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.

 

Syrian Crises: Putin on IS and Assad Full interview

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Xcathdra

I know, Turkey and the gulf states want him gone.



I am impressed you recognize that countries other than the US exist. Even more so that you are somewhat familiar with their own foreign policy goals.




posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please men of Facts and no ignorance, please provide links to suport your claims.

Second, still waiting for the reply's to my questions in the second page.

Third, live people isn't money. Giving money to a country to supposedly "use it" to protect refugees is not the same than taking them in your own borders. Actually, mr facts, it's what is happening right here, due to your tragic bombing actions in ME. Money its peanuts in this process, taking people is the issue. It takes responsability to protect, help and educate them. Not to mention to give them jobs, a place to live and a society to grow.

US goes on destroying other countries and than gives money to the neighbors to take care of the refugees. The same money that they stole from the oil fields of those countries. Shameful and ridiculous. Hypocrite actions.

Mind your own business, comply with International Law. It's US responsability to take the refugees to your own borders, not 10k !? That's ridiculous, even Venezula will do more, 20K. And Germany is going to 800k .. Shameful, indeed.

edit on 17/9/2015 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

the only way for you to learn is to seek out the answers you are intentionally ignoring.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by Xcathdra removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
extremely interesting article I have come across today. quite a few videos, graphs and maps to highlight quite a few areas of interest in the world today. the what, why and where.

[url=http://stateofthenation2012.com...-22223[/url]



Explosive presentation hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs reveals what no government official, no political representative, no NGO executive and no think tank director has ever said before in public


and more.



George Friedman presented his speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on February 4th, 2015, which was then followed by a quite telling Q&A period. There is perhaps no other public presentation ever recorded that has so clearly delineated the militaristic geopolitical agenda of the Anglo-American Empire. Friedman explains in unusual detail the manner in which the Western powers have set up the global chessboard to their (Anglo-American Axis) seemingly never-ending advantage. Of course, it is the Russian Federation that is, once again, on the losing side of this Great Game ... in the words of George Friedman.



who is george friedman?


Friedman’s childhood was shaped directly by international conflict. He was born in Budapest, Hungary to Jewish parents who survived the Holocaust. His family fled Hungary when he was a child to escape the Communist regime, settling first in a camp for displaced persons in Austria and then immigrating to the United States, where he attended public schools in New York City, and was an early designer of computerized war games. Friedman describes his family’s story as “a very classic story of refugees making a new life in America." He received a B.A. at the City College of New York, where he majored in political science, and a Ph.D. in government at Cornell University.[2]

Prior to joining the private sector, Friedman spent almost twenty years in academia, teaching political science at Dickinson College. During this time, he also regularly briefed senior commanders in the armed services as well as the Office of Net Assessments, SHAPE Technical Center, the U.S. Army War College, National Defense University and the RAND Corporation, on security and national defense matters.[1]

Friedman pursued political philosophy with his early work focusing on Marxism, as well as international conflict, including examination of the U.S.-Soviet relationship from a military perspective. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Friedman studied potential for a U.S.-Japan conflict and co-authored The Coming War with Japan in 1991. He is also the author or co-author of books examining topics as diverse as the Frankfurt School and warfare, including The Future of War, The Next Hundred Years, The Intelligence Edge, and America’s Secret War.

In 1996, he founded STRATFOR, a private intelligence and forecasting company, and has served as the company's CEO and Chief Intelligence Officer. Stratfor's head office is in Austin, Texas.


extremely interesting and informative article. a couple of links go to sites with reader comments who provide some excellent links of their own. many links and rabbit holes to go down. it will be fun watching this one.
deny ignorance.

edit on 06/02/2010 by letscit because: fix link



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
US plans to accept Russia offer to join military talks on Syria


WASHINGTON – Amid increasing unease and uncertainty over Russia's intentions, the Obama administration plans to accept an offer from Russia for direct talks on its military buildup in Syria that U.S. officials believe is aimed at propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Seeking answers to myriad questions about the precise reasoning behind Moscow's recent deliveries of material and manpower to a base in northern Syria, U.S. officials said they expect the administration to begin a military-to-military dialogue with Russia in the coming days. The Pentagon will take the lead in the discussions but the exact level, venue and timing have yet to be determined, officials said.

Those details could be announced as early as Thursday, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Secretary of State John Kerry revealed the Russian offer for talks when he told reporters on Wednesday that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had proposed them in a phone call a day earlier. Kerry said he personally thought the idea was a good one, but stressed that the administration was still weighing its merits. Other officials said later that national security adviser Susan Rice had signed off on the talks and that Defense Secretary Ash Carter had agreed.

After their third phone call on the Syria situation since Labor Day weekend, Kerry said Lavrov had proposed a "military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to de-conflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run and have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are."

"You have to have a conversation in order to do that," Kerry said. "It is vital to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations (and) not to put ourselves in a predicament where we are supposing something and the supposition is wrong."


click link yadda yadda yadda...
edit on 17-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by Xcathdra removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
[..]


About:
* - Afghanistan - AUMF 2001 / invocation of article V of NATO treaty / invocation of Chapter VII of UN Charter.
«AUMF 2001: it's an United States Congress authorization that granted the US President the authority to use Force.»
source

So an internal law for Afghanistan! Nobody really called the US for anything

About:
* - Iraq - AUMF 2003 / UNSCR 1441

Well, it seems it was US who determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441:


It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.

source

more:


In addition, [..] a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities. Some have asserted that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter.


So, in Iraq, nobody called the US for anything.

* - Libya - UNSCR 1973


Noam Chomsky has argued that the Western military intervention into Libya was a clear breach of UNSCR 1973 since it nullified the attempts for a ceasefire that were put forward by the resolution and welcomed by Gaddafi. As he puts it, "NATO powers (France and Britain in the lead and the United States following) violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for “all necessary steps” to protect civilians, but there’s a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels."


UN aproved indeed somethig against lybia, A NO FLY ZONE, not ground forces:


On 24 August, it was acknowledged for the first time that special forces troops from Britain,[16] Italy, France, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE had intervened on the ground in Libyan territory, stepping up operations in Tripoli and other cities. This has been questioned as a possible violation of Resolution 1973

Through NATO US was indeed doing more than was approved and required by International law.

* - Syria - UNSCR 1540 / UNSCR 2042 / UNSCR 2043 / UNSCR 2161 / UNSCR 2170 and finally the government of Syria who stated they are ok with US airstrikes on ISIS inside their territory. Also the UN Duty to Prevent from 2005 and linked above.

So let's ear what Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, has to say:


the current US-led coalition fighting Islamic State “flawed. (because) The coalition acts without the UN Security Council mandate and lacks some very important actors such as the Syrian government. That is why it is flawed,”

source
more:


The US has been carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria for almost a year, and the latest decision to bomb Syrian government forces in order to “protect” US-trained “moderate rebels” does not require any additional legal justification

source

Amazing! So nobody called US to bomb Assad troops or support "moderate rebels with arms", and morever, US isn't coordonating anything with Assad, it's supporting the so called "rebels" with weapons and air force, so the US could be very wel supporting ISIS or anyone they like in a sovereign country. Violating International law.

* - Yemen - UNSCR 2014 / UNSCR 2051 / UNSCR 2140.
For Yemen is much the same for Syria and Lybia.

Wana know about the 79 security council resolutions breached by Israel? Of course you don't. Cause if you did, you had to be bombing them since 1948.
edit on 21/9/2015 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2

But tell me, who "called" US to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen..? Please enlight, and by the way, explain the legal ground US used to invade sovereign countries?

Who gave the US the authority to dictate who is suitable to govern Syria?


* - Authority - UN Charter Chapter VII

* - Suitable to govern Syria
* - Sovereignty - UN Responsibility to Protect

* - Afghanistan - UN Charter Chapter VII / NATO Article V / AUMF 2001
* - Iraq - UNSCR 1441 / UNSCR 1476 / UNSCR 1483 / AUMF 2003

* - Libya - UNSCR 1973

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council


* - Yemen - UNSCR 2216

Noting the letter dated 24 March 2015 from the Permanent Representative of Yemen, to the United Nations, transmitting a letter from the President of Yemen, in which he informed the President of the Security Council that “he has requested from the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and the League of Arab States to immediately provide support, by all necessary means and measures, including military intervention, to protect Yemen and its people from the continuing aggression by the Houthis”, and noting the letter dated 26 March 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, S/2015/217, transmitting a letter from the Representatives of the Kingdom of Bahrain, the State of Kuwait, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates


* - Syria - UNSCR 2042 / UNSCR 2043 / UNSCR 2059 / UNSCR 2118 / UNSCR 2139 / UN Duty to Protect / Senate Joint Resolution 21.


What else may I help you with?

edit on 21-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Edit:
Since your reply was removed by the staff at the time I was writing this reply for ya. I will remove it, until further and proper notice from you.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
Edit:
Since your reply was removed by the staff at the time I was writing this reply for ya. I will remove it, until further and proper notice from you.


I reposted the parts that were within the rules above your post.

and answered your questions, again, below this one.
edit on 21-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2

So an internal law for Afghanistan! Nobody really called the US for anything

You would be incorrect. I also listed the UN Charter Chapter VII - specifically it covers self defense.




originally posted by: voyger2
Well, it seems it was US who determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441:
So, in Iraq, nobody called the US for anything.



Iraq was in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions, including ones dealing with WMD's, which WikiLeaks has stated were found in Iraq. The US, as well as other countries, notified the UN numerous times Iraq was in violation. Wanna guess who continued to block those actions in the UNSC?

Russia.



originally posted by: voyger2
UN aproved indeed somethig against lybia, A NO FLY ZONE, not ground forces:

Ground forces were not deployed to Libya.




originally posted by: voyger2
So let's ear what Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, has to say:
Amazing! So nobody called US to bomb Assad troops or support "moderate rebels with arms", and morever, US isn't coordonating anything with Assad, it's supporting the so called "rebels" with weapons and air force, so the US could be very wel supporting ISIS or anyone they like in a sovereign country. Violating International law.


You missed this part -
Syria ok with US airstrikes



originally posted by: voyger2
* - Yemen - UNSCR 2014 / UNSCR 2051 / UNSCR 2140.
For Yemen is much the same for Syria and Lybia.

No its not and the fact you completely ignored the part where military force was authorized speaks volumes when it comes to facts you don't like or cant spin.



Feel free to answer this question - Who called Russia for help in Ukraine?
edit on 21-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

* - Afghanistan - UN Charter Chapter VII / NATO Article V / AUMF 2001
Again has stated here it was an internal law from US against Afghanistan, without the aproval of the UN security council
Nobody called the COP

* - Iraq - UNSCR 1441 / UNSCR 1476 / UNSCR 1483 / AUMF 2003
Like stated here:
- «it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.» ;
- «a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.»;
- «the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter»
So, in Iraq, nobody called the US for War aginst Iraq.

* - Libya - UNSCR 1973
UN aproved indeed somethig against lybia, A NO FLY ZONE, not ground forces:

* - Syria - UNSCR 2042 / UNSCR 2043 / UNSCR 2059 / UNSCR 2118 / UNSCR 2139 / UN Duty to Protect / Senate Joint Resolution 21.
As stated before US-led coalition acts without the UN Security Council mandate and lacks some very important actors such as the Syrian government and US has been carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria , and the latest decision to bomb Syrian government forces

In overall the US is in fact bombing everyone they want with out support of International law.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: Xcathdra

* - Afghanistan - UN Charter Chapter VII / NATO Article V / AUMF 2001
Again has stated here it was an internal law from US against Afghanistan, without the aproval of the UN security council
Nobody called the COP


Wrong - The US also invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Why are you intentionally ignoring that part?




originally posted by: voyger2
* - Iraq - UNSCR 1441 / UNSCR 1476 / UNSCR 1483 / AUMF 2003
Like stated here:
- «it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.» ;
- «a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.»;
- «the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter»
So, in Iraq, nobody called the US for War aginst Iraq.


The US is not the only member state that acted against Iraq. Secondly, as stated before, Russia once again blocked any action where Iraq was in violation.




originally posted by: voyger2
* - Libya - UNSCR 1973
UN aproved indeed somethig against lybia, A NO FLY ZONE, not ground forces:

once again no ground forces were deployed to Libya.




originally posted by: voyger2
* - Syria - UNSCR 2042 / UNSCR 2043 / UNSCR 2059 / UNSCR 2118 / UNSCR 2139 / UN Duty to Protect / Senate Joint Resolution 21.
As stated before US-led coalition acts without the UN Security Council mandate and lacks some very important actors such as the Syrian government and US has been carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria , and the latest decision to bomb Syrian government forces

Once again action blocked by Russia. As I pointed out above the UN Duty to Protect is valid. Secondly Syria allowed the US to conduct airstrikes, as I linked you to the article talking about it.



originally posted by: voyger2
In overall the US is in fact bombing everyone they want with out support of International law.

You would again be incorrect. UNSCR require approval or abstention in order to pass them. The ones Russia didn't block are valid and are specific. As is the UN Duty to protect doctrine.


Who called Russia to act in Ukraine?
edit on 21-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
You would be incorrect. I also listed the UN Charter Chapter VII - specifically it covers self defense.

Incorrect . Your listing doesn't mean nothing. It was an internal law from US against Afghanistan, without the aproval of the UN security council ! So it was a violation of Intenational Law. Thats a FACT.



originally posted by: Xcathdra
Iraq was in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions, including ones dealing with WMD's, which WikiLeaks has stated were found in Iraq. The US, as well as other countries, notified the UN numerous times Iraq was in violation. Wanna guess who continued to block those actions in the UNSC?

Russia.

This is nothing to do with Russia, is about breaching International Law by the US world COP. As stated before:
- «it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.»;
- «a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.»;
- «the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter».



originally posted by: Xcathdra
You missed this part -
Syria ok with US airstrikes

That was one year ago. Liers are always liers. Now the are bombing Assad forces. Theirs no cooperatio, never was. Assad MUST GO since 2011/12 I believe. The ISIS bombing was very pretext to start the overthrow of Assad. Very convinient.

As stated before: the current US-led coalition fighting Islamic State acts without the UN Security Council mandate and lacks some very important actors such as the Syrian government.


originally posted by: Xcathdra
No its not and the fact you completely ignored the part where military force was authorized speaks volumes when it comes to facts you don't like or cant spin.

I don't follow up yemen. The overall argument remains in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the US is indeed bombing in violation of international law, being the arrogant COP, and indeed has/was been activly forcing instability in Lybia and Yemen, like General Wesley Clark said before. A shamefull and arrogant atitude indeed.



originally posted by: Xcathdra
Feel free to answer this question - Who called Russia for help in Ukraine?

What about 79 security council resolutions breached by Israel, since 1948? Why isn't US bombing just because the breach of a single one... not mention 79!!!?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2Incorrect . Your listing doesn't mean nothing. It was an internal law from US against Afghanistan, without the aproval of the UN security council ! So it was a violation of Intenational Law. Thats a FACT.


Wrong

UN Security Council approval was not needed being the US invoked Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter - FACT.


Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.



originally posted by: voyger2
This is nothing to do with Russia, is about breaching International Law by the US world COP. As stated before:
- «it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.»;
- «a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.»;
- «the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter».


Incorrect. Russia blocked all resolutions that tried to deal with Iraq and its violations. UN resolutions spelled out consequences should Iraq refuse to comply with UN resolutions.





originally posted by: voyger2
That was one year ago. Liers are always liers. Now the are bombing Assad forces. Theirs no cooperatio, never was. Assad MUST GO since 2011/12 I believe. The ISIS bombing was very pretext to start the overthrow of Assad. Very convinient.

As stated before: the current US-led coalition fighting Islamic State acts without the UN Security Council mandate and lacks some very important actors such as the Syrian government.


So long as Syria is ok with it, it doesn't need UN approval. Secondly we go back to Russia once again blocking any and all action in Syria. Third considering how Assad has treated the Syrian people it falls under Duty to protect.



originally posted by: voyger2
I don't follow up yemen. The overall argument remains in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the US is indeed bombing in violation of international law, being the arrogant COP, and indeed has/was been activly forcing instability in Lybia and Yemen, like General Wesley Clark said before. A shamefull and arrogant atitude indeed.


You are the one who listed Yemen and tried to imply somehow that the US was illegally acting there and that no one called us. I pointed out how you were wrong by showing the UNSCR that authorized any and all military force to stop the rebels.



originally posted by: Xcathdra
Feel free to answer this question - Who called Russia for help in Ukraine?
What about 79 security council resolutions breached by Israel, since 1948? Why isn't US bombing just because the breach of a single one... not mention 79!!!?


Interesting... After all you typed about the US acting without UN approval and deciding alone who is in breach of what you turn around and advocate the very same action you just got done denouncing. Don't look now but your agenda is showing.

You wont answer my question because if you do it puts you into a no win situation. If you say no one then we come to your argument that Russia is acting illegally and in violation of the UN Charter / UNSC. If you try and justify Russian actions you undermine your own argument against the US.

By not answering that question you in fact answered it, making your entire position pointless. It demonstrates that your intent is not based on anything other than you hate the US, the Agenda your trying to push (and failed at) and will try anything to stick it to them.

I would rather be hated for trying to take actions in the world as opposed to ignoring them like Russia does or supplying weapons to them like China does.

By the way Russia has also blocked any and all Un resolutions dealing with that issue... In case you glossed over that fact.

edit on 21-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Wrong
UN Security Council approval was not needed being the US invoked Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter - FACT.


Wrong. Afghanistan did not attack US. Fact.


originally posted by: Xcathdra
Incorrect. Russia blocked all resolutions that tried to deal with Iraq and its violations. UN resolutions spelled out consequences should Iraq refuse to comply with UN resolutions.


Wrong. US forged evidence to attack Iraq, based on fake chemical weapons or WMD. If Russia blocked at the time, they were right. So US called itself to impose themself has world cop like it has been doing in the last century. US is a "master" of deception.



originally posted by: Xcathdra
So long as Syria is ok with it, it doesn't need UN approval. Secondly we go back to Russia once again blocking any and all action in Syria. Third considering how Assad has treated the Syrian people it falls under Duty to protect.


Wrong. Syria it's against bombing their troops and US support to terrorists.. ups.. rebeles...
Oh. Again the boogie man: Russia. Like it or not Russia, China, UK and France are permanent members of UN Security Council, they have Veto Power, like US, it's abitch, ya know. It remembers me of the resolutions against Israel. US is always their!
But again, Russia it's on right side of history, like it was in Iraq. Like it or not. (I have more things agaisnt the US than I have against Russia).


originally posted by: Xcathdra
Don't look now but your agenda is showing.

No agenda. Only honest questions to someone who posed to me questions.


originally posted by: Xcathdra
You wont answer my question because if you do it puts you into a no win situation. If you say no one then we come to your argument that Russia is acting illegally and in violation of the UN Charter / UNSC. If you try and justify Russian actions you undermine your own argument against the US.

I wave no win situations. it's your mind working their. I'm not here to defend Russia or condemn it (US his far worst then Russia by the list of invasions/attacks to sovereign countries and government overthrows in the last century. Imperialistic and arrogant country).


originally posted by: Xcathdra
By not answering that question you in fact answered it, making your entire position pointless.

Likewise. You also didn't answered the question I posed to your very own question. So your entire position, and give me the priveledge to use your own words, is "POINTLESS".
Thank you.
edit on 21/9/2015 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: voyger2

yup...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join