Sputnik: German Bundestag Committee: Russia's Syria Campaign is Legal, US Should Leave
The US-led coalition’s military intervention in Syria is under increasing levels of scrutiny, with critics arguing that the coalition has no mandate to conduct military operations in the Arab Republic as it doesn’t have Damascus’ approval to do so.
A committee of the German Bundestag headed by Die Linke politician Alexander Neu found Russia’s military presence in Syria to be “considered permissible in international law” as the Syrian government requested assistance from Moscow, the ARD public broadcaster’s Tagesschau news service reported on Tuesday.
Read more ....
WNU editor: I read the German report on this story as best as I could .... and it says the same as the above Sputnik report. But what I found even more interesting about this news story is that no one else outside of Germany is covering it. On the day that President Trump is calling out German - Russian cooperation energy deals, this report on a committee in the German Bundestag supprting the Russian presence in Syria but criticising the U.S. presence is being ignored by the mainstream media.
25 comments:
Accurate.
Azino Smith is full of crap.
First of all, the casus belli is with Saudi Arabia not with Syria. THe evidence on the public record, if you care to look, is that the Saudi embassy in Washington provided crucial support to the 9/11 hijackers but that the FBI and the so-called 9/11 commission prevented any investigation of the relevant leads that had already been provided by the joint Congressional investigation in 2002. By thus lying about who was responsible for 9/11, and piling on lies about Saddam's WMD's, the US did nothing but sow chaos in the region by the invasion of Iraq which actually resulted in the massive growth of Al Qaeda. In Syria over the past few years, the US has even, in effect, allied with Al Qaeda to try to overthrow the Assad government.
Now, having dispensed with the Azino's falsehoods, I'll make the comment I originally planned:
There are only four legal means for invading another country: 1) by US COngressional authorization; 2) in self-defense; and 3) by UNSC authorization; and 4) by invitation or agreement. Not one of those conditions exist for the US in Syria. Therefore, it's true that the US military has no business being in Syria. That there's no coverage of the Bundestag finding outside of Sputnik shows the continued inability of the Western Corporate Media to address with the past decades of lies about the West's policy of permanent warfare.
"That gives the U.S. casus belli"
"The U.S. also has cause to invade Iran and topple Khamenei"
As a great man once said " chickens coming home to roost"
Well, from my perspective of view.. I know why Russia is in Syria (allies), but I don't know how US can be there without some kind of agreement from the Syrian government...
It would be like if we here in Sweden had a civil war and the US would come to our aid. Then later on Russia would insert troops for the "greater good." And everyone would expect the world to welcome Russia in the equation.
Meh.
Great post Carl.
As for Smith's exercise in exceptionalism, diversion and, well, just plain lying....
"After World War, Europe was reordered to an extent on the basis of self-determination.
The Kurds have a right to self determination. We are the allies of the Kurds. Thus we have a right to be there."
Apparently, by this "logic" the Syrian Arab Republic, which includes Syrian Kurds, does not have the right to self-determination.
Legally flimsy at best. Cynical abuse of the Kurds at worst. The same Kurds who the U.S. has abandoned twice in Iraq and will soon abandon in Syria. The U.S. does not have allies anymore.
http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/Wood_article.pdf
It has interests.
The real casus belli is the U.S. occupation of Syria.
Syria could just as easily argue, by the way, that its support for the terrorists and other insurgents was a pre-emptive means of self-defence against imminent attack. It would be able to provide "strong evidence" of said by pointing to the invasion of its neighbour and the statements of President Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1971852.stm and look who else is there. Is that John Bolton. Nawwwww go on.
Since Smith decided to "go there", Damascus could also play the "self-determination" card ergo -Iraq has the right to self determination. They are Arabs, we are Arabs. We do not recognize the "Coalition" invasion and occupation. Nor do we recognize the installed government.
{Never mind what Iran could pull out of its a$$ in that regard.}
The Iraqi and Syrian Baath had a long history of hatred and murder. The Iraqi Baath and Saddam were a CIA assets from way back. The Baath coming together against the occupation was blowback.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2010/syria-s-financial-support-for-jihad
"Consider the case of Fawzi al-Rawi. In late 2007, the Treasury Department designated Rawi—a leader of the Iraqi wing of the Syrian Baath party—for providing financial and material support to Zarqawi's AQI. The extent of the Syrian role in Rawi's activities is noteworthy. Rawi was appointed to his position in the Syrian Baath party by President Bashar al-Assad in 2003. According to U.S. Treasury, the Iraqi wing of the Syrian Baath party "has since provided significant funding to Iraqi insurgents at al-Rawi's direction." Indeed, Treasury noted that Rawi "is supported financially by the Syrian government and has close ties to Syrian intelligence."[45] With the authorization of the Syrian regime, Rawi twice met with a former commander of Saddam Hussein's Army of Muhammad (Jaysh Muhammad) in 2004 and told the commander his group would receive material aid from Syria. In 2005, Rawi "facilitated the provision of $300,000 to members of AQI" as well as providing AQI vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rifles, and suicide bombers. In meetings in Iraq with senior AQI representatives in September 2005, Rawi and AQI leaders discussed operational issues, including attacks against the U.S. embassy and assaults in the international zone.[46]"
Syria could also argue (and has btw) that U.S., Saudi, and other "allies" backing of al Qaeda/al Nusra/ Arar al Sham are aggression. Incidentally, should the campaign of black ops, media and political cover-up for said backing be counted toward "defense" spending commitments of NATO "allies"? Will any of them bring this up during this week's NATO shit show? If a dog meows does that make it a cat?
Give us a meow Smith.
Aside ----The bullshit bark will be "Anon supports Syria's backing of terrorists".
Just for the record:
Nope, but an argument could be made that Syria's support for these groups, even in Lebanon, was an act of self defense. Like WNU says "you go to war with what you have". It was a horrible policy not to mention dumb, but they did not lack for examples did they Smith? You guys are great teachers when it comes to horrible dumb or horribly dumb policies---
Anyway,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
"The Syrian opposition, politically represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. From early stages of the civil conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK provide political, military and logistic support to the opposition as well as rebel groups in Syria that are not designated by them as terrorist. Since July 2015, Turkey also openly counters by military means further expansion of the Syrian Kurdish forces along its border and has created a buffer zone within Syrian territory."
Who is, or better, was, the Syrian National Coalition? Just another "big tent" organization the U.S. and NATO/GCC "allies" pulled out of their asses to legitimate the very same thing they had been accusing Syria, Iran and others of doing: being state sponsors of terrorists.
"The uprising is funded and supported by several
states, including the USA, Turkey, France, Great
Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other Gulf Cooperation
Council states. It is also backed by many nonstate
actors, like pro-Saudi Sunni politicians in Lebanon,
and Islamist networks in the Gulf. Some of these
states/groups cooperate closely, while some others
back rival rebel factions. For example, there have been
reports about Saudi-Qatari differences transplanted
onto the Syrian insurgency.20
However, there is some level of overall coordination
within the core group of state supporters. These governments
have long sought to temper the insurgency’s
divisions, and enforce unity from above. The idea is to
gather the revolutionary forces along a main axis, to
reduce chaos in post-Assad Syria while simultaneously
promoting a centrist leadership amenable to their own
interests. Since these outside actors lack a presence
on the ground, they are forced to work through indirect
means. They have therefore sought to draw local
fighters into coalitions by channeling money through
favored middle-men in the exile opposition community.
While this does not produce real unity, the idea has
been that such coalitions can be cemented with time.
These foreign-inspired efforts have resulted in the
creation of several ”joint leaderships” and alliances
over the course of the uprising."
https://www.rt.com/news/424169-syria-strike-signal-terrorist-envoy/
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/523
December 2015, Ahrar al-Sham withdrew from peace talks that were hosted by its ally, Saudi Arabia, after citing concerns that the parties were too sympathetic to the Assad Regime. Shortly thereafter, Ahrar al-Sham signed a statement with its allies that declared their intent to negotiate peace terms with Assad in 2016, but stated they would not allow him to remain in power for a transitional period after the war. [27] Ahrar al-Sham was also not party to the February 2016 national ceasefire, and participated in a Jaysh al-Fatah offensive that broke through the Assad Regime’s siege on the city of Aleppo on August 7, 2016. [28] [29] [30] [31] Additionally, Ahrar al-Sham agreed to a ceasefire with Jund al-Aqsa, a prominent Sunni-Salafi opposition group that was initially a subunit within Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (Fatah al-Sham), formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, after Jund al-Aqsa merged into Fatah al-Sham on October 10, 2016. [32] [33]
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
"Gabbard’s “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.
That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.
The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy’s history. The Obama administration’s Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the “Global War on Terrorism”—the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the heart of the Middle East."
https://www.justsecurity.org/54106/saudi-war-yemen-strengthening-terrorism/
"After more than 1,000 days of war, 22 million Yemenis – more than the population of Florida – need international aid, with over a third of those on the verge of starvation. The worst cholera outbreak in modern history has infected more than one million in just nine months, and on average five children are killed or injured each day from fighting, shortages, or disease. After a year of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia – including arms sales, refueling Saudi aircraft, and intelligence-sharing – the Trump Administration finally has begun to question the direction the conflict is headed.
Ending a humanitarian crisis of this scale is reason enough to ramp up U.S. diplomatic leadership on Yemen. But the country’s connection with international terrorism also demands a renewed American push to end the war. It was in Yemen that al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors, and Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has sought to blow up American airliners, including the failed 2009 “underwear bomber” attack. More recently, ISIS has established a growing presence in Yemen."
But Trump wants cheap oil and arms sales, so the Saudis get a pass. Obama's been quiet lately. He needs to stay that way.
Judging by what Carl posted, that also makes a case for a(nother) investigation(s) into treason.
And the evidence is very "strong" on that score. Just ask President Big Mouth himself.
https://www.justsecurity.org/54106/saudi-war-yemen-strengthening-terrorism/
"Perhaps above all else, we will be expected to brush under the carpet the fact that, twice in a single day, Trump accused Saudi Arabia of being behind the 9/11 attacks. “Who blew up the World Trade Center?” Trump asked his pals at Fox and Friends on the morning of February 17, 2016. “It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi — take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents.”
At a campaign event in South Carolina later that day, he again cited “secret papers” that could prove it was “the Saudis” who were in fact responsible for the attacks on 9/11. “It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center … because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, OK?”
(To be fair to Trump, far more credible and better-informed figures have come to a similar conclusion: “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” wrote former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the Senate intelligence committee’s inquiry into 9/11, in an affidavit in 2012.)"
"I consider George Herbert Walker Bush part of the Country Club Wing of the Party, so I consider him more RINO than Republican."
Oh, that's right Smith. You were an independent. Right?
I'm sure you'll cocoon in the not too distant and be (re) born again hard.
Only YOU see the big fundamental difference between Obullshit's and the MAGAman's foreign policies vis a vis international law.
Which is nothing but the same 'ol, same 'ol support for fundamentalism.
"Syria joined the coalition against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait.
Afterwards there was an armistice, which Iraq broke.
One of the articles of the armistice that Iraq broke is that it did not return all Kuwait POWS and citizens.
So what you are telling me Anon, 99th of that name, is that you do not give a ___ about that."
Like I said, the Iraqi and Syrian Baath hated each other.
And no, I don't a shit about that because the law was violated.
That's why it's called RULE OF LAW.
You gotta prove shit. Just cuz YOU say it's legitimate, doesn't mean it's legal.
Do us all a favour. Try to represent yourself in court someday.
Regardless,
Also remember threats of the use of force in international relations are a violation of the UN Charter. And you pull that shit constantly.
You think you can do whatever you want then get all pissy when others do the same.
You're a hypocrite.
"The UN is crap. It is less crappy than the League of Nations , but it is crap."
Oh really,
Is that why you pimped out 150 pages of the crappy's crap the other day to dress up some crap you posted?
Member this???
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/haiti-and-dominican-republic-environmental-challenges-border-zones
Or are you having another "independent's" day?
Post a Comment