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.

 

Turkey shoots down Russian jet

page: 16
46
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

No I have not.. Read the articles posted that show Turkey inviting the US/UK to attack Isis then read the second article where the US notified Syria of the airstrikes in advance.

We had Syrias permission and approval, and not amount of spin by you can change that fact.


Take it up with Syria and stop derailing the thread.
edit on 12-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




They didn't need it. Under the UN charter, countries have the right to defend themselves which extends to other countries if that other country is unwilling or unable to do anything about it.


Right, but America isn't defending themselves. So fail.




Exactly, like the US is the 3rd party defending Iraq - the conflict was between Georgia and the breakaway Republic. Russia was acting like the US is now in "protecting" the breakway.


So you say these situations are the same. So this must mean you also support that action of Russia then? That's the conclusion I have to draw.




Iraq is under attack, it requests help, the US and the Arabs respond. The enemy is basing out of another country who are unable to take any action, so the right of self defence extends into that other countries territory.


So the US is defending Iraq, not itself.




One source and it means very little, to be honest.


It sure carried more weight than one opinion(yours).




The UN seems quite content with action as it is firmly within the scope of self-defence as defined by the UN Charter.


Yes, they seem very content with action, sadly the legal basis has not been provided.




Haha, you clearly don't understand the tenet. It means that if that country cannot stop attacks on another from it's soil, then the country being attacked (or those acting on it's behalf) have the right to take action themselves against that enemy.


Exactly, themselves, so not a third party like the US.

And since Syria was anything but unwilling, coordination should have taken place, and permission should have been received.




They said it would be "controversial", not illegal.


I wasn't refering to those two, was I. I actually bolded the part that I was refering to, maybe you didn't see it, even though that is the point of bolding, that people see it.....


many international law scholars disagree with it,















edit on 12-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Myeah, I think it is pretty clear now that you failed miserably at your attempts at disinformation.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: RogueWave
You were qouting an analist.



What a bunch of arse!


Who are you talking to?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

It was a pun.

The word should have been spelled 'analyst', otherwise it takes on a completely different meaning!






posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Don't be so anal.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Xcathdra


Myeah, I think it is pretty clear now that you failed miserably at your attempts at disinformation.


Not at all as the articles I linked clearly show and support that the west had permission to attack ISISI in Syria and notified the Syria government of those attacks before it started.

There is no disinformation on my part. The disinformation is coming from you because you are so hell bent on trying to blame the west for something they were authorized to do.

Like I said, feel free to show something, anything from the Syrian government, demanding an immediate stop to the bombing of ISIS targets inside Syria by western forces.

If you had something you would have posted it by now. Since there is nothing demanding the stop by the Syrian government your argument is fail.
edit on 12-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Like I said, feel free to show something, anything from the Syrian government, demanding an immediate stop to the bombing of ISIS targets inside Syria by western forces.


Give it up man.

Why don't you show something that says that they gave permission. Again, a lack of response is not the same as giving permission.

Your whole logic is moronic. You say that because they didn't complain after it happened means they are ok with it, when by law, permission has to be given beforehand. no matter how you spin this, the law was broken.

The fact that your own government says that they didn't coordinate with the Syrian government is the nail in your coffin.


You are clearly trying to cement your lies by repeating them. Give it up.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Syria welcomes U.S. strikes against ISIS there, with conditions

"Syria is ready to cooperate and coordinate with regional and international efforts to combat terror in accordance with U.N. resolutions and respect of Syrian sovereignty," Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a press conference in Damascus.

"Everyone is welcome, including Britain and the United States, to take action against ISIS and Nusra with a prior full coordination with the Syrian government," al-Moallem continued.

The foreign minister warned that any action taken without direct agreement from Damascus would be an "aggression" against Syrian territory and that Syria would not stay idle.




Syria says U.S. informed it of planned attack on Islamists hours before air strikes

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria said on Tuesday that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had told the Damascus government in a letter delivered by Iraq that the United States and its allies were going to attack Islamic State in Syria, hours before the air strikes took place.

Damascus, which had said any air strikes on Syria must have its approval, did not condemn the attacks launched by the United States with the help of Gulf states and Jordan against Islamic State and al Qaeda-affiliated militants.

A Syrian analyst interviewed on tightly-controlled Syrian state TV said the air strikes did not amount to an act of aggression because the government had been notified in advance.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, and those conditions were not met, by admission of the US government.


A Syrian analyst interviewed on tightly-controlled Syrian state TV said the air strikes did not amount to an act of aggression because the government had been notified in advance.


A Syrian analist. So where and when did the Syrian government give the US permision, after full coordination took place?

"if at first you don't succeed, dust yourself off and fail again, fail again, fail again"

Give it up sport.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




Right, but America isn't defending themselves. So fail.


When a terrorist kills an American citizen, or two the game changes.

And wherever those terrorist are basing themselves they will be dealt with...such as ISIS in Syria where they gave the US permission to do so.

Remember you posted that Syria would not stay idle if they didn't give permission for military action in Syria...so again I have to ask, why has Syria stayed idle towards those coalition planes flying airstrikes in Syria if they don't have permission to do so?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

US-led strikes are being carried without the approval of Damascus, Congress ,or the UN
The US and partners did not ask for permission before striking Syria..

They are in direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

Airstrikes in Syria cannot be justified under international law: They lack a lawful basis in consent, self-defense or [U.N.] Security Council authorization.

The Obama regime is in direct contravention of (S.J.Res 21) a United States Senate Joint Resolution Bill (section 4) Authorizing only 60 days for the use of military force in Syria.
The US strikes in Syria are illegal domestically and internationally, without UN and congressional (see S.J.Res 21) or Syrian approval.
They have been politely asked to leave, i believe the people of Syria would be best served if they did.



edit on 12-10-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
"The Syrian government has repeatedly criticized the coalition for failing to coordinate with it"

A US-led coalition began carrying out air strikes against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group in Syria on September 23, but it has pointedly refused to coordinate with Damascus.

Assad confirmed there was no cooperation with the coalition, members of which he accused of backing "terrorism" in an apparent reference to their support for other rebels fighting to overthrow him.

"There's no direct cooperation" with the coalition, which includes several Arab governments as well as Washington, Assad said.

Unless strikes were/are taking place without the explicit consent of the Syrian government, or UN approval
they are illegal under international law

www.dailymail.co.uk...




edit on 12-10-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Remember you posted that Syria would not stay idle if they didn't give permission for military action in Syria...so again I have to ask, why has Syria stayed idle towards those coalition planes flying airstrikes in Syria if they don't have permission to do so?


What is their option? Shooting down US planes?

A lack of response does not equal permission.

The US says themselves they didn't ask permission. They said there was no dialogue. They only told them they were taking action.

So how and when was permission given?

Give it up already.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




A Syrian analist. So where and when did the Syrian government give the US permision, after full coordination took place?


SO then why hasn't Syria done something to stop these airstrikes if they didn't have permission to do their jobs?

You don't seem to be able to answer that...why?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




What is their option? Shooting down US planes?


Well since they said this...


Ali Haidar, Syrian minister of national reconciliation, said that "any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government would be an attack on Syria".[117]


en.wikipedia.org...

So now again if the US didn't have permission to do what we are doing...why hasn't Syria seen it as an attack on Syria and confronted these US jets?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

First I don't need to answer that to show that there was no permission. The US says this themselves and the facts show this.

Second, I already answered this. What are their options? They are obviously not going to shoot at US planes, since this would not help Assad's position in any way. Don't be daft.

Give it up.


Furthermore, were are talking about legality here, so what is needed is official permission. If you can't show that there was official permission, then it didn't happen.
edit on 12-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human

Approved by Syria...

Airstrikes were approved by Congress in 2001 and is still valid.

UN mandate was given but not needed since Syria has approved US/UK/West airstrikes on ISIS.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Syrian government complains to UN over US-led coalition airstrikes
www.albawaba.com...
edit on 12-10-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human

Yup and if you read the article you would notice the US is not listed in the complaint.

The UK, France and Australia are.




top topics



 
46
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join