Israel targets Iranian troops in Damascus, Syria.

[QuebecOverCanada]

This does not look good for Iran, at all. But not only, as Syria is protected by a web of rogue regimes on the Planet. Damascus is protected by Assad, but also by Iran... but also Russia. And the latter one has anti air missile batteries in the region supposed to protect from air attacks from Israel and its western allies. These batteries are touted by Russia as another breakthrough in technological advancement of Russia's Army.

These batteries either didn't work, or weren't triggered by the Russians. Israel and the West have militarily wise a huge technological advantage, on display as we're speaking. It's a great thing for us, and some kind of a message to Putin and Xi Jinping.

Putin, Iran, China denounced America a few minutes after a missile test ordered by the US Army.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/1165367688983695360

 

 

[QuebecOverCanada]

#BREAKING: Israeli Defence Forces confirm they have conducted a military operation involving airstrikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force positions south of Damascus. Says the Iranians there were preparing to launch an attack on northern Israel using armed drones

[Dougie93]

Relatively minor operation by the IDF, they are striking the Iran to Hezzbollah lines of communications all the time /shrugs

I would say stop worrying about the Zionists and pay attention to your own national security as the corrupt Canadian elites sell you down the river to Beijing.

 

[GostHacked]

Why is Israel striking in Syria?  That's gotta be an act of aggression on Israel's part.  Which Syria would have every right to retaliate.

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Why is Israel striking in Syria?  That's gotta be an act of aggression on Israel's part.  Which Syria would have every right to retaliate.

The Israelis strike the lines of communication between Iran and Hezbollah, both of which are in violation of international law, Israel need only invoke UN Article 51 to strike non Syrian forces in Syria which Syria is not preventing from striking Israel therein, so they have all the legal justification they need, in terms of Syria striking back on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah, I would say Syria doesn't want to get its ass handed to it on their behalf,  so just leaves Iran and Hezbollah to the Israelis to deal with, since the Syrians aren't really allies of Iran nor Hezbollah anyways.

In broad strokes, if Syria either allows or fails to prevent Iran from using Syria as a supply line to Hezbollah in order to attack Israel, the laws of armed conflict, first and foremost the Hague Conventions,  say that Syria is not living up to its own sovereignty by controlling its own territory, at which point the Israelis are within their rights under the law to do it for them.

Aggression by definition is only violation of the laws of armed conflict, UN Article 51 allows for preempting aggressors massing against you, Hezbollah has no standing, Iran is in violation, so by the law they are the aggressors, Israel is defending itself.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

19 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Israelis strike the lines of communication between Iran and Hezbollah, both of which are in violation of international law, Israel need only invoke UN Article 51 to strike non Syrian forces in Syria which Syria is not preventing from striking Israel therein, so they have all the legal justification they need, in terms of Syria striking back on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah, I would say Syria doesn't want to get its ass handed to it on their behalf,  so just leaves Iran and Hezbollah to the Israelis to deal with, since the Syrians aren't really allies of Iran nor Hezbollah anyways.

In broad strokes, if Syria either allows or fails to prevent Iran from using Syria as a supply line to Hezbollah in order to attack Israel, the laws of armed conflict, first and foremost the Hague Conventions,  say that Syria is not living up to its own sovereignty by controlling its own territory, at which point the Israelis are within their rights under the law to do it for them.

Aggression by definition is only violation of the laws of armed conflict, UN Article 51 allows for preempting aggressors massing against you, Hezbollah has no standing, Iran is in violation, so by the law they are the aggressors, Israel is defending itself.

Iran is an ally of Syria, why would they NOT be in Syria?

At this point, I would say the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all guilty of war crimes.  Saudi Arabia and the USA supported the rebels which among them were Al-Queda and ISIS. 

18 years later,  still in Afghanistan

How's Iraq doing these days?

9 years later and Assad is still in powere

Fail after fail after fail.

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Iran is an ally of Syria, why would they NOT be in Syria?

At this point, I would say the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all guilty of war crimes.  Saudi Arabia and the USA supported the rebels which among them were Al-Queda and ISIS. 

18 years later,  still in Afghanistan

How's Iraq doing these days?

9 years later and Assad is still in powere

Fail after fail after fail.

Iran has no formal alliances with Syria, Iran has a proxy in South Lebanon called Hezbollah, they are simply using Syria as a line of communication.

The Syrians didn't invite them in. The Syrians are otherwise occupied with an internal uprising.

The coalition led by Assad in Damascus is its own thing, they are not friends with Iran.

Assad is not seeking Iran's protection, Assad is seeking the protection of the Russians.  The Russians are not allies of Iran neither, Iran and Russia are adversaries.

Because Syria is a chaotic war zone however, the Syrians are not in control, so Iran and Hezbollah can exploit the chaos to ignore Damascus.

Israel is not trying to depose Assad, they don't like Assad, but he's the devil they know, so Israel is not the ones trying to overthrow him.

All Israel is concerned with, it Hezbollah backed by Iran, so that is all they strike in Syria, they don't strike Assad's forces unless they fire at the Israelis first.

Which they don't, because Assad doesn't want a fight with Isreal right now, he's got bigger problems to deal with,

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Iran has no formal alliances with Syria, Iran has a proxy in South Lebanon called Hezbollah, they are simply using Syria as a line of communication, the Syrians didn't invite them in.

The coalition led by Assad in Damascus is its own thing, they are not friends with Iran, Assad is not seeking Iran's protect,Assad is seeking the protection of the Russians.

Because Syria is a chaotic war zone however, the Syrians are not in control, so Iran and Hezbollah can exploit the chaos to ignore Damascus.

Israel is not trying to depose Assad, they don't like Assad, but he's the devil they know, so Israel is not the ones trying to overthrow him.

All Israel is concerned with, it Hezbollah backed by Iran, so that is all they strike in Syria, they don't strike Assad's forces unless they fire at the Israelis first.

Which they don't, because Assad doesn't want a fight with Isreal right now, he's got bigger problems to deal with,

How did Syria become a war zone? Hint.. it was not because of Assad. If it was about him, he'd be gone already.

[Dougie93]

Just now, GostHacked said:

How did Syria become a war zone? Hint.. it was not because of Assad. If it was about him, he'd be gone already.

Not the case.  It was about Assad. 

There is a ruling elite in Syria, they are called Alawites.

The Alawites rule over a Sunni majority, with an Iron fist. 

The Sunni's started to resist in the so called Arab Spring.

Assad cracked down too hard, and incited an uprising against himself.

He's not gone already, because Vladimir Putin came to save him.

The Assad forces were on the brink of collapse, until the Russians air force started bombing the insurgents for them. 

[Shady]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Iran is an ally of Syria, why would they NOT be in Syria?

At this point, I would say the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all guilty of war crimes.  Saudi Arabia and the USA supported the rebels which among them were Al-Queda and ISIS. 

18 years later,  still in Afghanistan

How's Iraq doing these days?

9 years later and Assad is still in powere

Fail after fail after fail.

Iran and Syria are also guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Btw, Iraq is doing fairly well these days, now that Islamic fundamentalist are finally leaving them alone.

 

People who love life and music' - dance parties return to Baghdad

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-culture-riot-gear/people-who-love-life-and-music-dance-parties-return-to-baghdad-idUSKCN1V80CF

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Not the case.  It was about Assad. 

If it was, it's no longer about him.  Fail

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

There is a ruling elite in Syria, they are called Alawites.

The Alawites rule over a Sunni majority, with an Iron fist. 

The Sunni's started to resist in the so called Arab Spring.

Assad cracked down too hard, and incited an uprising against himself.

He's not gone already, because Vladimir Putin came to save him.

The Assad forces were on the brink of collapse, until the Russians air force started bombing the insurgents for them. 

So Russia came to the aid of one of it's allies. Surprise surprise.

I wonder why the Arab Spring did not hit Saudi Arabia.

[GostHacked]

14 minutes ago, Shady said:

Iran and Syria are also guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Btw, Iraq is doing fairly well these days, now that Islamic fundamentalist are finally leaving them alone.

If they are guilty war crimes, so are the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel,  ect ect ect.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If it was, it's no longer about him.  Fail

So Russia came to the aid of one of it's allies. Surprise surprise.

I wonder why the Arab Spring did not hit Saudi Arabia.

Russia came to secure it's naval base in the Mediterranean, that's all they care about, if there was another government in Damascus which secured the naval base, the Russians would not hesitate to throw Assad under the bus.

The Arab Spring has come to Saudi Arabia, they have insurrection in the streets right now, they are cracking down just as if not more brutally than Assad did, the Sunnis are simply the majority in Saudi Arabia, so the uprising against them is not widespread,they are cracking down on the Shia minority.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If they are guilty war crimes, so are the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel,  ect ect ect.

War crimes are stipulated by very specific laws, say who has committed what crime exactly, otherwise you are talking out of your ass by default.

[GostHacked]

28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

War crimes are stipulated by very specific laws, say who has committed what crime exactly, otherwise you are talking out of your ass by default.

Those laws seem to be arbitrary and are ignored when convenient.

War crimes committed by the USA,  supporting terrorism against another nation by supplying 'rebels' and housing them out of Turkey while the USA trains and arms these terrorist rebel groups.  When Assad allegedly bombed certain areas,  the USA spend a few million in cruise missiles into Syria. Nothing like showing that bombing people is not good by bombing more people.

Again I refer to the other Syrian thread where this has been discussed at length, which backs up everything I have said.

30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

The Arab Spring has come to Saudi Arabia, they have insurrection in the streets right now, they are cracking down just as if not more brutally than Assad did, the Sunnis are simply the majority in Saudi Arabia, so the uprising against them is not widespread,they are cracking down on the Shia minority.

Geeze we should be invading Saudi Arabia since they treat some people the say way Assad does.  But we won't be going to war Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Those laws seem to be arbitrary and are ignored when convenient.

War crimes committed by the USA,  supporting terrorism against another nation by supplying 'rebels' and housing them out of Turkey while the USA trains and arms these terrorist rebel groups.  When Assad allegedly bombed certain areas,  the USA spend a few million in cruise missiles into Syria. Nothing like showing that bombing people is not good by bombing more people.

Again I refer to the other Syrian thread where this has been discussed at length, which backs up everything I have said.

Geeze we should be invading Saudi Arabia since they treat some people the say way Assad does.  But we won't be going to war Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

Name the law which the Americans are in violation of, if you can't name the statute, then you are talking shit by default.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Name the law which the Americans are in violation of, if you can't name the statute, then you are talking shit by default.

Which law do you want me to point out? A USA law or a UN law?

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Which law do you want me to point out? A USA law or a UN law?

Whichever law you are claiming the Americans are in violation of,  if for war crimes that would international law and the laws of armed conflict.  Hague, Geneva, UN Charter, whichever.

[GostHacked]

35 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Whichever law you are claiming the Americans are in violation of,  if for war crimes that would international law and the laws of armed conflict.  Hague, Geneva, UN Charter, whichever.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/13/clear-violation-domestic-and-international-law-trump-bombs-syria#

Quote

"This military action is illegal," declared Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, after the U.S.-backed assault on Syria was announced. 

"In the face of constitutional law barring hostile use of force without congressional authorization, and international law forbidding unilateral use of force except in self-defense, President Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country that has not attacked us — and without any authorization from Congress," Shamsi said. "Doing so violates some of the most important legal constraints on the use of force."

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif) decried Trump's decision, saying the "strikes against the Syrian regime – without congressional input or authorization – shows a contempt for the U.S Constitution and is without legal justification."

But just like how the USA used the term 'enemy combatant' to circumnavigate law ...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/01/trump-administration-explains-legal-basis-syrian-missile-strikes/664439002/

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Trump's missile strikes on Syria in April didn't require congressional approval in part because the the hostilities did "not rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense," the Justice Department says in a new opinion justifying the strikes.

The 22-page memo from the Office of Legal Counsel says the president acted within his legal authority as commander-in-chief to protect vital national interests — stopping the spread of chemical weapons and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. 

But congressional critics of that presidential power said it was "ludicrous" and "alarming" for the president to redefine war to get around Congress. 

"That's nonsense," said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. "Is there any doubt that America would view a foreign nation firing missiles at targets on American soil as an act of war?"

What are the USA's national interests in Syria? I'd like someone to actually define that accurately.

[Dougie93]

That's a bunch of political rhetoric, you're just trying to muddy the waters because you can't seem to name which laws are being violated, because apparently you are full of shit.

Show the statute under Hague, Geneva, or the UN Charter which is being violated, don't put up a wall of text as a smokescreen, just name which law is being broken.

The American Congress isn't the arbiter of international law, and they don't have authority over the military other than funding.

Since they are funding whatever America is doing in Syria, they would be complicit in whatever crimes it is you are claiming as war crimes.

Just name the law,  what war crime, specifically?

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't try to shine us on.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

That's a bunch of political rhetoric, you're just trying to muddy the waters because you can't seem to name which laws are being violated, because apparently you are full of shit.

Show the statute under Hague, Geneva, or the UN Charter which is being violated, don't put up a wall of text as a smokescreen, just post name which law is being broken.

I did not invent the term 'illegal combatant'.

Trump went to war without congressional approval.  War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/War-Powers-Act

Quote

The act sought to restrain the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

Article 2 , points 3 and 4.

Quote

3- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4 - All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

[Dougie93]

None of that is a war crime.

War crimes are crimes under international law, specifically the laws of armed conflict.

Apparently you do not know what a war crime is.

International law does assert that ISIS are unlawful combatants, the Americans didn't invent that.

That is a law under the Hague Convention, which says ISIS are war criminals and so America can go after them, under UN Article 51, to include in Syria if Syria is either unable or unwilling to stop them.

So in fact America is enforcing international law, not breaking it.

[Dougie93]

In order to be protected by the laws of armed conflict, you must follow them.

The Hague Convention stipulates that in order to be a lawful or privileged combatant, you must fight for a sovereign state and be an identifiable and so uniformed combatant under lawful chain of command.

Terrorists are the opposite of that, so they have no standing and are not privileged with the protection of the Hague Convention.

UN Article 51 is the right to self defense, no other law can override that.

It is Syria's responsibility to prevent terrorists from attacking other countries from inside Syria.

If they don't, or they can't, then America is fully within the law to go in and do it for them, Article 51 self defense against unlawful combatants in a functionally ungoverned territory.

Same legal regime Israel can and does invoke;  to go after the Quds Force and Hezbollah operating lawlessly in Syrian territory as well.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

So what self defense argument can you make in regards of the USA attacking Syria?

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

So what self defense argument can you make in regards of the USA attacking Syria?

The law written by Canada under Paul Martin, Assad is mass murdering his own people without restraint, that is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, at which point International law demands that someone intervene to stop him, under a UN charter law called Responsibility to Protect. 

As a Permanent Five Veto Member of the United Nations Security Council, the Americans can enforce international law if others decline to.

Not that I would recommend they do that, but the tactics used by Assad against his own people give them the mandate if they need it

Assad does not follow the law, so he is not protected by it, that's how international law works, the Assad regime are the war criminals, that exposes them to all sorts of intervention, by any who have the will and means.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93