It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crazyewok
So will Syria be allowed to fly its jets through USA airspace then?
It seems sovereign airspace means nothing now........
originally posted by: AnonyMason
Also, this: Iran rejects US bid to coordinate against ISIS
originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Whatever perspective works for you. It is what it is.
The Russians are heavily invested in Syria, and embedded with the Assad regime. There are much broader potential implications here... But, let's just wait and see what happens... Or not.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
One question I have is why Syria would not want US help to begin with? Do they feel the US will do more than bomb ISIS positions? Does Syria feel the US will hit the wrong targets? Perhaps Syria feels they have a good hold on the situation, and thus do not need outside intervention to help them in defeating ISIS.
originally posted by: Sirrurg
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
One question I have is why Syria would not want US help to begin with? Do they feel the US will do more than bomb ISIS positions? Does Syria feel the US will hit the wrong targets? Perhaps Syria feels they have a good hold on the situation, and thus do not need outside intervention to help them in defeating ISIS.
I'm not sure about Syria, but I am pretty sure the US wants to attack Iran. In order to do that they have to get rid of Assad first, who would probably help Iran... which is why the US and their allies tried it already. Funny how people seem to have forgotten that, it's not that long ago. Once Syria is gone they will finally try to get their hands on the iranian oil fields, which is what all the saber-rattling and accusations in the past years was all about... actually they tried it ever since Operation Ajax.
Anyway, now out of nowhere comes ISIS, making a lot of noise and enemies literally everywhere (which is strange enough), giving the US a new reason to bomb targets in Syria, and you still wonder why Syria doesn't want any US help? Even moreso if you add to that the annoucement that if Assad has the audacity to defend his country they will overthrow him, which was most likely the whole point of the ISIS drama to begin with?
International recognition of the Syrian National Council
The Syrian National Council (SNC)[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council. One country, Libya, recognises the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria.
Recognised on 5 December 2011
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, deemed the Syrian National Council as a “leading and legitimate representative of Syrians seeking a peaceful democratic transition,” and that the United States was “committed to helping... make this transition.”[19]
originally posted by: daaskapital
The audacity of Obama and the US government is astounding. They want to violate Syria's airspace, but threaten to destroy the government's air defences if their planes are attacked.
President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports.
If Assad’s troops fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, “Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defence system,” Baker reports. “He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.”
On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had authorised US airstrikes in Syria while laying out a four-part strategy to “destroy” and “eradicate” radical ISIS militants who have captured roughly a third of Syria and a third of Iraq.
www.businessinsider.com.au...
I do despise ISIS and its actions, but to violate a sovereign state's airspace and threaten to destroy the government's defences if they attack any infringing aircraft, is illegal. While the violation of nation-states and their airspace is not a new trend (the USA has been doing it for years), the very act of doing so is illegal if the offending state does not get approval from the United Nations Security Council first. Furthermore, a sovereign state has the ability to exercise its law in its own airspace, and is allowed to refuse entry to others, even the USA.
Obama's decision to attack ISIS inside Syria is illegal. This goes for both, the claims of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'the destruction of ISIS', the grounds of which Obama and his coalition are using to stage attacks on ISIS.
Is humanitarian military intervention against international law, or are there exceptions?
As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention—such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses—is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Although many Western governments have taken the position that such intervention may in some cases be morally justified even if not authorized by the Security Council, most states and international legal experts do not regard that as lawful.
www.cfr.org...
While it must be noted that some states view the legitimacy of interfering in the affairs of other states as morally just, many states and scholars argue that the UN still has the sole right of granting such privileges:
In recent years, states have reached general consensus that they have a "Responsibility to Protect" populations from mass atrocities, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. Many states, however, maintain the position that only the UNSC can authorize armed intervention.
www.cfr.org...
a reply to: daaskapital
Obama's decision to attack ISIS inside Syria is illegal. This goes for both, the claims of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'the destruction of ISIS', the grounds of which Obama and his coalition are using to stage attacks on ISIS.
originally posted by: MrPlow
Since ATS is the feeding and gestation grounds for all things conspiracy....try this one on for size...
The majority here think that strikes on ISIS within Syria preempts strikes on the Assad regime itself, thus taking Assad out...
I posit that nothing of the sort happens. Perhaps targets within Syria are hit - but there will be no slippery slope to Assads removal by U.S. forces.
Crazy right? No war with Syria. No war with Russia. No World War 3. Just coalition forces picking off ISIS fighters ....stretched out over several years.
And boring ole' life keeps lurching forward for all here