ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Moses said:
They don't need permission from the state if there are attacks originating from it and Syria are unable or unwilling to do something about it. Do you even international law, bro?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that because ISIS in Syria are attacking the Syrian government that it's legal for the US to fly in without permission and launch a bombing campaign despite being asked not to by the country they are bombing? Really? lol.

I suppose that means that because the are attacks originating from Ukraine targeting Ukrainian rebels that would make it nice and legal for Russia to fly in there and start bombing against the will of the Ukrainian government as that's the same thing? No, of course it doesn't.
 
RoboCod said:
So whilst you may bleat on with your pro-Russian/anti-West personal campaign (that no one outside of your world cares about) the point of legality is pretty much moot.
Click to expand...

I'm not pro-Russian, I'm unbiased, I don't think ANYONE should be blowing stuff up in Syria but Syrians, I just appear pro-Russian from an anti-Russian viewpoint.


RoboCod said:
In fact it’s absolutely ludicrous that you are going to attempt to bring up morality when the people the US are bombing are the people decapitating innocents on TV in the name of a god.
Click to expand...

So far this year US ally Saudi Arabia has decapitated twice as many "infidels" as ISIS, yet the US don't seem to care about that, funny eh?
 
RoboCod said:
Ok I'll bite. Whilst not strictly legal, the strikes are legitimate and justified....
Click to expand...

They are also technically legal: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/20...a-and-iraq-are-legal-under-international-law/

US-led airstrikes on Isis targets in Syria are not only justifiable from a moral and geostrategic perspective – on which there is near unanimous acceptance, given the grave threat Isis poses to the region, at the very least, as well as the international community – but are also legal and justified under international law.

US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power defended the US/Arab world attacks, noting “The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself.” She further states that the US has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to “eliminate the ongoing ISIL threat to Iraq”. Ambassador Power’s words were carefully chosen, as they essentially set the framework in which the airstrikes are allowed for under international law. It is particularly the last sentence in Power’s statement that warrants appreciation, as it is the defence of Iraq that triggers the right to use force against Isis targets in Syria, as this article will show.
Click to expand...
 
vincent1989 said:
Anyone think how incredibly 1984esque it all is?

I'm all for Russia taking out rebels. If there was a serious armed uprising in this country I'm sure it would result in similar reprisal from our government and our 'friends'

Having read the article on the DM which reports on the pro US West complaining that the Russians are destabilising the region...uh, that's exactly what you wanted....Oh oh wait, you mean they're not destabilising it the way you wanted?

It's all an absolute con.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the case initially. I have been following it from the start on various forums and it is well documented from independent sources.

The Syrian Arab Army and Police on day 1 opened fire killing hundreds of innocent, unarmed civilians who were protesting for greater political rights and for reform. There were mass marches throughout most major towns and cities and the Syrian Government panicked and sent in the army.

Quickly after the first few weeks, various civil groups, formed being men from local communities to start fighting back, and or targeting Govt forces.

This further developed into the FSA forming (defecting Syrian Army officers and soldiers who refused to open fire on unarmed crowds in the initial stages)

After the FSA 'period' you then had Syrian religious extremists groups forming and further extremist groups from neighboring countries, ISIS etc, which is then when Assad became 'legitimate'

You can also read about well respected and honored Air force Pilots defecting to neighboring counties in the initial days who refused to bomb indiscriminately on residential areas which were the Syrian Govt's punishment to the people out protesting.
 
FoxEye said:
Well they seem pretty upset. They accused Russia of prolonging the war by intervening on Assad's side. They don't want Russia to attack non-ISIS targets who are also opposed to Assad.

At least that's what they're saying in public. Whether their real intentions match their public statements is another matter.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that?
 
ubersonic said:
I'm not pro-Russian, I'm unbiased, I don't think ANYONE should be blowing stuff up in Syria but Syrians, I just appear pro-Russian from an anti-Russian viewpoint.




So far this year US ally Saudi Arabia has decapitated twice as many "infidels" as ISIS, yet the US don't seem to care about that, funny eh?
Click to expand...

You think Assad could have done the job?
 
scorza said:
It's amazing how everyone who is against Assad is now an Islamic terrorist - you wonder how anyone ever managed to visit Syria in the past. Even if I accepted that they all were terrorists it doesn't explain why Assad has given so much support to Islamic State and is continuing to do so. He and now Russia are basically acting as Islamic State's airforce.

These sorts of human rights atrocities - and lets be clear, they are atrocities and not mere abuses - only serve to strengthen the hand of Islamic State in the long run.
Click to expand...

The UN reported that rebels used Sarin gas attacks.

You want to comment on atrocities, why focus just on the regime? ISIS are no strangers to atrocities, and the FSA have committed atrocities too.

Like I said, it's a no-holds-barred fight to the death between religious nutters and a government backed against a well. Assad knows the west will have him executed in a show trial if he loses.
 
RoboCod said:
Where did you read that?
Click to expand...

It was on the news last night. A US official (who was it, can't remember) was talking about Russia's air strikes. They said if they want to attack ISIS that would be a positive move, but if they attack other factions that would only serve to prolong the war. Cameron called it a retrograde step.

It was a speech made by US officials, with Cameron chiming in to back his masters like he normally does.
 
scorza said:
They are also technically legal: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/20...a-and-iraq-are-legal-under-international-law/
Click to expand...

They are both "technically" legal and "technically" illegal depending on how you choose to interpret the law, because the interpretation of the law is open to abuse different conclusions can be drawn.

The US conclusion, is that the Syrian government has shown that it can't effectively battle ISIS itself, so that makes it legal for the US to do it for it.

That sounds pretty clear cut however another conclusion, is that the Syrian government is currently unable to effectively battle ISIS itself, because the US are arming/training insurgents fighting to destabilise the Syrian government.

It's a moot point as it's not like it's ever going to end up in an international court, but Stevie Wonder can see that the US are abusing the situation to fracture if not break the law.
 
FoxEye said:
The UN reported that rebels used Sarin gas attacks.

You want to comment on atrocities, why focus just on the regime? ISIS are no strangers to atrocities, and the FSA have committed atrocities too.

Like I said, it's a no-holds-barred fight to the death between religious nutters and a government backed against a well. Assad knows the west will have him executed in a show trial if he loses.
Click to expand...

Not really, an individual with a history of anti-NATO stances within the UN said that she'd heard testimony that it was the rebels who'd used Sarin. Nothing else ever came from this. The official UN report into the matter was pretty conclusive that the perpetrators of the chemical weapons attacks had access to the stockpiles of the Syrian military.

I'm aware that all sides are committing atrocities, but it's you who wants to support one of these sides.
 
Moses said:
No. It's operating in both countries. And it'd be ridiculous for Iraq and its allies to be able to fight ISIS, then as soon as they step over the border not be able to do anything as they then prepare to launch other attacks etc.
Click to expand...

So would you be fine with Russia/Iran/Syria striking ISIS positions in Iraq/Libya then?
 
Moses said:
How is it technically illegal?
Click to expand...

Because if the US weren't preventing Syria from being able to properly combat ISIS then they would have no cause to even claim legality for air strikes.

It's like putting a firebomb through somebodys letter box then saying it's legal to break down the door because there's a fire.
 
Moses said:
How are the US preventing Syria from being able to properly combat ISIS?
Click to expand...

By arming/training the rebels, if they hadn't done so they would have been crushed before ISIS arrived on the scene and the Syrian army would have crushed them too. They are still, arming/supporting the rebels right now, preventing Syria from fighting ISIS.


Moses said:
And you haven't answered the question. Can you show Iraq doesn't have a right of self-defence?
Click to expand...

No because I haven't said it doesn't, I agree it does, however why isn't Iraq attacking ISIS in Syria? Oh yeah, because they are busy losing to ISIS in Iraq, so why isn't the USA helping out there more instead?


Terminal_Boy said:
Utterly fine with that. ISIS are a cancer on humanity and needs to be excised ASAP.
Click to expand...

Cool, sadly the USA wouldn't be happy with it though :(
 
ubersonic said:
Yes, if it hadn't been for western intervention then the rebels would have been done with before ISIS arrived on the scene and a strong Syrian army would have been more than a match for them just as it was the rebels.
Click to expand...

So Assad, who could not quash a civilian uprising in his own nearby cities, could have swept aside a fanatical terrorist group littered with seasoned fighters and equipment? Out of interest, would you deem yourself to be well placed to make such analysis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom