Israel targets Iranian troops in Damascus, Syria.

[Dougie93]

I would not have recommended that Canada write that law the way Canada did neither, because the mandate is far too broad, but that's the Liberals for you.

Too eager to virtue signal, not enough concern for the unintended consequences.

Paul Martin pushed for that law and used his UN connections to get it passed, because his rival Chretien failed to Intervene in the Rwandan genocide, so Paul Martin wanted to signal that he was more virtuous.

But in that case Chretien had a point, because of the mistake Mulroney made charging into Somalia under UNOSOM I, which went awry because the mandate was too broad and so it mission creeped from an humanitarian intervention into a war.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

36 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The law written by Canada under Paul Martin.....

Wait wait wait .. stop right there. 

I'll have to ask again.

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

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Wait wait wait .. stop right there. 

I'll have to ask again.

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

Doesn't have to be self defense in that case, because Assad is in violation of Geneva against his own people, indiscriminate killing of non combatants, the Canadian Law R2P not only gives a right for intervention against Assad by any who have the will in means, the way Canada wrote the law, it actually demands intervention, requires it.

Again, the law was written for the Rwandan genocide, the Interhamwe massacring the Tutsis, so the Canadian law not only empowers world policing, it states that countries have to intervene if they can.

The Canadian Do Gooders wrote a law which practically gives Team America World Police carte blanche as soon as Geneva is being flagrantly violated by somebody like Assad mass murdering his own people indiscriminately.

Canadian R2P demands that the World Police intervene in defense of anybody who is being mass murdered indiscriminately,  which is a recklessly broad mandate bound to mission creep into wars all over the place, but that's the law, and it was passed.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Dougie93

[GostHacked]

Well you are going on about Canada, and I referred to the USA and the notion self defense.

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Well you are going on about Canada, and I referred to the USA and the notion self defense.

Because all you want to do is rail against the Americans apparently and accuse them of "war crimes" when a crime is violating a law, but you don't even know what the law says, so you're talking shit by default. /shrugs

 

[GostHacked]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Because all you want to do is rail against the Americans apparently and accuse them of "war crimes" when a crime is violating a law, but you don't even know what the law says, so you're talking shit by default. /shrugs

 

I asked specific questions and got non-related answers. I'll move on.

[Yzermandius19]

15 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I asked specific questions and got non-related answers. I'll move on.

You're specific question has nothing to do with war crimes, which has been explained to you, so yeah, you'd best move on, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Your blatant attempt to move the goalposts is noted.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

International law is capricious and written by hegemons for hegemons, but that's the law.

It's not to say don't criticize their actions, but if you invoke the law, then the law is the law.

The law is an ass?  Okay, don't invoke it then.

You don't have to make up false charges of "war crimes!" to say it is not prudent nor effective for the Americans to be in Syria.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Dougie93

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/26/2019 at 12:30 PM, Dougie93 said:

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. 

Assad’s sectarianism is tempered by Ba’athist ideology and Arab nationalism. The Alawite nature of the regime was good for business, more like the Italian Mafia (or Stalin’s fondness for non-Russians) than the purist theocracies of Iran or KSA.  An ophthalmologist trained in London, he married a British-born Sunni woman. Many of his ministers were Sunni. The goal was always retention of power. Facing a mainly Sunni opposition, he targeted secular moderates first and made this conflict about religion for tactical reasons. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Assad’s sectarianism is tempered by Ba’athist ideology and Arab nationalism. The Allawite nature of the regime was good for business, more like the Italian Mafia than the purist theocracies of Iran or KSA.  An ophthalmologist trained in London, he married a British-born Sunni woman. Many of his ministers were Sunni. The goal was always retention of power. Facing a mainly Sunni opposition, he targeted secular moderates first and made this conflict about religion for his own ends. 

Indeed, no argument here, the Alawis could not rule without a coalition, to include Sunnis who benefited from the Baathist Pan Arab Nationalist regime.

And for the most the Sunni majority went along with it, there was an uprising before which Assads father put down, but for the most part the fear of the Israelis and the Americans kept people rallying around Damascus.

When the Arab Spring came, I don't think the Sunnis thought the regime would crack down quite so hard, but Damascus panicked and went beyond the pale.

Once the uprising was in full swing however, there was no turning back, it became kill or be killed, Assad drove them backs against the wall.

[GostHacked]

Interesting that only select nations were affected by the 'Arab Spring'.

[Shady]

On 8/26/2019 at 4:44 PM, GostHacked said:

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

It's true that president's have generally ignored the war powers act, several times over the last 50 years or so.  But that's something congress needs to deal with.  But it doesn't have anything to do with war criminality.

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Shady said:

It's true that president's have generally ignored the war powers act, several times over the last 50 years or so.  But that's something congress needs to deal with.  But it doesn't have anything to do with war criminality.

Since the war was not approved, that would be a crime in the USA, and then going to war with a nation based on fasle information is also a war crime. Assisting 'rebels' to take down Assad is a war crime.

Consider Syria assisting dissidents in the USA. What do you think the outcome would be? What would the USA say about it?

[Shady]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Since the war was not approved, that would be a crime in the USA, and then going to war with a nation based on fasle information is also a war crime. Assisting 'rebels' to take down Assad is a war crime.

Consider Syria assisting dissidents in the USA. What do you think the outcome would be? What would the USA say about it?

No, not necessarily.  I don't believe there's any actual criminal statute.  Regardless, war crimes are specific and are in a separate category than felony crimes etc.  What are you relying on to assert that assisting is a war crime?  What false information?

They'd probably be against it.  But I'm not sure it would be a crime.  It would definitely be an act of war I'm guessing.

[Argus]

On 8/26/2019 at 1:30 PM, GostHacked said:

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

Why are you so desperate to protect Assad? Are you a Syrian national or something? Or is it just that you hate the West and those seen as its proxies more?

[Argus]

On 8/28/2019 at 11:06 AM, GostHacked said:

Interesting that only select nations were affected by the 'Arab Spring'.

They all were. Some were able to resist it. Are you thinking the CIA were determine to unseat the government of ... Tunisia?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Argus

[marcus]

On 8/24/2019 at 2:20 PM, QuebecOverCanada said:

But not only, as Syria is protected by a web of rogue regimes on the Planet.

Syria is not protected by Israel.

Unless you are talking about the ISIS backed groups in Syria who are supported by Israel.

Edited September 4, 2019 by marcus

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, marcus said:

Syria is not protected by Israel.

Unless you are talking about the ISIS backed groups in Syria who are supported by Israel.

PSSST, I think he was talking about Russia , Iran, I know you got to fill that quota about blaming Israel for everything....

Maybe you can provide a source that ISIS was supported by Israel....

[Dougie93]

The Russians are simply protecting their foothold south of the Bosporus in the Eastern Med, the naval dock at Tartus and supporting airfield at Latakia

Cold War Two.

 

[Rue]

Sigh now that Dougie is here I have nothing to do anymore. Lol.

May I state this as well.  Iranian security and intelligence services have been  advising and assisting the Syrian military to keep Bashar al-Assad in office. Assad is an Alawite a remote offshoot of Shiiite Islam and not even considered Islam by certain Shiites and certainly not by Sunnis. The majority in Syria are Sunni. The Alawites have always been a small minority and the Assad family came from them. Iran keeps Assad in power as a buffer against it being a Sunni ally with Egypt and Iraq as it once was with Saudi Arabia in a struggle of hegemony between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran considers Lebanon and Syria proxy states to control as well as parts of Yemen, and Iraq.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Forces, Quds Force, as well as Iranian  intelligence services, and law enforcement forces keep Assad in power and to be specific  the IRGC  has ground forces  in Syria killing civilians and anyone considered an enemy of Assad, especially Kurds,

So let us be clear Iran is propping a puppet by  military force beyond its borders and this means  providing essential military supplies to Assad, primarily by air which enables him to continue destroying the little bit left in Syria.  As part of this activity Iran finances, trains and supports the pro-Assad  shabiha militias a bunch of cold blooded war criminals.

Iran also finances the Lebanese Hezbollah who also engage in a direct combat role in Syria and entered and been fighting on behalf of Assad against his own civilians since 2012. Hezbollah is on an open declared state of war against Israel. Syria and Lebanon by the way are in an open declared state of war with Israel. 

As for Iran since disposing the Shah of Iran as its leader, each leader and the current leader have openly called out to the Muslim world to use any means necessary including terrorism to rid the Middle East of Israel. So why would anyone ask why Israel would strike at Hezbollah or other Iranian forces in Syria or anyone in Syria threatening Israel? How does that make Israel an aggressor? What reasoning says when a country openly has declared war against you, you sit on your ass and let them prepare to attack you?

Hezbollah stated to the entire world they only armed themselves because Israel was in South Lebanon and once Israel exited Lebanon they would disarm. The very day Israel exited South Lebanon, Hezbollah launched attacks into Israel proper and said it would never disarm and it controls the majority of geographic area of Lebanon by military force not elected office. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization not an army. It openly states its mission is to destroy Israel and kill any or all Jews in a holy war and its mission is to create one Muslim state where Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Jordan and the West Bank are, in a first phase before joining up to create a one world Muslim council government administering the entire world based on Sharia law. It is allied with over 40 other active terror groups including Hamas in Gaza,  each with multiple cells, all with the same goal, taking back Israel by any means necessary. Hamas as well said it was only armed because Israel was in Gaza, and once Israel left Gaza it would disarm and the day Israel left Gaza it began attacking inside Israel proper and has never stopped.

For anyone pretending or suggesting Israel is an aggressor they ignore what Hamas is, what Hezbollah is, what Iran is.

As for Russian activities, Dougie is dead on. Russia needs a naval port that is why it is in Syria.  Putin plays the sides. He will not stop Israel from doing anything needed to protect Israel and while there have been some miscommunications Russia looks the other way when Israel attackis anyone in Syria threatening the Israeli borders or within Israel.

As for China people should remember while it is Iran's no.1 ally like Putin it is no ally of Syria or Hezbollah or Iranian extremism-it needs Iran's oil. China has an internal war going on with 30 million Muslims fueled by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has no love of Muslim extremists any more than Russia does because of Chechnya or Afghanistan. This is precisely why China entered a formal naval alliance with Israel-that was a message to Iran that it needs Iranian oil but not to mess with Israel and cause a war disrupting the oil supply. Putin and China are in the Middle East no differently than anyone else, for the oil

It should also be mentioned there is also the Iraqi Shiite militias trained by Iran who were also sent to Syria  2012 to prop Assad called the Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Brigade and another one called te Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.  

This is all about propping Assad.  The rest Dougie has addressed.

[Dougie93]

Also note,  while Hezbollah is a large and sophisticated well armed and trained paramilitary force which rules South Lebanon with an iron fist;

They are not the sovereign in Lebanon.

Hezbollah has no seat in the United Nations General Assembly.

Hezbollah is not a country.

As such, they are not protected as privileged combatants under the Hague Convention, they are considered under the laws of armed conflict to be in effect bandits.

Thus while they continue to pose a threat to Israel, they are fair game to be  struck

With the only caveats being that the strikes must be a military necessity, in that the government of Lebanon cannot control Hezbollah

That the strikes be proportionate to the threat, can't flatten the place indiscriminately.

And the strikes must be collaterally mitigated

Which doesn't mean any collateral damage is a war crime, only if the non combatants are targeted specifically is it war crime to inflict collateral damage. 

However, non combatants cannot be used as human shields

So Hezbollah is generally the war criminals for using the civilian population as that, as again, Hezbollah is basically a terrorist army.

Military necessity, proportionate force on force, collaterally mitigated, Article 51.

All perfectly legal under international law of armed conflict.

War itself is not illegal, international law provides sovereign states with broad latitude to conduct military operations

While at the same time terrorists and bandits are all war criminals by default under international law.

Hezbollah will of course argue that they have no choice but to fight this way against Israel, but the law backs Israel, because Hezbollah are outlawed bandits.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[Goh Shenas]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:41 PM, Dougie93 said:

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.

Spot on! There aren’t many people on this forum with such a great insight. Enjoy reading your posts.

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, Goh Shenas said:

Spot on! There aren’t many people on this forum with such a great insight. Enjoy reading your posts.

Very nice of you to say so, happy if I can provide some context, cheers,

[Dougie93]

To be clear though, I am partial to the Zionists, I favour the State of Israel and her raucous free democracy over the  autocratic rules of monsters such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

At the same time, I take a professional approach, if/when the IDF is in contravention of statutes I have no compunction about pointing it out.

That doesn't mean I am attacking the Israelis, I'm still on their side even when they make mistakes.

I hold no personal grudge against the Arabs, I just view them as misguided, they are re-litigating wars they have already lost in a state of permanent revanchism.

It's self destructive, they are doing themselves harm by perpetual war to no good purpose, I can't save them from themselves however, nor I am responsible to,

Nor are international law and the laws of armed conflict, those aren't going to save the Arabs from impaling themselves on the bulwark of democracy,

Nor does the law bind Israel to make this a fair fight, quite the opposite, the law empowers Israel to ruthlessly pursue its own security interests.

The State of Israel is a sovereign Westphalian nation state, protecting the rights, property and security of its own citizens is mission one for Westphalia.

UN Article 51 cannot be overruled, it is the supreme international law.

Hezbollah is simply not a Westphalian nation state,  so the law does not empower them to invoke the UN charter as if they was one.

Israel may be ruthless, but they are responsible and representative,  that's my team, Team Westphalia, the Israelis are on the team, Pax Americana.

Hezbollah and Hamas, sorry fellas, but you're on the wrong side of history, banditry has no standing under international law and the laws of armed conflict.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Also important to note that Arabs fight for the State of Israel as well.   The Druze and the Bedouin.

'Palestinian" is not an ethnicity.  

'Palestinian' is simply a legal construct of the British Crown. 

These lands were ruled by the Ottoman Turks for more than half a millennia.

Then they were ruled by the British Crown.

The Arabs never did rule it, and in 1948 they were not the rulers of it.

The Zionists did not take Zion by force of arms from the Arabs,

The Zionists took Zion by force of arms from the British.

Declaration of Independence.

An America of their very own.