deep state strikes....

[calitom]

Idiot fucking move.
assad fights Isis and the jerkoff americans bomb him.I have fucking had it.

people are fricking pissed.huge fucking betrayal.

[Gigabit]

Is this actually illegal under international law? I confess I don't know.

I completely disagree with it and also I think it will solve nothing and will instead serve to escalate the situation with Russia.

[Stooo]

Idiot fucking move.
assad fights Isis and the jerkoff americans bomb him.I have fucking had it.

people are fricking pissed.huge fucking betrayal.

But her emails...

[Didge]

Syria air strikes: Were they legal?

The justifications put forward by the US, UK and France for the air strikes in Syria have focused on the need to maintain the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, to degrade President Assad's chemical weapons arsenal and to deter further chemical attacks against civilians in Syria.

Prime Minister Theresa May argued that the UK has always stood up for the defence of global rules and standards in the national interest of the UK and of the organised international community as a whole.

Legally, this position returns the world to the era before the advent of the UN Charter. The Charter allows states to use force in self-defence and, arguably, for the protection of populations threatened by extermination at the hands of their own government. The use of force for broader purposes of maintaining international security is also possible. However, such action is subject to the requirement of a mandate from the UN Security Council.

This arrangement tries to balance the need of states to preserve their security in the face of an actual or imminent attack through self-defence when strictly necessary with the need to ensure that force cannot be used as a routine tool of international politics. Hence, international law since 1945 precludes military strikes in retaliation - to teach other states a lesson, as it were - or by way of reprisal. Reprisals are acts that are in principle unlawful, but they can be excused because they aim to force a state back into compliance with its international obligations.

Hence, in 1981 Israel was condemned by the UN Security Council when it attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel had argued that it might contribute to the production of weapons of mass destruction in the future. A US attack against an alleged chemical weapons facility in Sudan in 1998 in response to US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was also criticised.

In this instance, the three states mounting the air strikes have taken it upon themselves to force Syria into compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria joined the Convention in 2013 as part of the diplomatic settlement that followed the failure of the UK, and the US, to go through with threatened air attacks after gruesome chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta. The Convention prohibits the production, possession and use of chemical weapons. No fewer than 192 states have signed.

Syria was also subjected to additional duties contained in mandatory Security Council resolution 2118, reinforcing these obligations and providing for the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile. In an impressive example of international co-operation, also involving Russia, this was largely achieved a year later, by September 2014.

Russian veto
However, since then, there have been some 40 recorded instances of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has the ability to dispatch fact-finding missions to determine whether such weapons have actually been used.

A special joint mechanism was set up by the OPCW and the Security Council with a mandate to assign responsibility for such uses. However, after the mechanism pointed the finger at the Assad government last year, Russia vetoed its renewal.

An attempt to establish a new mechanism empowered to determine responsibility for the latest use of chemical weapons in Douma failed this week, again due to a Russian veto in the Security Council. Russia's own proposed investigatory mechanism, which was opposed by the Western states and others, would have lacked that power.


The three states intervening in Syria now argue that there was no prospect of obtaining a mandate from the Council to confront chemical weapons use by Syria. In striking Syria, they claim to have fulfilled an international public order function of defending the credibility of the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in general terms, and enforcing Syria's obligations in particular.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43766556

[Didge]

Idiot fucking move.
assad fights Isis and the jerkoff americans bomb him.I have fucking had it.

people are fricking pissed.huge fucking betrayal.

Just about the most absurd thing I have ever heard

Stalin fought against the Nazis and yet murdered millions. Do you want to applaud Stalin?

Assad is a war criminal who has tortured, murdered and used chemical weapons on civillians and in many cases starved them to death.

We must all fight and stand against ISIS, but that does not mean you excuse Assad, a mass murderers, because they also share a common enemy. Stalin got away with many war crimes, and mass murder. Do you want the same with Assad, simple because he is at war with ISIS, as we are in the west? Does that excuse his many crimes? Its the Russian people I am grateful of, in how they fought back against the Nazi's. Though many of them, were guilty of war crimes. 2 million German women and girls were raped in the last couple of months of the war. Clearly reprisals to all the mass murder and rape committed by the Germans. Though both acts being completely wrong and never justified.

You sound like Neville Chamberlain, nothing more than an appeaser and what happened then, when it was too late?

We did have a world war.

Now let me break it down for you

I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack.

Or now the west have the capability of jamming their systems, thus rendering the S-400 defense system redundent. If that is the case and based on Israel committing a similar strike recently. Then the Russians, will be very worried their state of the art system, is basically useless to countering attacks. I have a feeling this more than anything could be the case, as why is Russia so silent after this. They showed nerves after the attack by Israel on the Syrian facility and maybe its Israel leading the charge here in being able to thwart the S-400 system. Who knows and I guess we may never find out.

If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

Moscow interested in US cooperation

Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said Moscow had been in touch with the US, UK and France, the RIA news agency reported.

Mr Ryabkov also said in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper that Moscow was interested in cooperation with Washington over Syria.

https://news.sky.com/story/live-us-uk-a ... a-11329799

Hence when you call a bullies bluff, they as seen above generally back down.

For idiots like Corbyn, who think like Neville Chamberlain, that they can thwart a world war through appeasement. It shows that idiot has never learnt from history. Where such views led to a world war, because they did nothing to stand up to Hitler until it was too late. A show of force and action has seen Russia under Putin look all mouth and no trousers. He will lose face badly in Russia over this and it proves yet again, most of their threats are bluffs.

Lets hope now, Russia is serious in wanting to work together to not only end the civil war, but also bring Assad before a criminal war crimes tribunal.

Has Theresa May's 'grave' risk in Syria paid off?

The Prime Minister described the decision to send the UK's Armed Forces into conflict as the "gravest" a leader can make.

She will be relieved this morning that the risk appears to have paid off. After six days of planning and soul searching, she gave the order for British jets to fly in a coalition alongside US and French partners. The choice of targets was limited but deliberate. There had been speculation the US might opt for a wave of airstrikes over a series of nights targeting airfields, ammunition stores and aircraft.

In the end, only three chemical weapons facilities were hit - the coalition hopes this will be seen as proportionate by the international community and acceptable to the Kremlin. The calculation was that Russia might not be able to sit on its hands if waves of airstrikes came over night after night.

There were no Russian casualties according to Moscow, and the feared S-400 missile battery at Latakia air base on Syria's west coast stayed silent.

Whether that was a deliberate decision by Putin to avoid a dangerous escalation, or as a result of coalition jamming technology, we might never know. The Pentagon said this was a "one-time hit" and the briefing I'm receiving from the UK end concurs with that. Unless President Assad retaliates in some form, I don't expect further airstrikes tonight.

It's all a very different outcome to the one we were predicting when Donald Trump tweeted that there would be a "big price to pay" and warned Russia that missiles would be coming "nice, and new and smart".

https://news.sky.com/story/has-theresa- ... f-11330033

So please feel free to pander to Totalitarian dictators in Putin and Assad. They like ISIS, have to be stood up to

[Guest]

[McAz]

[Didge]

[McAz]

Another idiot Tory.

[Didge]

Another idiot Tory.

So you have nothing to counter my views and make an poor and unfounded accusation

I do not support the Tories.

I did once, but I am odds with the view to leave the EU. I see Britain far stronger as part of the EU. Though I also respect the rights of people to leave.

So maybe instead of making poor and immature comments, you could actually take on my points

In your own time

[Guest]

Even if you're in the minority who wanted to see bombs fall on Syria before the OPCW inspectors could investigate, the way she cynically bypasses parliament to do whatever she wants should send shivers down your spine.

This time the consequences have fallen on people in a faraway land, the next time the consequences of her absolute disdain for parliamentary democracy could fall on you.

[Guest]

Another idiot Tory.

So you have nothing to counter my views and make an poor and unfounded accusation

I do not support the Tories.

I did once, but I am odds with the view to leave the EU. I see Britain far stronger as part of the EU. Though I also respect the rights of people to leave.

So maybe instead of making poor and immature comments, you could actually take on my points

In your own time

You don't order people about here.

[McAz]

Another idiot Tory.

So you have nothing to counter my views and make an poor and unfounded accusation

I do not support the Tories.

I did once, but I am odds with the view to leave the EU. I see Britain far stronger as part of the EU. Though I also respect the rights of people to leave.

So maybe instead of making poor and immature comments, you could actually take on my points

In your own time

I was referring to Chamberlain - not everything is about you.

[Didge]

Another idiot Tory.

So you have nothing to counter my views and make an poor and unfounded accusation

I do not support the Tories.

I did once, but I am odds with the view to leave the EU. I see Britain far stronger as part of the EU. Though I also respect the rights of people to leave.

So maybe instead of making poor and immature comments, you could actually take on my points

In your own time

I was referring to Chamberlain - not everything is about you.

Liar, lair, pants on fire

So do you have actually anything constructive to say, or do you just continually spout hate?

Judging by your avatar, I would guess its the norm for you

[McAz]

Are you six?