US shoot down Syrian air force plane over ISIS held Syrian territory - who's side are the US on...?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

An American fighter jet shot down a Syrian warplane over the Isis-held province of Raqqa on Sunday as escalating tensions between rival forces threaten to draw the US into the wider conflict in Syria.

It was thought to be the first time the US-led coalition fighting Isis has shot down a Syrian jet since the war erupted six years ago, and it comes after several recent incidents in which the US has targeted regime forces and their allies in eastern Syria.

The US military said the downed Syrian plane was dropping bombs near a Syrian Kurdish militia that Washington was backing in the fight against Isis in Raqqa, the jihadi group’s de facto capital.

The downing of the Syrian jet came just hours before Iran launched ballistic missiles at suspected Isis targets in eastern Syria. The twin escalations by Washington and Tehran, which has already been active in supporting the Syrian regime, underscores the renewed risk of the civil war becoming a regional conflagration.

Moscow, which has intervened militarily to back the Syrian regime, condemned the US action, saying it flouted international law.

“What is this other than an act of aggression in violation of the norms of international law?” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, told reporters.

Syria’s conflict began in 2011 as a rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, but has since devolved into a multi-sided conflict that jihadi groups such as Isis exploited to seize territory. Russia and Iran back the regime, while the US, Turkey and Gulf Arab states have supported Syrian rebels.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards launched its surface-to-surface missiles against Isis in Syria’s east in an attack seen as retaliation for attacks this month by the jihadi group on the Islamic republic’s parliament and a shrine in Tehran.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, tweeted that “Iran’s missile capability protects its citizens in lawful self-defence and advances common global fight to eradicate Isis and extremist terror”.

https://www.ft.com/content/d2aba898-5467-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:18 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The US was a different country.

You just lost the debate ...

Really?

So you are saying there was no rebellion and sovereignty to the British?

Worst revisionist history going

You need to take a history course

This is why you lost the debate. This thread was perfectly civil until you stepped in with your know-it-all attitude.

It doesn't matter what anyone but the Russians think anyway. They consider that it was an illegal act and they will shoot down any American plane which they consider to be a threat or acting illegally. The Americans are keeping this war going.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:19 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Who am I conspiring with, and who am I trying to get banned? I suggest a new rule. As soon as you start telling people they don't know what they're talking about, you've lost the debate and should retire from the thread as it clearly shows that you have nothing useful to say.

Last chance or you get reported.
You are misdirecting and looking to have me punished, based off being punished recently by claiming I insulted you.
I suggest you grow up and stick to the points and stop acting like a child when wrong

Keep to the debate

Last chance for what? I broke no rules - you did though and got dumped in the basement. Grow up and start being more civil.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Leeds would still be part of the UK, and the US would have no business here.

Would it?
So if then they became independent like we saw with say Bosnia, which was part of former Yugoslavia, which the Serbs rejected then, the US and the west would have no business?

How about Kosovo, a disputed territory, that broke away from Serbia, which saw previous western intervention in the Kosovo war?

Anymore history lessons?

You see I can keep giving you history lessons all day long

If they declared themselves as a separate country which is recognised by the UN, yes. The Syrian rebels do not have a legitimate claim to the land they're fighting over.

Go and take some history lessons yourself. You certainly post all day long, but you don't have anything useful to say, and I have other things to do than pander to your ego.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really?

So you are saying there was no rebellion and sovereignty to the British?

Worst revisionist history going

You need to take a history course

This is why you lost the debate. This thread was perfectly civil until you stepped in with your know-it-all attitude.

It doesn't matter what anyone but the Russians think anyway. They consider that it was an illegal act and they will shoot down any American plane which they consider to be a threat or acting illegally. The Americans are keeping this war going.

Nothing to counter my point, just more sulking and tantrums

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Last chance or you get reported.
You are misdirecting and looking to have me punished, based off being punished recently by claiming I insulted you.
I suggest you grow up and stick to the points and stop acting like a child when wrong

Keep to the debate

Last chance for what? I broke no rules - you did though and got dumped in the basement. Grow up and start being more civil.

yes you did and glad to see you are learning, well done, I suggest you dont do it again

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Would it?
So if then they became independent like we saw with say Bosnia, which was part of former Yugoslavia, which the Serbs rejected then, the US and the west would have no business?

How about Kosovo, a disputed territory, that broke away from Serbia, which saw previous western intervention in the Kosovo war?

Anymore history lessons?

You see I can keep giving you history lessons all day long

If they declared themselves as a separate country which is recognised by the UN, yes. The Syrian rebels do not have a legitimate claim to the land they're fighting over.

Go and take some history lessons yourself. You certainly post all day long, but you don't have anything useful to say, and I have other things to do than pander to your ego.

It was not recognised until much later after the conflict with Kosovo and is still a disputed territory

So in every way you got schooled

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Last chance for what? I broke no rules - you did though and got dumped in the basement. Grow up and start being more civil.

yes you did and glad to see you are learning, well done, I suggest you dont do it again

No I didn't. I suggest you don't break the rules again - unless you want to get dumped in the basement again.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:27 pm

Didge, there is nothing you can teach anyone. You just like the sound of your own typing, and you disagree with anyone just to cause an argument. That's not debating.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, there is nothing you can teach anyone. You just like the sound of your own typing, and you disagree with anyone just to cause an argument. That's not debating.

i easily taught you a major lesson in history

You are the only one that had a hissy fit simple because I was factual over you not having a clue on this topic.

You then deliberately looked to start a fight by going off me being in the basement and looked silly

Now, you want to continue this fight and all i am going to do is now walk away after making you look inept on this topic

So enjoy

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:52 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Your argument to go rogue outside the UN, is essentially to invite anarchy on the international front.

What you are saying is, wherever we find the UN and it's provisions are inadequate, we abandon any and all international law, and invent our own.

The UN was created to introduce a degree of government into the international arena. Whenever we find a problem within the international sphere, the answer is to turn inward and discuss the issue, not to ignore the UN and each nation, individually, to invent its own answers (go rogue).

What you suggest is that we abandon international law whenever we find it lacking. I think that's the wrong solution.

1) That is your mistaken perception. As again the US in line with article 50 can defend its forces. Your issue issue is you clearly have not read the charter or the fact by nations are signatories. So again this is one of the 3 times armed action can be taken on foreign soil.

I have the UN Charter stored in my computer and refer to it all the time. It is an important tool in my work in international law, negotiation and mediation.

Thorin wrote:2) The Un is already unfit and why the US may well pull out of this body as it has ceased to stand for what it was created for. This would be the best way going forward and for other nations as they are being denied be able to protect those who are oppressed. As those who do oppress protect each other from any resolutions.

If you are Republican. Not the overwhelming majority of Americans...they are for the UN. But, what is your point? Again, you are just reiterating, abandon all law in the international front.

Thorin wrote:3) Not suggesting we abandon any law, show me anywhere that I have? I never have and you always do this Quill when you have little knowledge of international law. and you like Tommy can not show any law that I suggest to break. I have given the 3 provisions on where action can be used and has indeed been used.

Good question: you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action and your rejection that UN nations work in concert, and act only by resolution; 2) you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action on humanitarian incursions.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
I have the UN Charter stored in my computer. It is an important tool in my work in negotiation and mediation.

Thorin wrote:Excellent, post up article 50 then

If you are Republican. Not the overwhelming majority of Americans. But, what is your point? Again, you are just reiterating, abandon all law in the international front.

Thorin wrote:Misdirection and could care less about American politics on this.

Good question: you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action and your rejection that UN nations work in concert, and act only by resolution; 2) you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action on humanitarian incursions.

Not suggesting an abandonment of international law which really proves you do not know what international law is.
So how by leaving the UN, would the US not be binding to the UN Charter being that they are signatories?
You do realise that international laws are formed by treaties by signing nations, called treaties?

So it really gets boring when you make claims I have not said

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
I have the UN Charter stored in my computer. It is an important tool in my work in negotiation and mediation.

If you are Republican. Not the overwhelming majority of Americans. But, what is your point? Again, you are just reiterating, abandon all law in the international front.

Good question: you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action and your rejection that UN nations work in concert, and act only by resolution; 2) you have suggested abandonment of international law in your suggestion that nations take unilateral action on humanitarian incursions.

Not suggesting an abandonment of international law which really proves you do not know what international law is.
So how by leaving the UN, would the US not be binding to the UN Charter being that they are signatories?
You do realise that international laws are formed by treaties by signing nations, called treaties?

So it really gets boring when you make claims I have not said

Without the UN as an organization of enforcement, there really is no international law. All accords have related back to the UN since its inception. The Geneva Conventions go back to 1929, but they provide no infrastructure for enforcement of international law. The Hague Conventions go back to 1899, but again, they are just principles.

The United Nations was aimed at governing relations among nations, and providing procedures for combating aggression. Only the UN Charter provides a mechanism for enforcement.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Not suggesting an abandonment of international law which really proves you do not know what international law is.
So how by leaving the UN, would the US not be binding to the UN Charter being that they are signatories?
You do realise that international laws are formed by treaties by signing nations, called treaties?

So it really gets boring when you make claims I have not said

Without the UN as an organization of enforcement, there really is no international law. All accords have related back to the UN since its inception. The Geneva Conventions go back to 1929, but they provide no infrastructure for enforcement of international law. The Hague Conventions go back to 1899, but again, they are just principles.

The United Nations was aimed at governing relations among nations, and providing procedures for combating aggression. Only the UN Charter provides a mechanism for enforcement.

Nonsense.
It would be like with the UK leaving the EU, there would be negotiations on leaving.
As nobody has ever left the UN before
Its uncharted territory, so there is no reason the US would not keep to treaties with other nations

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:28 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, there is nothing you can teach anyone. You just like the sound of your own typing, and you disagree with anyone just to cause an argument. That's not debating.

i easily taught you a major lesson in history

You are the only one that had a hissy fit simple because I was factual over you not having a clue on this topic.

You then deliberately looked to start a fight by going off me being in the basement and looked silly

Now, you want to continue this fight and all i am going to do is now walk away after making you look inept on this topic

So enjoy

No you didn't - you just talked shite. You don't know much about history, and you have no analytical skills.

This is what you do. You pick a post at random, and then disagree with it just to be a nuisance. If I had said the Americans were justified, you would have taken the opposite stance. You know that, and I know that. You criticised an article for praising Muslims for helping with Grenfell, and then you started a thread about Grenfell - praising Muslims. It's what you do - anything to be able to have a go at someone.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Without the UN as an organization of enforcement, there really is no international law. All accords have related back to the UN since its inception. The Geneva Conventions go back to 1929, but they provide no infrastructure for enforcement of international law. The Hague Conventions go back to 1899, but again, they are just principles.

The United Nations was aimed at governing relations among nations, and providing procedures for combating aggression. Only the UN Charter provides a mechanism for enforcement.

Nonsense.
It would be like with the UK leaving the EU, there would be negotiations on leaving.
As nobody has ever left the UN before
Its uncharted territory, so there is no reason the US would not keep to treaties with other nations

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:33 pm

So does ISIS have a legitimate claim to parts of Syria just because it's controlling them?

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So does ISIS have a legitimate claim to parts of Syria just because it's controlling them?

Does anyone back their claim?

There is your answer

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:36 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Without the UN as an organization of enforcement, there really is no international law. All accords have related back to the UN since its inception. The Geneva Conventions go back to 1929, but they provide no infrastructure for enforcement of international law. The Hague Conventions go back to 1899, but again, they are just principles.

The United Nations was aimed at governing relations among nations, and providing procedures for combating aggression. Only the UN Charter provides a mechanism for enforcement.

Nonsense.
It would be like with the UK leaving the EU, there would be negotiations on leaving.
As nobody has ever left the UN before
Its uncharted territory, so there is no reason the US would not keep to treaties with other nations

Back to the subject. The US is on very tenuous grounds even being in Syria. Obama was brilliant in the way he deftly played both Congress, and the international scene. He used Congress' refusal to serve as a shield, while keeping the US in a low-profile position.

Trump does not have the chess moves that Obama had. Trump's party controls the Congress, and presumably he will be free to choose his own path. It will be interesting to see how long he will be able to hold his instinctive belligerence in check. He campaigned on keeping the US out of useless wars, but his personal inclination is inevitably one of confrontation, regardless of consequences.

Oh yes, and there's also Russia, whose ass it is Trump's inclination to kiss. Russia holds his balls in a tight grip, and has only to squeeze to get him to yelp. It's a complex game, and while Obama was worthy, Trump is not. Trump doesn't look two moves ahead. It's difficult to realize that our future is so much in the hands of chance.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Nonsense.
It would be like with the UK leaving the EU, there would be negotiations on leaving.
As nobody has ever left the UN before
Its uncharted territory, so there is no reason the US would not keep to treaties with other nations

Back to the subject. The US is on very tenuous grounds even being in Syria. Obama was brilliant in the way he deftly played both Congress, and the international scene. He used Congress' refusal to act as a shield, while keeping the US in a low-profile position.

Trump does not have the chess moves that Obama had. Trump's party controls the Congress, and presumably he will be free to choose his own path. It will be interesting to see how long he will be able to hold his instinctive belligerence in check. He campaigned on keeping the US out of useless wars, but his personal inclination is inevitably one of confrontation, regardless of consequences.

Oh yes, and there's also Russia, whose ass it is Trump's inclination to kiss. Russia holds his balls in a tight grip, and has only to squeeze to get him to yelp. It's a complex game, and while Obama was worthy, Trump is not. Trump doesn't look two moves ahead. It's difficult to realize that our future is so much in the hands of chance.

I have no issue with the above other than Obama was poor on foreign policy.
I think Trump is a global disaster waiting to happen Quill

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:38 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So does ISIS have a legitimate claim to parts of Syria just because it's controlling them?

Does anyone back their claim?

There is your answer

Oh, so you think that if America backs anyone's claim, it's all legitimate then. Russia backs Assad, so they're justified in shooting down American planes which threaten Assad's regime, yes?

In any case, there are claims that certain countries do indeed back ISIS.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:40 pm

Didge... US military action in Syria is illegal.

The Syrian govt dont want them in the country, they have no right to in Syrian airspace, they have no UN backed mandate to allow them there, and the US dont even have the permission from their own national congress to be doing anything in Syria which is first required as part of the US constitution...

What bit of this are you struggling to understand...?

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Does anyone back their claim?

There is your answer

Oh, so you think that if America backs anyone's claim, it's all legitimate then. Russia backs Assad, so they're justified in shooting down American planes which threaten Assad's regime, yes?

In any case, there are claims that certain countries do indeed back ISIS.

The above makes absolutely zero sens and who said only the US?

The Syrian rebels have 59 countries that back them

They control territory and are being supplied by all these nations

US troops are training some and if they come under threat,. the legally through article 50 of the UN charter they can take military action on foreign soil against that threat,

The Russians can bring down enemy fighters, including the US if they are a threat to Russian forces

The same applies. They cannot go actively seeking to take down US planes, if they do not present a threat.

I am helping you understand international law yet?

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:58 pm

Article 50 has to do with "preventive or enforcement measures against any state...taken by the Security Council..." It is Article 51 that deals with self-defense.

But self-defense is as to a state having sovereignty in the region. The US is not a sovereign state in the region, nor is it protecting a sovereign state.

It is only there as an adjunct to the Iraq war, at best, or it is taking unilateral action with no justification. The Responsibility to Protect is undertaken by member states of the UN, but it is not legally binding.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:Article 50 has to do with "preventive or enforcement measures against any state...taken by the Security Council..." It is Article 51 that deals with self-defense.

But self-defense is as to a state having sovereignty in the region. The US is not a sovereign state in the region, nor is it protecting a sovereign state.

It is only there as an adjunct to the Iraq war, at best, or it is taking unilateral action with no justification. The Responsibility to Protect is undertaken by member states of the UN, but it is not legally binding.

#

Hmm, i said 51 on the previous page

It does not have to be a sovereign state within the region.

Show me where it states in 51 they have to be the sovereign state?

Article 51
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:19 pm

DIDGE YOU ARE WRONG!!!

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:19 pm

Article 51 is speaking of "a Member of the United Nations." It's no secret that the UN Charter addresses states, as members, and when written, had no provision for movements, ethnicities and religions. That became a problem later with Rwanda and Kosovo...and of course, now with Syria.

But the US is a nation. And it is not located, nor does it have any unique interest in Syria. There is no legal formal vehicle for intervening on humanitarian grounds. Self-defense would imply having a lawful reason for being there. The US has none, save that it is chasing rebels in hot pursuit.

But it's not fighting rebels when it shoots down the host country's own aircraft. It's a conundrum.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:Article 51 is speaking of "a Member of the United Nations." It's no secret that the UN Charter addresses states, as members, and when written, had no provision for movements, ethnicities and religions. That became a problem later with Rwanda and Kosovo...and of course, now with Syria.

But the US is a nation. And it is not located, nor does it have any unique interest in Syria. There is no legal formal vehicle for intervening on humanitarian grounds. Self-defense would imply having a lawful reason for being there. The US has none, save that it is chasing rebels in hot pursuit.

But it's not fighting rebels when it shoots down the host country's own aircraft. It's a conundrum.

And both Syria and the US are signatories

It does have an interest in Syria, as its fighting ISIS who is also fighting Iraq.

Yes there is a legal formulae Quill, which I presented the link to you on the previous page

All of which does not matter, as the US can defend itself against threats

So it has a lawful reason, based on article 51

You have to shows its status with a base in Syria under the rebels is illegal

That you have failed to do, of which Syria and Russia have been well aware of the US presence for some time now.

Even then if you do that, which I very much doubt, the US can invoke this legal argument

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:42 pm

Thorin wrote:Yes there is a legal formulae Quill, which I presented the link to you on the previous page

No, that theory failed when it was pointed out that a legal justification for one conflict, does not carry over into creating justification for shooting down the host country's aircraft.

If I break into your house and you come after me, am I justified in shooting you in self-defense? It's not self-defense if I shouldn't be there in the first place. This is one of the reasons why Obama was such a chess master. He played the Republican Congress perfectly, as he shielded the US from involvement in yet another war.

Now you're going to see Republican blowhards fookin' up the ingenuous plan of Obama...saying he wasn't good on international affairs, when the truth is, they just didn't figure it out. And, of course, they were dupes of the plan, and let's face it, no one sees themselves when they are being played.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Yes there is a legal formulae Quill, which I presented the link to you on the previous page

No, that theory failed when it was pointed out that a legal justification for one conflict, does not carry over into creating justification for shooting down the host country's aircraft.

If I break into your house and you come after me, am I justified in shooting you in self-defense? It's not self-defense if you shouldn't be there in the first place. This is one of the reasons why Obama was such a chess master. He played the Republican Congress perfectly, as he shielded the US from involvement in yet another war.

Now you're going to see Republican blowhards fookin' up the ingenuous plan of Obama...saying he wasn't good on international affairs, when the truth is, they just didn't figure it out. And, of course, they were dupes of the plan, and let's face it, no one sees themselves when they are being played.

You never pointed out anything buddy.

But its not my house anymore, as that house is now with those who are the rebels
Just as we saw rebels in the war of Independence in the US
If you try to shoot me, then I have the right to shoot you in self defence
Unless you think the Us rebels had no right to fight for their independence and that they were illegally residing as squatters on British properties in the colonies?

You really never thought your argument through on breaking and entering, even more so the areas controlled by the rebels are areas where many of the rebels already live in Syria. Thus bringing security (us and allies) to help thwart a criminal landlord from kicking you out of your property, is very legal is it not Quill? Thus those security forces have every legal right to defend themselves and their clients.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:48 pm

The rebels don't want independence, they want to bring down the Assad Government altogether and take over Syria.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The rebels don't want independence, they want to bring down the Assad Government altogether and take over Syria.

They want Independence from Assad.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, that theory failed when it was pointed out that a legal justification for one conflict, does not carry over into creating justification for shooting down the host country's aircraft.

If I break into your house and you come after me, am I justified in shooting you in self-defense? It's not self-defense if you shouldn't be there in the first place. This is one of the reasons why Obama was such a chess master. He played the Republican Congress perfectly, as he shielded the US from involvement in yet another war.

Now you're going to see Republican blowhards fookin' up the ingenuous plan of Obama...saying he wasn't good on international affairs, when the truth is, they just didn't figure it out. And, of course, they were dupes of the plan, and let's face it, no one sees themselves when they are being played.

You never pointed out anything buddy.

But its not my house anymore, as that house is now with those who are the rebels
Just as we saw rebels in the war of Independence in the US
If you try to shoot me, then I have the right to shoot you in self defence
Unless you think the Us rebels had no right to fight for their independence and that they were illegally residing as squatters on British properties in the colonies?

The difference is, the US rebels were living on their own property and fighting for their own nation. The US has no parallel fight in Syria. They are just carrying on an already discredited war, and now find themselves attacking the nation into which the conflict has spilled.

Thorin wrote:You really never thought your argument through on breaking and entering, even more so the areas controlled by the rebels are areas where many of the rebels already live in Syria. Thus bringing security (us and allies) to help thwart a criminal landlord from kicking you out of your property, is very legal is it not Quill? Thus those security forces have every legal right to defend themselves

I thought it through enough, because it's very a simple and appropriate metaphor. The one thing you don't reckon with is, the US does not live in the Syrian house. The US is the one that doesn't belong there, if anyone. Even if I buy your reasoning that there are several claimants to the house, we are not one of them. We have no claim there and thus our claim of self-defense is nullified by the illegality of our presence there.

Even if we are in hot pursuit of the rebels, we don't have any right to attack the homeowner. Think of how dangerous your doctrine would be: Oh, I broke into your house because I was chasing someone...but while I'm here, I think you should feed your dog twice a day, not once, and move that sofa over next to the window! Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:09 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The rebels don't want independence, they want to bring down the Assad Government altogether and take over Syria.

They want Independence from Assad.

They want to get rid of him, which is not the same thing.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They want Independence from Assad.

They want to get rid of him, which is not the same thing.

I beg to differ. as what if there is a stalemate against Assad?

The next best thing will be to see Syria split into independent states

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:

The difference is, the US rebels were living on their own property and fighting for their own nation. The US has no parallel fight in Syria. They are just carrying on an already discredited war, and now find themselves attacking the nation into which the conflict has spilled.

Thorin wrote:You keep claimng they do not and the rebels disagree with your views. Your argument is just an opinion and not reason Quill

I thought it through enough, because it's very a simple and appropriate metaphor. The one thing you don't reckon with is, the US does not live in the Syrian house. The US is the one that doesn't belong there, if anyone. Even if I buy your reasoning that there are several claimants to the house, we are not one of them. We have no claim there and thus our claim of self-defense is nullified by the illegality of our presence there.

Thorin wrote:So you are saying that immigrants cannot come of foreign businesses in the form of security? Or to buy up property? Nope you never did think this through mate

Even if we are in hot pursuit of the rebels, we don't have any right to attack the homeowner. Think of how dangerous your doctrine would be: Oh, I broke into your house because I was chasing someone...but while I'm here, I think you should feed your dog twice a day, not once, and move that sofa over next to the window!

We are not attacking the home owner, we were in fact protecting the home owners, those of the rebels,
where they live. Think of what you are saying. You think the Government owns the private property of civilians who have rebelled against a dictator who does not allow for democracy. Who keeps murdering countless thousands of them. So again its Assad and ISIS trying to break into their houses to rape, murder and enslave them. Where the US and Allies is there to prevent this.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:37 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The difference is, the US rebels were living on their own property and fighting for their own nation. The US has no parallel fight in Syria. They are just carrying on an already discredited war, and now find themselves attacking the nation into which the conflict has spilled.

I thought it through enough, because it's very a simple and appropriate metaphor. The one thing you don't reckon with is, the US does not live in the Syrian house. The US is the one that doesn't belong there, if anyone. Even if I buy your reasoning that there are several claimants to the house, we are not one of them. We have no claim there and thus our claim of self-defense is nullified by the illegality of our presence there.

Even if we are in hot pursuit of the rebels, we don't have any right to attack the homeowner. Think of how dangerous your doctrine would be: Oh, I broke into your house because I was chasing someone...but while I'm here, I think you should feed your dog twice a day, not once, and move that sofa over next to the window!

We are not attacking the home owner, we were in fact protecting the home owners, those of the rebels,
where they live. Think of what you are saying. You think the Government owns the private property of civilians who have rebelled against a dictator who does no allow for democracy. Who keeps murdering countless thousands of them. So again its Assad and ISIS trying to break into their houses to rape, murder and enslave them. Where the US and Allies is there to prevent this.

Technically, when you attack Assad, there is no presumption that you are not attacking the homeowner. Assad is not a favorite of mine, but he is the last viable sovereign of Syria. You may be able to sort out equities when the smoke clears, but at the moment the US has no basis for being there.

The one thing we do know at present is, the US has no reason to be attacking anything in Syria...and Assad has more right there, that us. Ask the Russians...at least they are siding with the presumptive sovereign government, and conforming to the system the way the UN set it up.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:44 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They want to get rid of him, which is not the same thing.

I beg to differ. as what if there is a stalemate against Assad?

The next best thing will be to see Syria split into independent states

On what grounds? That a bunch of rebels don't like Assad? Who exactly do they speak for, other than themselves?

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

We are not attacking the home owner, we were in fact protecting the home owners, those of the rebels,
where they live. Think of what you are saying. You think the Government owns the private property of civilians who have rebelled against a dictator who does no allow for democracy. Who keeps murdering countless thousands of them. So again its Assad and ISIS trying to break into their houses to rape, murder and enslave them. Where the US and Allies is there to prevent this.

Technically, when you attack Assad, there is no presumption that you are not attacking the homeowner. Assad is not a favorite of mine, but he is the last viable sovereign of Syria. You may be able to sort out equities when the smoke clears, but at the moment the US has no basis for being there.

The one thing we do know at present is, the US has no reason to be attacking anything in Syria...and Assad has more right there, that us. Ask the Russians...at least they are siding with the presumptive sovereign government, and conforming to the system the way the UN set it up.

Incorrect, as he attacked the positions of the US where they are protecting the homeowners. Is he the viable sovereign, as he has obtained power through unlawful means. The US was not attacking anyone, when they protected their troops. That is self defensive Quill. The only argument you have is on his retaliation to the airfield. From where the Assad planes used chemical weapons on civilians. Even then you would be saying its wrong to take out those committing war crimes

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I beg to differ. as what if there is a stalemate against Assad?

The next best thing will be to see Syria split into independent states

On what grounds? That a bunch of rebels don't like Assad? Who exactly do they speak for, other than themselves?

Democracy.
Human rights.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

On what grounds? That a bunch of rebels don't like Assad? Who exactly do they speak for, other than themselves?

democracy

It wouldn't work. I doubt very much that it could split along clean lines, and you'd have a Yugoslavia-type situation all over again. Who is going to arrange a referendum anyway?

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

democracy

It wouldn't work. I doubt very much that it could split along clean lines, and you'd have a Yugoslavia-type situation all over again. Who is going to arrange a referendum anyway?

Well so far there is no end in sight Rags.
It already is a Yugoslavia situation again. we have the Kurds, Yazidi's, druze the Iraqis, Iranians, Hezbollah from Lebanon, ISIS, the US rebels etc

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:54 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It wouldn't work. I doubt very much that it could split along clean lines, and you'd have a Yugoslavia-type situation all over again. Who is going to arrange a referendum anyway?

Well so far there is no end in sight Rags.
It already is a Yugoslavia situation again. we have the Kurds, Yazidi's, druze the Iraqis, Iranians, Hezbollah from Lebanon, ISIS, the US rebels etc

There's no end in sight because the Americans keep getting involved and they keep backing the rebels. It's not a situation like Yugoslavia - Yugoslavia was made up of different distinct states. The problem was that different ethnic groups lived in those states, and when it all split up they didn't necessarily want to be in a separate country to those they identified with.

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Well so far there is no end in sight Rags.
It already is a Yugoslavia situation again. we have the Kurds, Yazidi's, druze the Iraqis, Iranians, Hezbollah from Lebanon, ISIS, the US rebels etc

There's no end in sight because the Americans keep getting involved and they keep backing the rebels. It's not a situation like Yugoslavia - Yugoslavia was made up of different distinct states. The problem was that different ethnic groups lived in those states, and when it all split up they didn't necessarily want to be in a separate country to those they identified with.

Nothing to do with US involvement, as it was going on for two years before they did get involved.
Its completely like Yugoslavia with surrounding peoples involved, with genocide going on.
At the end of the day ISIS are propped up Qatar, Russia is propping up Assad and the rebels being backed by the US and countless other nations are small in comparison. There is other Islamic groups also fighting assad and fighting the US rebels and ISIS also.

Laters

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:02 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Article 51 is speaking of "a Member of the United Nations." It's no secret that the UN Charter addresses states, as members, and when written, had no provision for movements, ethnicities and religions. That became a problem later with Rwanda and Kosovo...and of course, now with Syria.

But the US is a nation. And it is not located, nor does it have any unique interest in Syria. There is no legal formal vehicle for intervening on humanitarian grounds. Self-defense would imply having a lawful reason for being there. The US has none, save that it is chasing rebels in hot pursuit.

But it's not fighting rebels when it shoots down the host country's own aircraft. It's a conundrum.

And both Syria and the US are signatories

It does have an interest in Syria, as its fighting ISIS who is also fighting Iraq.

Yes there is a legal formulae Quill, which I presented the link to you on the previous page

All of which does not matter, as the US can defend itself against threats

So it has a lawful reason, based on article 51

You have to shows its status with a base in Syria under the rebels is illegal

That you have failed to do, of which Syria and Russia have been well aware of the US presence for some time now.

Even then if you do that, which I very much doubt, the US can invoke this legal argument

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

The Syrian govt forces are targeting armed militias who are engaging in hostile military action against them...

Firsty... the US have no business being there...

Secondly... they have no business attacking a Syrian govt plane that is targeting hostile armed militias who are engaging in hostile armed military action against their forces...!!!

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:05 pm

And Tommy yet again repeats himself, with nothing to back up his opinions.

The US and the British and all its allies have every right to fight against those who commit crimes against humanity.

They acted in defense against a hostile action of the Syrian regime.

They can under article 51 of the Un charter

Its time you understand that legally they can.

Now please again have the last word, as you have not proven anything other than your lack of understanding of international law

Like I say, you are done here

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The rebels don't want independence, they want to bring down the Assad Government altogether and take over Syria.

They want Independence from Assad.

Most of the Syrian people are against these islamists who want to impose their sharia dictatorship, and they back the Syrian govt and the secular freedom it provides!

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They want Independence from Assad.

Most of the Syrian people are against these islamists who want to impose their sharia dictatorship, and they back the Syrian govt and the secular freedom it provides!

So you are claiming the Free Syrian army or the Syrian Democratic Forces is Islamist's, even though it is made up of Muslims, Christians, Druze and Kurds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces

This is why I do not take you seriously on such topics

by Guest Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:45 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Technically, when you attack Assad, there is no presumption that you are not attacking the homeowner. Assad is not a favorite of mine, but he is the last viable sovereign of Syria. You may be able to sort out equities when the smoke clears, but at the moment the US has no basis for being there.

The one thing we do know at present is, the US has no reason to be attacking anything in Syria...and Assad has more right there, that us. Ask the Russians...at least they are siding with the presumptive sovereign government, and conforming to the system the way the UN set it up.

Incorrect, as he attacked the positions of the US where they are protecting the homeowners. Is he the viable sovereign, as he has obtained power through unlawful means. The US was not attacking anyone, when they protected their troops. That is self defensive Quill. The only argument you have is on his retaliation to the airfield. From where the Assad planes used chemical weapons on civilians. Even then you would be saying its wrong to take out those committing war crimes

Now, as I am done with Tommys repeated circular arguments.

Lets get back to the interesting discussion with Quill

Catch up tomorrow

Night everyone

by Original Quill Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:48 am

Thorin wrote:And Tommy yet again repeats himself, with nothing to back up his opinions.

The US and the British and all its allies have every right to fight against those who commit crimes against humanity.

They acted in defense against a hostile action of the Syrian regime.

They can under article 51 of the Un charter

Well, I have the last word as we are much later that GMT.

I agree that the US, UK and allies can take action for humanitarian purposes under the UN Charter. But only after a resolution has been argued and past. No nation can just wing it, even if it is claiming humanitarian purposes.

There must be a deliberation and a vote. Otherwise they are just off on a lark--maybe with justification--but no demonstrated difference from a simple invasion.

G'nite.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:06 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no end in sight because the Americans keep getting involved and they keep backing the rebels. It's not a situation like Yugoslavia - Yugoslavia was made up of different distinct states. The problem was that different ethnic groups lived in those states, and when it all split up they didn't necessarily want to be in a separate country to those they identified with.

Nothing to do with US involvement, as it was going on for two years before they did get involved.
Its completely like Yugoslavia with surrounding peoples involved, with genocide going on.
At the end of the day ISIS are propped up Qatar, Russia is propping up Assad and the rebels being backed by the US and countless other nations are small in comparison. There is other Islamic groups also fighting assad and fighting the US rebels and ISIS also.

Laters

The Russians weren't involved at first either. The US is keeping it going by countering the effects of the Russian involvement. They need to back off and let the situation be resolved.

It's not like Yugoslavia at the moment. We are not talking about genocide, we are talking about the possibility of partition. If Syria was partitioned, it would be like the Yugoslav wars, and then there would be more trouble.

by Sponsored content