decoding the news

"u.s special forces attack site in syria, killing 8" u.s commits war crime by bombing sovereign nation that it is not at war with, killing 8.

"raid criticized by damascus: qaeda targeted." raid not criticized by us, including the author of the article, even though the bombing is an obvious war crime. qaeda was supposedly targeted, but who was killed?

"u.s helicopters launched an extremely rare attack yesterday on syrian territory close to the border with iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in demascus condemned as a "serious aggression." if another country were to bomb the us, would we preface an article on the bombing by describing it as "extremely rare?" i would think it would be "rare" for one country to bomb another that it is not at war with. the bombed syrian territory "was close to the border in iraq." does this justify the bombing? there are parts of the us that are close to the borders of canada and mexico. would this be a reason for these areas to be bombed? we are told the government in demascus condemned the attack as a "serious aggression." well, isn't it? shouldn't we also condemn it as such? how would a bombing of a u.s city "near the border with canada" be described by an american newspaper?

"we are taking matters into our own hands," an official told the associated press in washington, speaking on condition of anoymity because of the political sensitivity of cross border raids." left unsaid is whether other countries who have problems with america can now "take matters into their own hands" by bombing the u.s. we are informed that there is "political sensitivity" about "cross border raids." yes, i imagine it would be "politically sensitive" to commit the war crime of bombing a sovereign nation that has done you no harm. and why is it described as a "cross border raid" and not "the criminal bombing of a sovereign nation?" there may be al qaeda there, but there are also cuban terrorists in miami. would it be "politically sensitive" for cuba to bomb miami, or would we be outraged by such an attack?

"a syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the sukkariyeh farm near the town of abu kamal, 5 miles inside the syrian border. four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction near sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said." so, the attack was actually 5 miles inside the border, not "on" the border with iraq. four helicopters attacked a civilian building. well, i thought al qaeda was being attacked. instead, "workers" inside the "civilian building" were fired upon. doesn't this sound just a little bit like "bombing civilians?" is that not a war crime?

"the government said civilians were among the dead, including four children." were the children members of al qaeda? if the u.s was attacking al qaeda, how did they end up killing children? isn't the bombing of civilians a war crime? does cuba have the right to kill children in miami in their quest to capture right wing cuban exiles who have committed terrorist acts against cuba? for that matter, does syria now have the right to bomb american cities to avenge the killing of these civilians, or would such "cross border raids" be "too politically sensitive" for syria to attempt at this time?