First US special forces to be deployed in Syria

FritsSikkink · November 1, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.

Which resolution might that be?

Publicus · November 1, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."

FritsSikkink · November 1, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."

Utter BS, as long there is no UN resolution there is no legal basis at all

Publicus · November 1, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.

2fishin2 · November 1, 2015

IS didnt get approval from the UN to invade Iraq and Syria. Why should anybody else?

FritsSikkink · November 1, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.

Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

Scott · November 1, 2015

Off-topic post removed.

up-country_sinclair · November 1, 2015

I believe that this will prove to be a catastrophic error. Nothing can reasonably be expected to come from this decision that would justify the risk. This is not America's problem to solve.

simple1 · November 1, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.

Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

Edited November 1, 2015 by simple1

Pakboong · November 2, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."

Of course there is a "Crimes against Humanity" clause. The existence of that clause simply points out why Assad would not have gassed his own people. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. We used the same logic in Iraq which we have now learned may have not been the truth. It is very likely that the claim against Assad was a false flag. This particular clause is ample justification.

There is absolutely no reason for Assad to have gassed the people he is accused of gassing. The oil in the Golan and the path to Iran are ample reasons for a false flag operation.

2fishin2 · November 2, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."

Of course there is a "Crimes against Humanity" clause. The existence of that clause simply points out why Assad would not have gassed his own people. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. We used the same logic in Iraq which we have now learned may have not been the truth. It is very likely that the claim against Assad was a false flag. This particular clause is ample justification.

There is absolutely no reason for Assad to have gassed the people he is accused of gassing. The oil in the Golan and the path to Iran are ample reasons for a false flag operation.

I guess you dont live on the same planet as the rest of us....

Publicus · November 2, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."

Utter BS, as long there is no UN resolution there is no legal basis at all

UN does not have a resolution for or against US involvement in the Daesh aggressions against Iraq, Syria and the Levant nor will it produce a resolution addressing it.

Iran is involved as is its puppet Hezbollah in Lebanon supporting Daesh in the region, Israel is affected, Russia is bombs away in Syria, so are the CCP China present, Turkey is impacted and participating, the EU is affected and is involved to include France and the UK in particular which independently have done bombing there, numerous Arab sects and nationalities are involved to include the Kurds; the Saudis and the Gulf States are in a coalition or partnership with the US, Qatar throughout has been transporting a stream of weapons via Turkey to fighters it supports, the remnants of the Syrian army which has lost two-thirds of its strength are getting it from all directions etc etc.

International law in this time place and circumstance is overlapping, contradictory, supportive of some aspects, not supportive of other aspects, vague of yet other parts of the whole and utterly fails to address the totality of it. Anyone waiting for a UN resolution either way or in any respect is going to find himself left far behind in the dust of events and is in fact already trudging alone down a dusty and sandy road to nowhere.

Publicus · November 2, 2015

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Of course there is a "Crimes against Humanity" clause. The existence of that clause simply points out why Assad would not have gassed his own people. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. We used the same logic in Iraq which we have now learned may have not been the truth. It is very likely that the claim against Assad was a false flag. This particular clause is ample justification.

There is absolutely no reason for Assad to have gassed the people he is accused of gassing. The oil in the Golan and the path to Iran are ample reasons for a false flag operation.

I guess you dont live on the same planet as the rest of us....

The post does have an unfortunate incoherence, yes.

Thorgal · November 2, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."
Utter BS, as long there is no UN resolution there is no legal basis at all

UN does not have a resolution for or against US involvement in the Daesh aggressions against Iraq, Syria and the Levant nor will it produce a resolution addressing it.

Iran is involved as is its puppet Hezbollah in Lebanon supporting Daesh in the region, Israel is affected, Russia is bombs away in Syria, so are the CCP China present, Turkey is impacted and participating, the EU is affected and is involved to include France and the UK in particular which independently have done bombing there, numerous Arab sects and nationalities are involved to include the Kurds; the Saudis and the Gulf States are in a coalition or partnership with the US, Qatar throughout has been transporting a stream of weapons via Turkey to fighters it supports, the remnants of the Syrian army which has lost two-thirds of its strength are getting it from all directions etc etc.

International law in this time place and circumstance is overlapping, contradictory, supportive of some aspects, not supportive of other aspects, vague of yet other parts of the whole and utterly fails to address the totality of it. Anyone waiting for a UN resolution either way or in any respect is going to find himself left far behind in the dust of events and is in fact already trudging alone down a dusty and sandy road to nowhere.

In short, the only two established exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force in international law are actions taken in self-defence and those taken under the authorisation of the UN Security Council.

Non of them have/can be fulfilled by any current nation who's providing training and weapons to the Syrian rebels...

Nice try !

Rancid · November 2, 2015

The US already declared war when they started bombing Syrian infrastructure and arming their ISIS proxies.

Seems many here would not regard another country bombing their home country as an act of war, nor sending in troops.

Perhaps my lack of vocabulary is limiting me in finding the right word as to what it is called then. Democratisation? Genocide?

Pakboong · November 2, 2015

Indeed, yes.....the United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

Of course there is a "Crimes against Humanity" clause. The existence of that clause simply points out why Assad would not have gassed his own people. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. We used the same logic in Iraq which we have now learned may have not been the truth. It is very likely that the claim against Assad was a false flag. This particular clause is ample justification.

There is absolutely no reason for Assad to have gassed the people he is accused of gassing. The oil in the Golan and the path to Iran are ample reasons for a false flag operation.

I guess you dont live on the same planet as the rest of us....

The post does have an unfortunate incoherence, yes.

A US intelligence consultant told me that a few weeks before 21 August he saw a highly classified briefing prepared for [Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin] Dempsey and the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan administration about the [u.S.-Turkey-Saudi-Qatari-backed] rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’.

http://web.archive.org/

Seymour Hersh’s News Report Banned in U.S., Is Finally Confirmed in Turkey

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

It is a blog and it may not have happened exactly as Hersh describes but his version is more believable that what the MSM has spread.

there are plenty of side links if you are interested.

FritsSikkink · November 2, 2015

Depending on where they are deployed, there are areas of Syria that are considered as 'ungoverned' by the UN.
Which resolution might that be?

The post said "considered."

It did not say pronounced, declared, resolved, voted.

The post said "are considered."
Utter BS, as long there is no UN resolution there is no legal basis at all

UN does not have a resolution for or against US involvement in the Daesh aggressions against Iraq, Syria and the Levant nor will it produce a resolution addressing it.

Iran is involved as is its puppet Hezbollah in Lebanon supporting Daesh in the region, Israel is affected, Russia is bombs away in Syria, so are the CCP China present, Turkey is impacted and participating, the EU is affected and is involved to include France and the UK in particular which independently have done bombing there, numerous Arab sects and nationalities are involved to include the Kurds; the Saudis and the Gulf States are in a coalition or partnership with the US, Qatar throughout has been transporting a stream of weapons via Turkey to fighters it supports, the remnants of the Syrian army which has lost two-thirds of its strength are getting it from all directions etc etc.

International law in this time place and circumstance is overlapping, contradictory, supportive of some aspects, not supportive of other aspects, vague of yet other parts of the whole and utterly fails to address the totality of it. Anyone waiting for a UN resolution either way or in any respect is going to find himself left far behind in the dust of events and is in fact already trudging alone down a dusty and sandy road to nowhere.

bla bla bla
Link to international law please

hawker9000 · November 2, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.

Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla
Link to international law please

He gave you one containing a relevant & focused discussion of it. Why not start with that? "Blah blah blah"? Not simplistic enough? Well, if you're expecting a link to a comic book or Saturday morning cartoon, you're bound to be disappointed and will need to up your game just a bit...

FritsSikkink · November 2, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.
Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla
Link to international law please

He gave you one containing a relevant & focused discussion of it. Why not start with that? "Blah blah blah"? Not simplistic enough? Well, if you're expecting a link to a comic book or Saturday morning cartoon, you're bound to be disappointed and will need to up your game just a bit...

there is no such law

Publicus · November 2, 2015

Utter BS, as long there is no UN resolution there is no legal basis at all

UN does not have a resolution for or against US involvement in the Daesh aggressions against Iraq, Syria and the Levant nor will it produce a resolution addressing it.

Iran is involved as is its puppet Hezbollah in Lebanon supporting Daesh in the region, Israel is affected, Russia is bombs away in Syria, so are the CCP China present, Turkey is impacted and participating, the EU is affected and is involved to include France and the UK in particular which independently have done bombing there, numerous Arab sects and nationalities are involved to include the Kurds; the Saudis and the Gulf States are in a coalition or partnership with the US, Qatar throughout has been transporting a stream of weapons via Turkey to fighters it supports, the remnants of the Syrian army which has lost two-thirds of its strength are getting it from all directions etc etc.

International law in this time place and circumstance is overlapping, contradictory, supportive of some aspects, not supportive of other aspects, vague of yet other parts of the whole and utterly fails to address the totality of it. Anyone waiting for a UN resolution either way or in any respect is going to find himself left far behind in the dust of events and is in fact already trudging alone down a dusty and sandy road to nowhere.

In short, the only two established exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force in international law are actions taken in self-defence and those taken under the authorisation of the UN Security Council.

Non of them have/can be fulfilled by any current nation who's providing training and weapons to the Syrian rebels...

Nice try !

Let's do this yet one more time. This time we might begin with this for the Putin-Assad fanboyz: http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

US Use of Limited Force in Syria Can Be Lawful Under the UN Charter

Some argue that a US use of armed force in Syria would violate the United Nations Charter in the absence of a UN Security Council authorization or a valid US claim of self-defense. However, what the Charter expressly denies and permits is far more complex and there could be at least seven claims for lawful US use of force arising out of the Syrian context.

http://jurist.org/forum/2013/09/jordan-paust-force-syria.php

There is also this to UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon from the US Representative, which I quote and link......

Because the Obama administration doesn't have authorization for the air strikes from either the UN or Syria, it's basing America's legal justification on principles of self-defense. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power asserts that the strikes are legal under the customary international law principle of self-defense, based on two different arguments.

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/09/23/unwilling-unable-doctrine-comes-life/

(accurate link inserted by Publicus during edit)

The Unwilling or Unable Doctrine Comes to Life

by Jens David Ohlin

Since Syria is apparently unable to adequately respond to the ISIS threat and prevent its forces from using Syria as a base of operations to launch attacks against Iraq, then Iraq is entitled to use military force against ISIS installations and forces in Syria, even without the consent of the Syrian government or authorization from the Security Council. In other words, this falls under the inherent right of self-defense that is carved out by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

The International Court of Justice and its unsupported statement that the Article 51 right of self-defense only applies to attacks by states (which is nowhere mentioned in Article 51 anyway). In addition to the Security Council resolution after the 9/11 attacks, the world community’s reaction to the armed conflict against ISIS will be highly relevant for crystallizing the correct interpretation of self-defense as applying to attacks from state and non-state actors alike.

Tthe world reaction to the conflict against ISIS in Syria will help resolve the uncertain status of the unwilling or unable standard for force against non-state actors in third-party territory

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/09/23/unwilling-unable-doctrine-comes-life/

This quote and link I provide references and discusses the Right To Protect under the doctrines and provisions of International Law........

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA: THE LEGAL BASIS

Public International Law & Policy Group

R2P has three main components. First, states have an affirmative obligation to protect their populations, whether nationals or not, from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and from their incitement. At the same time, the international community has an obligation to help states prevent atrocity crimes within their borders. Second, when there is convincing evidence that atrocity crimes are occurring, and a state is unable—or, as in the case of Syria, unwilling—to stop them, the international community should exhaust peaceful means, such as diplomacy and targeted sanctions. If peaceful means prove insufficient to stop the atrocity crimes, however, the third component of R2P holds that the international community may use military force as a last resort.

http://www.internationallawbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PILPG-The-Legal-Basis-for-Humanitarian-Intervention-in-Syria.pdf

Edited November 2, 2015 by Publicus

Publicus · November 2, 2015

Of course there is a "Crimes against Humanity" clause. The existence of that clause simply points out why Assad would not have gassed his own people. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. We used the same logic in Iraq which we have now learned may have not been the truth. It is very likely that the claim against Assad was a false flag. This particular clause is ample justification.
There is absolutely no reason for Assad to have gassed the people he is accused of gassing. The oil in the Golan and the path to Iran are ample reasons for a false flag operation.

I guess you dont live on the same planet as the rest of us....

The post does have an unfortunate incoherence, yes.

A US intelligence consultant told me that a few weeks before 21 August he saw a highly classified briefing prepared for [Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin] Dempsey and the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan administration about the [u.S.-Turkey-Saudi-Qatari-backed] rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’.

http://web.archive.org/
Seymour Hersh’s News Report Banned in U.S., Is Finally Confirmed in Turkey
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

It is a blog and it may not have happened exactly as Hersh describes but his version is more believable that what the MSM has spread.

there are plenty of side links if you are interested.

Some rightwingers need to expand their limited ground of interests to include above all else reality. You would also need to provide the consequence of the rather unstable religious fanatic Erdogan's communication to Gen Dempsey (now retired) and the then SecDef Hegel. As for Seymour Hersh, he is highly controversial as not much that he has published over the past 20 years has much panned out in the final analysis.

So let's go on with facing the music over there on the far out fringes.....

The first link testifies concerning why Putin came to the rescue of Bashir Assad and his badly fractured regime, thus overshadowing Iran which had been Assad's only crutch.

Assad had been pleading to Tehran to roll over an overdue $3 billion loan Assad used up for food and electricity etc while begging Tehran for another $6 billion of loans to support his dwindling army which had shrunk to 80,000 from its 300,000 of four years ago. Tehran offered $1 billion more which didn't cut it. That is another factor that caused Vlad the Bomber to step in, also at the urging of a beleaguered Tehran.

The first link..........

Tide of Syria civil war turns against Assad as rebels make sweeping gains

Bashar al-Assad's regime, reduced to dependence on Iran, appears to be fracturing under the pressure of recent defeats

16 May 2015

http://www.telegraph...ping-gains.html

ISIS do not have my support but here's how close it and other rebel forces were in Damascus to Assad's palaces:

Isis is now just three miles away from the Syrian President's Presidential Palace

http://www.belfastte...s-31125422.html

Here's some more about Assad's palaces in Damascus under rebel seige:

A Syrian rebel group known as the Army of Islam launched a rocket attack against Syria’s capital of Damascus. It was the worst strike against the city in over a year, killing seven people.

The rockets came from the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, a rebel stronghold. Activists claimed the rockets landed in several neighborhoods, including Malki where the presidential palace is located.

http://www.inquisitr...s-seven-killed/

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move. And the fanboyz have been cheering and hooting it up since. It is however a long way from overwith in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Publicus

Publicus · November 2, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.

Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla
Link to international law please

Done.

arjunadawn · November 2, 2015

So Obama's No boots on the ground pledge not working than huh? so now he has to eat his

words realizing that you can sit on a fence and being a super power leader, and that his liberal

bleeding heart lefty policies are not suitable for the Mid East? and in time he will also learn that

dicing Israel would be a great mistake to be paid for ten folds........

Being too measured and diffident does not qualify as "bleeding-heart lefty." I recently spent 19 years in the Gulf Middle East. My take? Obama probably feels the same as I do, that the Middle East is not worth a cent of our effort, and they should just be allowed to kill each other until they finally sort out their own problems. Meanwhile, westerners should avoid the place. We certainly don't need their oil anymore.

There have been Special Forces variously in Syria, training outside Syria and then accompanying "advisory" roles for BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) of the morally righteous moderate rebels, and supervising "confidence targets" for some time. What is happening with this information now is a page out of the Obama Foreign Policy Playbook (it was also used during the Iran/Contra debacle where "55" was trumpeted as the max Special Forces on the ground in el Salvador).

Para 3 precedent- http://www.franksmyth.com/the-village-voice/secret-warriors-u-s-advisers-have-taken-up-arms-in-el-salvador/

This is in essence a trial balloon to measure the public and those abroad response to the US increasing its public presence. In this manner Obama presents (to the general public) a lukewarm indication of responding to critics. But everyone in this business knows what has been going on. So, the differences are by "outing" this as an escalation, but not really, they employ congressional cover for the previous black or grey operations. This outing is their cover for status as they turn toward more DA (Direct Action) rather than force multiplier/training/small unit tactics ops. This is basically the proverbial slippery slope but in the open now. It is not new.

Note: 50 may not sound like a lot but presuming that is just operational A Teams that is 4 A Teams, roughly a company. The B Teams and support would be in a FOB (Forward Operating Base), such as Jordan. What can a combination of Special Forces, Combat Air Controllers, and translators do on the ground? A helluva lot. Special Forces, in their basic state are force multipliers. They're ability to take a rag tag band of men and train them to be trainers and build a fighting force is unequaled. Provide them with HUMINT SIGNINT and other data and their direct action capabilities are equally able. Again, the real story here is the incremental "balloon" testing of congressional resolve. The key now is to hand this quagmire off and Obama is doing so by making white current operations so congress claims it by default.

Edited November 2, 2015 by arjunadawn

Publicus · November 2, 2015

SecDef Ashton Carter was selected by Prez Obama to be the man for this very job and Carter is delivering according to expectations and plans, exceedingly.

Ashton Carter has extensive and profound experience in the Pentagon in high job positions or in high advisory roles under eleven secretaries of defense. The consensus is broad that his appointment as SecDef by a president was long overdue.

Ash Carter knows generals and admirals retired, active, present, up and coming. He knows the ropes and he can get viable approaches, means, strategies, methods, use the personnel, strategies, technologies and all of the Pentagon's resources in efficient and effective ways. This is what Prez Obama finally decided he wanted and it is what he is getting and then some. Obama had passed over Carter to name Chuck Hegel who proved tough but was too Vietnam War syndrome affected by Hegel's courageous and physically costly experience there (as an EP).

Carter is the strident but mild mannered hawk among hawks who has only begun cracking Russian nuts and busting Chinese chops. During the Iran nuclear negotiations Carter kept sending videos to the ayatollahs of bunker busting super bombs. Ash Carter is the force behind sending 20 new nuclear bombs to Germany with Vladimir Putin's name on each one of 'em (not yet publicly announced or generally reported). Now Carter is prevailing in applying his wares for Barack Obama in the Syria and Middle East Gordian Knot. It is true the Knot will not be undone during this presidency, but it can safely be assumed Ash Carter will continue as SecDef in the next administration for the obvious reasons of the likely outcome of the election.

There should be no doubt the groundwork is presently being done for a significant and substantial progress on all national security fronts that can be expected to be made during that and his tenure.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Publicus

Thongkorn · November 2, 2015

Does this mean half the Bars in Pattaya are now empty,

Your getting mixed up. The bars will be empty when the SAS put boots on the ground.

The SAS are pussys compared to the SBS, The SBS are usualy the first on the scene, They have won more medals than the SAS and you never hear about them.

SAS motto, knowledge dispels fear, SBS By stealth and guile.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Thongkorn

FritsSikkink · November 2, 2015

Denial of the facts of international law as documented in the link destroys the credibility of the person in denial because he is in fact in denial. No UN resolution is necessary and the international law pointed out and documented in my post specifies why a UN resolution is not necessary or required.

Saying and adamantly repeating a UN resolution is required is false and false.

Sometimes reality can really suck for someone for any reason and this is definitely one of the times for the Assad-Putin fanboyz.
Show me a link to the "international law" and not a biased newssite

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla
Link to international law please

Done.

no, a link to the actual law. Not more drivel from a newssite

Pakboong · November 2, 2015

el, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan administration about the [u.S.-Turkey-Saudi-Qatari-backed] rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’.

http://web.archive.org/
Seymour Hersh’s News Report Banned in U.S., Is Finally Confirmed in Turkey
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

It is a blog and it may not have happened exactly as Hersh describes but his version is more believable that what the MSM has spread.

there are plenty of side links if you are interested.

Some rightwingers need to expand their limited ground of interests to include above all else reality. You would also need to provide the consequence of the rather unstable religious fanatic Erdogan's communication to Gen Dempsey (now retired) and the then SecDef Hegel. As for Seymour Hersh, he is highly controversial as not much that he has published over the past 20 years has much panned out in the final analysis.

So let's go on with facing the music over there on the far out fringes.....

The first link testifies concerning why Putin came to the rescue of Bashir Assad and his badly fractured regime, thus overshadowing Iran which had been Assad's only crutch.

Assad had been pleading to Tehran to roll over an overdue $3 billion loan Assad used up for food and electricity etc while begging Tehran for another $6 billion of loans to support his dwindling army which had shrunk to 80,000 from its 300,000 of four years ago. Tehran offered $1 billion more which didn't cut it. That is another factor that caused Vlad the Bomber to step in, also at the urging of a beleaguered Tehran.

The first link..........

Tide of Syria civil war turns against Assad as rebels make sweeping gains

Bashar al-Assad's regime, reduced to dependence on Iran, appears to be fracturing under the pressure of recent defeats

16 May 2015

http://www.telegraph...ping-gains.html

ISIS do not have my support but here's how close it and other rebel forces were in Damascus to Assad's palaces:

Isis is now just three miles away from the Syrian President's Presidential Palace

http://www.belfastte...s-31125422.html

Here's some more about Assad's palaces in Damascus under rebel seige:

A Syrian rebel group known as the Army of Islam launched a rocket attack against Syria’s capital of Damascus. It was the worst strike against the city in over a year, killing seven people.

The rockets came from the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, a rebel stronghold. Activists claimed the rockets landed in several neighborhoods, including Malki where the presidential palace is located.

http://www.inquisitr...s-seven-killed/

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move. And the fanboyz have been cheering and hooting it up since. It is however a long way from overwith in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

I was making a simple point. Not necessarily a right wing point. One in which there is logic and evidence. Why would Assad or anybody else for that matter gas his own people knowing it would bring the wrath of the west? It is simply not likely. There is much evidence, beside the idea that is a stupid move, and he is in trouble for all the obvious reasons but not stupid enough to invite western attacks simply to kill 1,200 of his own people which would surely read into the western end game.

There is quite a bit of evidence that points to the Turks and very little if any that points to Assad.

Pakboong · November 2, 2015

el, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan administration about the [u.S.-Turkey-Saudi-Qatari-backed] rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’.

http://web.archive.org/
Seymour Hersh’s News Report Banned in U.S., Is Finally Confirmed in Turkey
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

It is a blog and it may not have happened exactly as Hersh describes but his version is more believable that what the MSM has spread.

there are plenty of side links if you are interested.

Some rightwingers need to expand their limited ground of interests to include above all else reality. You would also need to provide the consequence of the rather unstable religious fanatic Erdogan's communication to Gen Dempsey (now retired) and the then SecDef Hegel. As for Seymour Hersh, he is highly controversial as not much that he has published over the past 20 years has much panned out in the final analysis.

So let's go on with facing the music over there on the far out fringes.....

The first link testifies concerning why Putin came to the rescue of Bashir Assad and his badly fractured regime, thus overshadowing Iran which had been Assad's only crutch.

Assad had been pleading to Tehran to roll over an overdue $3 billion loan Assad used up for food and electricity etc while begging Tehran for another $6 billion of loans to support his dwindling army which had shrunk to 80,000 from its 300,000 of four years ago. Tehran offered $1 billion more which didn't cut it. That is another factor that caused Vlad the Bomber to step in, also at the urging of a beleaguered Tehran.

The first link..........

Tide of Syria civil war turns against Assad as rebels make sweeping gains

Bashar al-Assad's regime, reduced to dependence on Iran, appears to be fracturing under the pressure of recent defeats

16 May 2015

http://www.telegraph...ping-gains.html

ISIS do not have my support but here's how close it and other rebel forces were in Damascus to Assad's palaces:

Isis is now just three miles away from the Syrian President's Presidential Palace

http://www.belfastte...s-31125422.html

Here's some more about Assad's palaces in Damascus under rebel seige:

A Syrian rebel group known as the Army of Islam launched a rocket attack against Syria’s capital of Damascus. It was the worst strike against the city in over a year, killing seven people.

The rockets came from the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, a rebel stronghold. Activists claimed the rockets landed in several neighborhoods, including Malki where the presidential palace is located.

http://www.inquisitr...s-seven-killed/

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move. And the fanboyz have been cheering and hooting it up since. It is however a long way from overwith in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

I was making a simple point. Not necessarily a right wing point. One in which there is logic and evidence. Why would Assad or anybody else for that matter gas his own people knowing it would bring the wrath of the west? It is simply not likely. There is much evidence, beside the idea that is a stupid move, and he is in trouble for all the obvious reasons but not stupid enough to invite western attacks simply to kill 1,200 of his own people which would surely read into the western end game.

Of cThere is quite a bit of evidence that points to the Turks and very little if any that points to Assad.

We forget that Assad and his people have a lot more information available to them than we do. He knows what the west is up to, it is a repeat of an often used routine to attack a country simply in the way of the western end game.

ourse, there is an argument to the contrary, it simply does not make sense that he would commit suicide to get 1,200 of his people killed.

It is really sad for me to know I am on the side of this that I am. Just the way things fall out but I still try and think logically.

We forget that Assad and his people have a lot more information available to them than we do. He knows what the west is up to, it is a repeat of an often used routine to attack a country simply in the way of the western end game.

of course, there is an argument to the contrary, it simply does not make sense that he would commit suicide to get 1,200 of his people killed.

It is really sad for me to know I am arguing against the western side of this mess. Just the way things fall out but, I still try and think logically, it has nothing to do with partisan politics or my patriotism to my home country.

I don't normally use a lot of links but I do it because others like them to help make up their mind on an issue. This one simply does not make sense on the surface and doesn't need links to point that out.. This is my view, not some view I stumbled on during my daily reading.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Pakboong

simple1 · November 3, 2015

@FritsSikkink.

Might be a good idea to clarify what your actual concern is. It's often the case that law is behind the eight ball regards international security threats which requires individual countries to apply their own specifically developed legal justification & doctrine to support their actions. Do you not wish for proactive action be taken to diminish the very real immediate threat of Daesh or would you rather wait for lawyers to hash out the fine detail while thousands die, are tortured and sexually abused.

Getting back to your demand I believe the basics were addressed in post #50, e.g....

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

FritsSikkink · November 3, 2015

@FritsSikkink.

Might be a good idea to clarify what your actual concern is. It's often the case that law is behind the eight ball regards international security threats which requires individual countries to apply their own specifically developed legal justification & doctrine to support their actions. Do you not wish for proactive action be taken to diminish the very real immediate threat of Daesh or would you rather wait for lawyers to hash out the fine detail while thousands die, are tortured and sexually abused.

Getting back to your demand I believe the basics were addressed in post #50, e.g....

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

The US attacks Syria because of Iraq's self defense. The BS generator is making overtime.

Sign In

First US special forces to be deployed in Syria

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US