POSTED: 7:02 a.m. EDT, September 12, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria (CNN) -- Syrian security forces on Tuesday killed four gunmen after they tried to storm the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the Syrian Information Ministry said.

 

No American diplomats were harmed.

 

A fifth attacker was wounded and in custody, officials said. It was not immediately clear how many total attackers may have been involved.

 

"The State Department confirms an attack by unknown assailants," said Kurtis Cooper, a State Department spokesman in Washington. "The event appears to be under control and handled by local authorities."

 

There was no word of casualties among the Syrian security forces who battled the gunmen.

 

The embassy was not damaged in the attack.

 

Syrian diplomatic sources said the gunmen apparently blew up an auto before launching their assault.

 

Video from the scene showed security forces removing what looked like explosive devices from a van near the embassy.

 

Another vehicle with bullet holes in the windshield was seen, as were pools of blood.

 

Journalist Salma Touma told CNN that there were "lots of police, ambulances and security guards" in the area surrounding the embassy.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/syria.embassy/index.html

I heard some guy on the news saying they expect alot of attacks this week around the world.

hmmm I wonder why.. :dozey:

I reckon the Mystery powers who use George Bush as a puppet are behind this, this clearly going to be used as pretext to invade Syria just for the oil.

 

You heard it here first.

 

(am i getting the hang of this conspiracy lark?)

^ lol pretty good... lol

We'd never invade Syria, we arent on bad enough terms with them.

all we need is 'justifiable' cause.. like we did with Iraq...... whats the difference?

We cant afford a war with them, they arent to far gone. We can still use political options on them. Its obvious we dont just invade countries we have stuff agaisnt. if that was true we'd be invading 15 other nations right now too. There is no need for an invasion of Syria it would only cause more damage.

I reckon the Mystery powers who use George Bush as a puppet are behind this, this clearly going to be used as pretext to invade Syria just for the oil.

 

You heard it here first.

 

(am i getting the hang of this conspiracy lark?)

 

Lol

 

*waits for gareth to post a link to PrisionPlanet with that conspiracy*

We cant afford a war with them' date=' they arent to far gone. We can still use political options on them. Its obvious we dont just invade countries we have stuff agaisnt. if that was true we'd be invading 15 other nations right now too. There is no need for an invasion of Syria it would only cause more damage.[/quote']

 

 

please name me the other 15 countries..... :laugh3: this should be interesting......

North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya. So maybe not 15 but alot.:)

Russia??? Venezuela???? Cuba???? yeah riiiiiiiiiiight!!!! :lol: :laugh3: you're killing me....... roflmao!

Russia??? Venezuela???? Cuba???? yeah riiiiiiiiiiight!!!! :lol: :laugh3: you're killing me....... roflmao!

 

 

All enemies of the US. if we went around invading to invade anyone we dont like or are agaisnt we would have invaded all those. They have each given us alot of reason to. THus proving we dont just invade people even if they give us a reason. Nice try Cam

 

Russia is allied with Iran and is helping them with the nuclear program and sells arms to our enemies

 

Venezuela is very anti america and is building alliances with Iran and nations like that

 

Cuba, well does anyone need to explain that one?!

All enemies of the US. if we went around invading to invade anyone we dont like or are agaisnt we would have invaded all those. They have each given us alot of reason to. THus proving we dont just invade people even if they give us a reason. Nice try Cam

 

Russia is allied with Iran and is helping them with the nuclear program and sells arms to our enemies

 

Venezuela is very anti america and is building alliances with Iran and nations like that

 

Cuba, well does anyone need to explain that one?!

 

 

::coughbullshitcough::

 

US forces will NEVER go into Sudan...... look at the state of the Darfur region.... there's actual genocide going on there... and have we done anything for the 'good of humanity' there?? Of course not.... why? Because there is no oil in Darfur.......

 

 

as for Cuba, Venezula, and Russia...... it won't ever happen! If anything, we'd probably make some sort of deal with Venezuela because of their abundance in oil... and yet, look at the people of that nation... suffering at the hands of their so called govt. same goes for Sudan, and Cuba.... but many will dispute the state of Cuba....

If America could do a deal with Venezula for oil, why not for Iraq?

 

Oh and last time America went into Africa in Somaila, it was bit of a disaster.

::coughbullshitcough::

 

US forces will NEVER go into Sudan...... look at the state of the Darfur region.... there's actual genocide going on there... and have we done anything for the 'good of humanity' there?? Of course not.... why? Because there is no oil in Darfur.......

 

 

as for Cuba, Venezula, and Russia...... it won't ever happen! If anything, we'd probably make some sort of deal with Venezuela because of their abundance in oil... and yet, look at the people of that nation... suffering at the hands of their so called govt. same goes for Sudan, and Cuba.... but many will dispute the state of Cuba....

 

I know, im not saying they ever will. I was showing you America does not invade every nation that gives them a reason to. and you tried to stump me and asked what nations and i named you a few. This discussion isnt about if America would invade.

its not the dicussion.. but it was a question..... and American wouldn't ever invade those countries... like I said before, there's no vested intrest in any of those that you named.

Exactly proving my point America does not just go invade everyone we dont like. That was my point all along! lol

when did I ever say we invaded because we didn't like them??? :lol:

Here's some of the US polices....from 2000 for the future century

 

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

 

• defend the American homeland;

• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in

critical regions;

• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

 

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary

allocations. In particular, the United States must:

 

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

 

RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.

 

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

 

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.

 

CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.

 

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.

 

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.

 

EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which

• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,

• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.

 

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

"DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

 

Or maybe just maybe we'd like to be protected incase someone launch's a nuke at us in the future? yeah i know crazy thought:rolleyes:

 

 

 

"CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control."

 

You reall suck at these conspiracy theories, we have the spaceships from roswell we already control space!

 

 

"INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."

 

Anyone with brains know as the years go by technology specialy military gets more expensive so we have to spend more money......Kind of how our defence budget in the early 1800's was like 2 million dollars as we age thing cost more money.

Thats actually a fair point from Gareth - Compared to Civil contracts millitary contracts are way more lucrative. I used to be in the Aeroplane business Ive heard.

 

Oh and if the A380 never works out as a success- Its got nothing to do with the us government. Just incase we hear conspircy theorys about that in the future.

finally.. a post with substance!!! carry on...