Illegal Missile Attack on Syria (Read 1215 times)

Kuleana

Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« on: April 14, 2018, 08:32:40 AM »
Why is no one talking about the latest unilateral illegal missile attack conducted by the US, UK, and France against Syria that might result in a potential WWIII scenario that could mean the potential obliteration of Hawaii, especially Oahu?

rklapp

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2018, 10:57:04 AM »
Do you mean Operation Desert Stormy?
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2018, 12:11:01 PM »
Do you mean Operation Desert Stormy?

It appeared clear that the GOP was going to loose Congress later this year.  With many of his supporters upset with this attack, the Democrats will be sure to try and impeech him.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-supporters-slam-decision-to-launch-strikes-against-syria/ar-AAvSjii?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz

zippz

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2018, 12:22:19 PM »
There's no clear answers on the illegality of war.  The US war powers act could be seen as unconstitutional.  There's no international law on starting wars, just rules on how they should be fought.

Question should be should the US get further involved in the conflict?  If the US and allies let it go, then that basically repeals the ban on chemical weapons.  What should be happening is the rest of the world takes action instead of sitting back and expecting the US to do it.
Join Hawaii Guys and Gals with Guns at www.meetup.com/HawaiiGGG.  We are a group of shooting friends that explore a variety of shooting sports.
Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2018, 02:05:28 PM »
There's no clear answers on the illegality of war.  The US war powers act could be seen as unconstitutional.  There's no international law on starting wars, just rules on how they should be fought.

Question should be should the US get further involved in the conflict?  If the US and allies let it go, then that basically repeals the ban on chemical weapons.  What should be happening is the rest of the world takes action instead of sitting back and expecting the US to do it.

I agree that war itself is not illegal, but the problem with the US, UK, and France's missile attack was that there was no investigation or evidence presented to justify the bombing of a sovereign state other than suspicion.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2018, 03:39:27 PM »
I agree that war itself is not illegal, but the problem with the US, UK, and France's missile attack was that there was no investigation or evidence presented to justify the bombing of a sovereign state other than suspicion.

I know you're going to cast stones at the military, government and news media, but unless you have direct sources you trust more, this is what we have to go on...

Quote
WASHINGTON — A report by France concludes the Assad regime was clearly behind the April 7 chemical attack on
civilians in the Douma suburb of Damascus, the first detailed governmental assessment laying out the justification for
the U.S.-led allied strikes on Syria.

"Beyond possible doubt, a chemical attack was carried out against civilians at Douma (and) there is no plausible
scenario other than that of an attack by Syrian armed forces as part of a wider offensive in the Eastern Ghouta enclave,"
according to the report issued Saturday by the French government.

The report, based on technical analyses of witness accounts, photos and videos that appeared around the same time
as a Syrian government offensive in Douma, was provided by the French embassy in Washington.

"After examining the videos and images of victims published online, (French intelligence services) were able to conclude
with a high degree of confidence that the vast majority are recent and not fabricated," the report said.


The analysis was released hours after U.S., France and Britain fired 105 missiles at three chemical weapons facilities in
Syria — and about an hour before the convening of an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council called f
or by Russia, a Syrian ally that disputes chemical weapons were used.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/14/french-report-lays-out-evidence-assad-forces-conducted-chemical-attack-civilians/517187002/

It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

rklapp

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2018, 09:47:51 AM »
Something had to be done because the Russians are alleged to have brought in the nerve agent (probably by diplomatic courier) to the UK and used to attack a former spy. They have allegedly done this several times in the past in an attempt to clean up the double agents. Russia has an interest in Syria because otherwise, the fleet has to pass through Turkey to reach the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia wants to keep their naval and land bases in Syria. Russia and Syria seemed to have taken the "so what are you gonna do about it" diplomatic tact. For whatever reason, Trump notified them that missiles are coming, so the Syrians moved their aircraft to Russian bases where they won't be touched. The existing chemical weapons are hidden somewhere, and it wouldn't be prudent to hit the stockpile because it would potentially scatter the toxin over the civilians we're supposedly trying to protect. We did supposedly knock out the chemical weapons factories, but I'm sure Assad has more stockpiled wildfire than he needs for years to come. The fuckitude continues...
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

G35soldier

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2018, 07:03:50 AM »
Fuckitude is exactly what it is :shaka:

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2018, 10:03:50 PM »
Something had to be done because the Russians are alleged to have brought in the nerve agent (probably by diplomatic courier) to the UK and used to attack a former spy. They have allegedly done this several times in the past in an attempt to clean up the double agents. Russia has an interest in Syria because otherwise, the fleet has to pass through Turkey to reach the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia wants to keep their naval and land bases in Syria. Russia and Syria seemed to have taken the "so what are you gonna do about it" diplomatic tact. For whatever reason, Trump notified them that missiles are coming, so the Syrians moved their aircraft to Russian bases where they won't be touched. The existing chemical weapons are hidden somewhere, and it wouldn't be prudent to hit the stockpile because it would potentially scatter the toxin over the civilians we're supposedly trying to protect. We did supposedly knock out the chemical weapons factories, but I'm sure Assad has more stockpiled wildfire than he needs for years to come. The fuckitude continues...

First of all, the US has no legal right to have any presence in Syria.

Second, launching an attack on a sovereign nation that has not attacked the US or its territories is illegal under international and US law.

Third, keep in mind that the mainstream media that I presume you are basing your position on is the same outlet that routinely is in cahoots with the enemies of the 2nd Amendment, which casts doubts in its credibility.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2018, 10:27:17 PM »
First of all, the US has no legal right to have any presence in Syria.

The US has an Embassy in Syria.  That gives us a legal right to have a presence there.

Second, launching an attack on a sovereign nation that has not attacked the US or its territories is illegal under international and US law.

Iraq attacked Kuwait.  Germany attacked Europe.  Libya attacked civilian targets using terrorist tactics, including the downing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.  In all instances, the US was legally correct in attacking or joining allies to attack the aggressors.  According to the UN Charter, it is no longer about staying out of other countries' fights.  It's about member nations intervening when one aggressor state illegally attacks another state or their own citizens.  Without military intervention, existing humanitarian conventions' rules would go unenforced in cases such as WMDs.

Third, keep in mind that the mainstream media that I presume you are basing your position on is the same outlet that routinely is in cahoots with the enemies of the 2nd Amendment, which casts doubts in its credibility.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Inspector

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2018, 08:00:34 AM »
Why is no one talking about the latest unilateral illegal missile attack conducted by the US, UK, and France against Syria that might result in a potential WWIII scenario that could mean the potential obliteration of Hawaii, especially Oahu?
Kuleana,

Please explain how what the U.S. did is illegal in the context of the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) which is part of international law? Please do not keep repeating what the U.S. did is illegal. What I am asking you for is how the U.S. violated this particular R2P doctrine of international law. Thanks!
Dave Brilliant Website - Da Kine Web Design - Kona Forum - Koko Head Shooting Complex
Kona Ka'u Realty, 75-143 Hualalai Road, B-205, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

changemyoil66

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2018, 08:49:43 AM »
I look at it this way, no one commenting here or on other platforms are legal experts.  Also even if you claim that you are, did you put hundreds of hours looking up codes, law, statutes, case law, etc...Probably not.

I don't think Trump is dumb enough to give the dems a reason for impeachment.  I'm sure he checked, and double checked to see if he is allowed to launch a strike.  Probably had his legal team working overtime to make sure he is allowed to do it.  And also, we don't have 99% of the intel that he has.

The only thing that worries me is that Mattis didn't agree with the strike. 

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2018, 10:34:43 AM »
Kuleana,

Please explain how what the U.S. did is illegal in the context of the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) which is part of international law? Please do not keep repeating what the U.S. did is illegal. What I am asking you for is how the U.S. violated this particular R2P doctrine of international law. Thanks!

First of all, the US prior to their missile attack did not conduct any investigation or chemical analysis in Douma to determine whether a gas attack did occur and, if their was, who was responsible.  All that was shared by the White House and the US military was the same anti-Assad rhetoric that he is an evil man and he did it.  As in any court case, to determine guilt of a crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged perpetrator had to have the means and the motive to do so.

Using this standard, did Assad have the means to conduct an attack?

Possibly, as he could have some chemical weapons hidden somewhere.


However, does Assad have a motive to gas attack civilians?

Not really.  What would he have to gain by gassing civilians, when there are still many ISIS combatants still running around in his country that would be better strategic targets?

Furthermore, could it be possible that ISIS conducted the alleged gas attack in order to blame Assad, knowing the US would use that attack to further move forward to their ultimate goal of regime change in Syria, as the US did in Iraq and Libya?


The bottom line is the assertion that Assad gas attacked civilians in Douma was speculative at best and with the US, UK, and France moving forward to missile attack Syria, without investigating whether ISIS or some other group was the responsible party, is a violation of responsibility to protect doctrine in international law and a war crime.

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2018, 10:39:20 AM »
The only thing that worries me is that Mattis didn't agree with the strike.

That's the point.

Mattis may not be well-versed in international or US Constitutional law, but he is no fool.  He knows the attack ordered by Trump was not entirely legal and further knows the potential of WWIII such an attack could result.

ren

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2018, 10:55:58 AM »
since this is in preparedness & survival how do we prepare and survive an Assad chemical attack and/or US & allied missile strikes?
I know we have pillboxes on Oahu. How about the sewers again?
This my vehicle. You. . . . . .pedestrian!

changemyoil66

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2018, 12:50:32 PM »
That's the point.

Mattis may not be well-versed in international or US Constitutional law, but he is no fool.  He knows the attack ordered by Trump was not entirely legal and further knows the potential of WWIII such an attack could result.

Did Mattis say why he disagreed with the missile attack?

rklapp

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2018, 01:14:59 PM »
I look at it this way, no one commenting here or on other platforms are legal experts.  Also even if you claim that you are, did you put hundreds of hours looking up codes, law, statutes, case law, etc...Probably not.

I don't think Trump is dumb enough to give the dems a reason for impeachment.  I'm sure he checked, and double checked to see if he is allowed to launch a strike.  Probably had his legal team working overtime to make sure he is allowed to do it.  And also, we don't have 99% of the intel that he has.

The only thing that worries me is that Mattis didn't agree with the strike.
I wish I could share your optimistic view of the administration. President Trump changes his mind too often for me to believe he has a systematic method for making policy. Just ask Nikki Haley.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-all-due-respect-i-dont-get-confused-nikki-haley-says-of-russia-sanctions/
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

Inspector

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2018, 02:45:02 PM »
First of all, the US prior to their missile attack did not conduct any investigation or chemical analysis in Douma to determine whether a gas attack did occur and, if their was, who was responsible.  All that was shared by the White House and the US military was the same anti-Assad rhetoric that he is an evil man and he did it.  As in any court case, to determine guilt of a crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged perpetrator had to have the means and the motive to do so.

Using this standard, did Assad have the means to conduct an attack?

Possibly, as he could have some chemical weapons hidden somewhere.


However, does Assad have a motive to gas attack civilians?

Not really.  What would he have to gain by gassing civilians, when there are still many ISIS combatants still running around in his country that would be better strategic targets?

Furthermore, could it be possible that ISIS conducted the alleged gas attack in order to blame Assad, knowing the US would use that attack to further move forward to their ultimate goal of regime change in Syria, as the US did in Iraq and Libya?


The bottom line is the assertion that Assad gas attacked civilians in Douma was speculative at best and with the US, UK, and France moving forward to missile attack Syria, without investigating whether ISIS or some other group was the responsible party, is a violation of responsibility to protect doctrine in international law and a war crime.
Kuleana,

My understanding is that both the French and the Brits both have proof of what gas was used, how it was delivered and who delivered it. From my memory, it was delivered by Soviet built helicopters using barrel bombs with chlorine gas. They also suspect that Saran gas was used as well but they don't have enough proof of that. The only groups flying Soviet made helicopters in Syria are the Soviets and the Syrians. The rebels and isis who Asad is fighting in his civil war, do not have helicopters. In this civil war, Asad is fighting some of his own people. His army is killing the citizens of their own country. So it makes perfect sense to use any weapon at their disposal to do just that. Including chlorine gas. Which IMO is more of a terror weapon than it is a WMD. So I believe your standard is in error. Not saying I am an expert in any of this, but this is my understanding from all the reading I have been doing on this subject.

Now I go back to the R2P doctrine I mentioned before. According to what I have read this portion of international law allows the use of military from other countries to protect citizens of a country such as Syria, which is involved is a civil war, from their own (Syrian) government who is gassing them.

I am not trying to argue with you about this. The point I am trying to make is that there is so much international law that you keep quoting that contradicts itself many times over that anyone can justify what they did or in your case bash those who did. Again, I am not trying to argue, rather I am trying to point out that as much as you feel you are correct, you can just as easily be wrong. International law is much more subjective and contradicting than our own laws here. Your claiming that international law is the standard by which you claim the illegality of the actions of the US, Brits and French can just as easily be used to justify the legality what they did.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not defending this action recently taken by our military. I don't believe in using our military for humanitarian purposes except in time of emergency such as a natural disaster. Not as a policing action. Unless the security of our military and citizens is in jeopardy. Since neither one of us have access to the real reasons military action was taken in this case I would suggest that there was probably a much better and stronger reason for the use of our military than what we will ever know.  :shaka:
Dave Brilliant Website - Da Kine Web Design - Kona Forum - Koko Head Shooting Complex
Kona Ka'u Realty, 75-143 Hualalai Road, B-205, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2018, 03:09:19 PM »
Did Mattis say why he disagreed with the missile attack?

It seems outside of the legality of attacking Syria, he was rightfully concerned of the potential military liability of the strike.

Please see the link for details: https://www.rt.com/usa/424072-mattis-syria-strike-trump/

Kuleana

Re: Illegal Missile Attack on Syria
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM »
Kuleana,

My understanding is that both the French and the Brits both have proof of what gas was used, how it was delivered and who delivered it. From my memory, it was delivered by Soviet built helicopters using barrel bombs with chlorine gas. They also suspect that Saran gas was used as well but they don't have enough proof of that. The only groups flying Soviet made helicopters in Syria are the Soviets and the Syrians. The rebels and isis who Asad is fighting in his civil war, do not have helicopters. In this civil war, Asad is fighting some of his own people. His army is killing the citizens of their own country. So it makes perfect sense to use any weapon at their disposal to do just that. Including chlorine gas. Which IMO is more of a terror weapon than it is a WMD. So I believe your standard is in error. Not saying I am an expert in any of this, but this is my understanding from all the reading I have been doing on this subject.

Now I go back to the R2P doctrine I mentioned before. According to what I have read this portion of international law allows the use of military from other countries to protect citizens of a country such as Syria, which is involved is a civil war, from their own (Syrian) government who is gassing them.

I am not trying to argue with you about this. The point I am trying to make is that there is so much international law that you keep quoting that contradicts itself many times over that anyone can justify what they did or in your case bash those who did. Again, I am not trying to argue, rather I am trying to point out that as much as you feel you are correct, you can just as easily be wrong. International law is much more subjective and contradicting than our own laws here. Your claiming that international law is the standard by which you claim the illegality of the actions of the US, Brits and French can just as easily be used to justify the legality what they did.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not defending this action recently taken by our military. I don't believe in using our military for humanitarian purposes except in time of emergency such as a natural disaster. Not as a policing action. Unless the security of our military and citizens is in jeopardy. Since neither one of us have access to the real reasons military action was taken in this case I would suggest that there was probably a much better and stronger reason for the use of our military than what we will ever know.  :shaka:

I hope you are right and that this attack and potential future military attacks by the US and its allies are not reminiscent to the actions that led to the current Iraq debacle.