were the initial aggressor years ago?
Are you intentionally misconstruing what I say? Because that is also not what I'm saying. The words I write are exactly what I mean.
This is what you wrote:
Therefore, according to you, since you have now confirmed that the words you write are exactly what you mean, no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first.
Which is objectively false.
Read those words, all of them, with equal weight. Maybe you just need some contextual editing and a rephrase to grasp this.
Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words "defensive strike" and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.
You have now shown that your previous statement was false:
Because this:
Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words âdefensive strikeâ and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.
And this:
I didnât say it wasnât a thing. Iâm saying that anything involving âdefensiveâ and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.
Do not mean exactly the same thing. There is a wide, wide gulf between "damned lie" and "extremely dubious."
I really don't think anything more needs to be done to demonstrate that you are being wildly inconsistent and quite dishonest, so I think I'll move on.
I'm not going to play this game of semantics. You're right, they aren't exactly the same. Because I rephrased it for clarification I thought was missing. They mean the same thing. If you want to argue that removing heated language in the name of understanding fundamentally altered what I have to say, then that's your deal. I want productive conversations, not word lawyering. I get enough of that from fighting work with my union.
