U.S. support for Syria rebels illegal, Putin says ahead of Obama meeting

a reply to: DJW001

a reply to: Reverbs


I'll repeat it's Illegal to support terrorism.


Correct; in supporting Assad, Russia is committing an illegal act.


It's illegal to operate in foreign countries to overthrow governments.


Correct, which is why Russia's subversion in Crimea and support for rebels in Eastern Ukraine is illegal.

Honestly, do you even think before you write these comments?
Putin supporting the government in Syria - bad
US supporting the rebels - good
Putin supporting the rebels in Ukraine - bad
US supporting the government in Ukraine - good

Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.....

a reply to: Flatcoat

that's pretty plain to see and thank you for pointing it out.
I hope people read your post slowly and let it sink sink sink in..

I don't need any of that..

I just don't want to pay taxes to terror.
I don't want terror on my hands.

So get all my SF friends out of there.
Get all my internet honeypot PsyOp friends out of dangerous morality compromising activities.

I'm not a bleeding heart. I was right there in the mix.

To this day I'm not so confused I want the US to support TERROR.


Back on topic.. People in US politics have admitted to war crimes already..
Don't lose focus.
It's not legal to do these things.

a reply to: Flatcoat

NOT the point! Blimey...you people wearing ear defenders and blindfolds or something?

America supporting terrorists in the M.E. = Treason.

You do remember the war on terror don't you?

Hypocrisy is not a crime, national or internationally speaking and is irrelevant to the question of possible / probable illegal actions by the US government in the M.E.

Claiming the accuser is a hypocrite, does not, in any way shape or form, excuse, diminish or detract an accusation of illegal acts carried out by the accused...the illegality stands on it's own merits or demerits, in spite of any level, high or low, of hypocrisy on the part of the accusers.

Don't you get that?

a reply to: MysterX

Isn't it against the law in the USA for the USA or citizens thereof, to give aid and succour to the enemy or enemies of the USA?

Putin is not talking about American law, he is talking about the charter of the United Nations.

Yes, it is...it's actually SO illegal and unlawful that such aiding the enemy is considered a step above 'illegal' in severity of crime and is termed 'treason'.

If an American citizen supports America's enemies it is treason. Fortunately, the bar for proving treason includes intent. This is a good thing as otherwise ATS's membership would be considerably thinner.

Since the US government has a standing and unending war against terrorism, sending aid to terrorists in order for the USA to get what they want in another country by proxy, is aiding the enemy in the so-called 'war on terror', ergo, treasonous for aiding the enemy, aka 'terrorists'.

You used "terrorism" and "terrorists" rather freely in that statement. Did you know that the United States is not actually in a "war against terrorism?" There has never been a formal declaration of war against a nation called "Terrorism." The "war on terrorism"i s a rhetorical device. Terrorism is simply a political tactic; it is not a state nor ideology. Just because one political group decides to label another political group "terrorists" does not make them so. The United States has been giving support to rebels who target the government, not civilians. They are not terrorists. The government has used weapons against its own civilian citizens. It is a terrorist government.

The thread and the topic under discussion is NOT Russian hypocrisy..the topic is American Illegality, against it's own stated laws and international laws.

No, the topic of the thread is what Vladimir Putin has to say about American policy in Syria. That does rather open it up to discussions of hypocrisy, don't you think?

Again, if you simply wish to ignore that specific accusation against the US, and instead jump up and down and rant on about how unfair it is that one hypocrite is calling another hypocrite out, you are speaking off topic and you are NOT addressing the obvious and shameful treason conducted by the US government in their aid of terrorists in order to overthrow Assad and get their grubby fingers on Syria (read: Prime pipeline real estate).

The United States government is not supporting enemies of the United States in Syria. Period. Therefore, no treason. Putin is correct in pointing out that the United States is arguably violating the letter and spirit of the United Nations charter. It is arguable whether or not that is an actual crime. Certainly Putin violated it when he annexed Crimea... hence the comments about hypocrisy.

Is Russian government hypocrites? Probably.
Are you, me and just about everyone else here, at some time or another hypocrites? Probably.

Very fair of you.

Is that the topic? Absolutely not.

The topic is whatever gets discussed. If you want to discuss the legality of the United States supporting rebels in another country, you should probably do some research into the relevant laws.

a reply to: MysterX

Actually, I was commenting on DJW001's hypocrisy, not the US's.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Honestly, do you even think before you write these comments?

Honestly, do you think before you put words into other people's mouths?

Putin supporting the government in Syria - bad

Wrong. Putin supporting the government in Syria: bad bet.

US supporting the rebels - good

US supporting the rebels: foolish.

Putin supporting the rebels in Ukraine - bad

Putin supporting the rebels in Ukraine: illegal, dangerous & counter-productive.

US supporting the government in Ukraine - good

US supporting the government in Ukraine: legal.

Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.....

What is hypocritical about my actual opinions, as opposed to your simplistic strawman?

a reply to: Reverbs

People in US politics have admitted to war crimes already.

When and where?

a reply to: MysterX

America supporting terrorists in the M.E. = Treason.

Wrong on two counts. The United States is not supporting terrorist in the "Middle East," and even if they were, it wouldn't be treason unless the terrorist groups were directing terror attacks against the United States.

You do remember the war on terror don't you?

There is no war on terror. As I have explained, it is a rhetorical device that only idiots take seriously.

a reply to: DJW001

Wrong. Putin supporting the government in Syria: bad bet.

No, your original comment was

in supporting Assad, Russia is committing an illegal act.

Backtrack much?

a reply to: Flatcoat

Please show how the two statements are not congruent.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flatcoat

Please show how the two statements are not congruent.

I've made many bad decisions, but very few were "illegal".

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flatcoat

Please show how the two statements are not congruent.

I've made many bad decisions, but very few were "illegal".

But doing something illegal can certainly be a bad bet. Assad's government has intentionally killed civilians; that is generally considered criminal.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Flatcoat

Please show how the two statements are not congruent.

I've made many bad decisions, but very few were "illegal".

But doing something illegal can certainly be a bad bet. Assad's government has intentionally killed civilians; that is generally considered criminal.

But can't you see the double standard here? The rebels have also killed civilians, and the US openly supports them. The Kiev governments has killed many civilians, and the US supports them...hell, the US government itself has killed millions. It's only from a twisted western perspective that Assad is a "criminal" and supporting him is "illegal". It's like Stalin calling Charles Manson "murdering scum".....

a reply to: Flatcoat

But can't you see the double standard here? The rebels have also killed civilians, and the US openly supports them. The Kiev governments has killed many civilians, and the US supports them...hell, the US government itself has killed millions. It's only from a twisted western perspective that Assad is a "criminal" and supporting him is "illegal". It's like Stalin calling Charles Manson "murdering scum"..

You can't see the difference between firing back at people who are shooting at you and gassing civilian neighborhoods?

a reply to: DJW001

Obviously you can't, because you are okay with the US supporting the terrorists, and have a problem with Russia supplying their own people with weapons, fighting against the people who are shooting at them.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: DJW001

Obviously you can't, because you are okay with the US supporting the terrorists, and have a problem with Russia supplying their own people with weapons, fighting against the people who are shooting at them.

Where do I say I am okay with the United States supporting terrorists? On the other hand, the rebels in Ukraine are not Russia's own people. If they want to be Russians they can move to Russia. Right now all they are is bandits and hoodlums.

a reply to: DJW001

I just guessed you are okay with it, because no where did you deny it, and you try to bring up totally unrelated things into this thread. They are not Russians because they don't live in Russia? Nice logic, makes a lot of sense.
How's the crisis in Ukraine connected with what's this thread about? Why you bringing your obsession with Putin and Russia into this?

Do you not agree with what Putin is saying? Do you agree arming terrorists in Syria is illegal or not? Do you have a problem with Russia calling for an alliance against ISIS? What exactly is your problem about this?

a reply to: DJW001

Well, he just said what I thought he was going to say. He asked for Resolution to form an Anti-Isis alliance and that he's going to go forward with his plan to work with the legitimate Regime of Syria.

a reply to: Nikola014

I just guessed you are okay with it, because no where did you deny it, and you try to bring up totally unrelated things into this thread.

For the record: I do not support funding terror groups. Neither do I support funding any militant group. People need to fight their own battles, and the United States has no business trying to pick winners.

They are not Russians because they don't live in Russia? Nice logic, makes a lot of sense.

Correct. Considering people across the border who happen to speak your language as "your nationals" is how border wars start.

How's the crisis in Ukraine connected with what's this thread about? Why you bringing your obsession with Putin and Russia into this?

The first word in the title is "Putin," which puts him and his policies front and center. If certain members weren't so obsessed with defending his imperialism or attacking the United States for alleged wrong doing, this thread might stay a bit more focused.

Do you not agree with what Putin is saying?

There is already an international coalition fighting Daesh.

Do you agree arming terrorists in Syria is illegal or not?

Its legality does not depend on me. I do not believe there are adequate definitions in international law. It is certainly morally reprehensible. Do you not agree? Using chlorine gas, as both Assad and Daesh do would be in violation of the Geneva Protocols. Unfortunately, neither part has signed the treaty. Russia has, so if they collaborate or support a group that is in violation, thy are committing a crime themselves.

Do you have a problem with Russia calling for an alliance against ISIS? What exactly is your problem about this?

In the first place, there is already such an alliance; in the second, he is unlikely to discriminate between Assad's secular opponents and the foreign Islamists. It doesn't matter; if he gets the rhetoric wrong Muslims will start to hate Russia even more than they hate the United States.

Edit To Add: I just realized that this is the thread that has Putin in the middle of the title instead of the beginning. You have to admit they are pretty much identical threads.

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: DJW001

Well, he just said what I thought he was going to say. He asked for Resolution to form an Anti-Isis alliance and that he's going to go forward with his plan to work with the legitimate Regime of Syria.

Which brings us back to my point: there is already an anti-Daesh alliance, which means that there will be two alliances, potentially leading to a proxy war. Iran is the only country that might be willing to join with Russia's alliance, which will definitely give the proxy war a sectarian coloring.