‘Beyond a massacre: France deliberately bombed Syrian civilians after Nice attack’

[airmarshal]

When France cries about terror, it should look at its behavior towards Middle East and so should the rest of the West.

France bombed Syria after Paris attacks without any evidence that the attacks were carried out by some group based in Syria. It turned out the attacks were planned in Belgium.

 

[NirmalKrish]

When France cries about terror, it should look at its behavior towards Middle East and so should the rest of the West.

France bombed Syria after Paris attacks without any evidence that the attacks were carried out by some group based in Syria. It turned out the attacks were planned in Belgium.

Dude cause and effect, sadly its an endless cycle.

 

[airmarshal]

That is Your interpretation.
When terrorist act committed by ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda etc. where the perpetrator
claims to fight for Islam, I consider it to be Muslim Terrorism.
That is not labelling anyone not involved in terrorism as anything.

But those groups are not trying to follow International Law at all.

Under which international law France, Britain, US, Sauidi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar armed and trained terrorists to bring down UN recognised Assad regime?

Dude cause and effect, sadly its and endless cycle.

So then they should not cry. They should not expect the rest of the world to mourn for them. You attack someone, you get a punch back simple as that. Give it the color of religion to claim yourself a victim, this is not working anyone.

 

[NirmalKrish]

Under which international law France, Britain, US, Sauidi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar armed and trained terrorists to bring down UN recognised Assad regime?



So then they should not cry. They should not expect the rest of the world to mourn for them. You attack someone, you get a punch back simple as that. Give it the color of religion to claim yourself a victim, this is not working anyone.

So your justifying the killing of innocents on both sides? quiet sad, if its gov to gov or terrorists to army or special forces then i would see some value add in your statement. Blanket approach is not the way to do my friend.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

But Pakistan does not then tell its own Kashmiri population to sort out it's problems. Kashmir is seen as part of Pakistan and Kashmiris are seen as compatriots (of course Bharat would disagree) who are under occupation. Kashmir is a disputed territory even by the UN.
NATO does not see Syrian or Libyan people as compatriots or as part of NATO. Was Syria disputed territory? Was the government of Assad not recognized by the UN as the legitimate one?

NATO arms these Khawarij groups who go on to do unspeakable crimes in the name of Islam and NATO knows that this. Then governments of (some) NATO countries tell its Muslims to sort your problems out without NATO ever thinking: "perhaps we should not arm these groups?"

Kashmir is part of India, and has never been part of Pakistan.

The French action is based on UNSC resolutions.

Nov 2015:

The resolution calls on U.N. member states "that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures" against the Islamic State group and all other violent extremist groups "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria."

Under which international law France, Britain, US, Sauidi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar armed and trained terrorists to bring down UN recognised Assad regime?

Which International Law is broken?

 

[MarkusS]

When France cries about terror, it should look at its behavior towards Middle East and so should the rest of the West.

France bombed Syria after Paris attacks without any evidence that the attacks were carried out by some group based in Syria. It turned out the attacks were planned in Belgium.

We demand that our enemies get destroyed. The people of the IS territories have the chance to rise against ISIS and topple them. Their silence is their agreement.

 

[TMA]

Kashmir is part of India, and has never been part of Pakistan.

The French action is based on UNSC resolutions.

Nov 2015:

The resolution calls on U.N. member states "that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures" against the Islamic State group and all other violent extremist groups "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria."


Which International Law is broken?

Tell this to Kashmiris.
You probably think that Crimea should be part of Ukraine?

Yet NATO provided arms to terrorist groups and those arms then wound up in the hands of ISIS. Then when Russia exposed NATO's hypocrisy and succor only then did NATO changes her policy as she realised this way of regime change will not work in Syria like it did in Libya.

 

[Taygibay]

Just to make something clear, France has not trained terrorist groups in Syria.
Only anti-ISIL bombings over Syria. Support to opposition groups is non-military.

We are training the Iraqi Special Forces and providing weapons to the Kurds
of the KRG under a govt to govt accord with Baghdad.

We are however busy in sub-Sahara/Sahel region but if that endangers Assad,
m'well, he must be really weak!

Just sayin', Tay.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Tell this to Kashmiris.
You probably think that Crimea should be part of Ukraine?

Yet NATO provided arms to terrorist groups and those arms then wound up in the hands of ISIS. Then when Russia exposed NATO's hypocrisy and succor only then did NATO changes her policy as she realised this way of regime change will not work in Syria like it did in Libya.

Some Kashmiris might not like being part of India, but they have no legal basis to claim that they should be part of
Pakistan, simply because there are no International Law that governs the situation.
There is no International Law that govern when and how to break up a country in parts.
There is no International Law that defines how to break up a colony.
Unions typically have such a clause. Both the Soviet Union and EU had/has such clauses.
The only legal event was the handover of Kashmir by its former ruler to India,
due to the violent behaviour of people wanting to join Pakistan.

The difference between Kashmir and Syria is that Kashmir is part of a democracy,
while Syria is a dictatorship with fake elections.

Crimea is one country overrunning another.
Syria started off as an uprising by the Syrian against the dictator,
but have since then been hi-jacked by Islamist terrorists.

The main reason for arms reaching ISIS is actually the lack of support from outside,
since undersupplied underpaid Syrians defected and/or sold the little equipment they got.
Already when the uprising started, there was debate whether there was any group within Syria
which would, if successful lead to a government interested in the wellbeing of Syrians,
rather than people just fighting for a right to oppress the rest.

 

[airmarshal]

We demand that our enemies get destroyed. The people of the IS territories have the chance to rise against ISIS and topple them. Their silence is their agreement.

This is such a rubbish! Their silence is not their agreement. Their silence is their suffering.

Kashmir is part of India, and has never been part of Pakistan.

The French action is based on UNSC resolutions.

Nov 2015:

The resolution calls on U.N. member states "that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures" against the Islamic State group and all other violent extremist groups "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria."


Which International Law is broken?

Mr Indian!

International law guarantees territorial integrity of any nation. Syria is a nation. Its borders were broached by foreign countries without provocation from Syria - by funding and aiding terrorism in Syria to topple a legitimate government there.

Kashmir never was part of India. It was India which took the issue to UN in 1948. It was India which agreed to hold plebiscite there under UN resolution. This is why Kashmir is a disputed territory recognized under international law.

Why did not agree to hold plebiscite in Rajasthan? Because Rajasthan is part of India and is not disputed.

 

[MarkusS]

This is such a rubbish! Their silence is not their agreement. Their silence is their suffering.



Mr Indian!

International law guarantees territorial integrity of any nation. Syria is a nation. Its borders were broached by foreign countries without provocation from Syria - by funding and aiding terrorism in Syria to topple a legitimate government there.

Kashmir never was part of India. It was India which took the issue to UN in 1948. It was India which agreed to hold plebiscite there under UN resolution. This is why Kashmir is a disputed territory recognized under international law.

Why did not agree to hold plebiscite in Rajasthan? Because Rajasthan is part of India and is not disputed.

No, they can stand up. Stand up and fight against a tyrant. Thats what we in the west did so often.

Tey could be the light in that dark region. Stand up. revolt against ISIS. They would be heroes. But they chose to side with the enemy. Their silence is their agreement with it.

I heared the regions that are conquered by shia forces and kurdish forces get cleansed from any sunni presence. Raqqa is the center of evil. The people there have no future. Open revolt against radical islam is their only hope.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

This is such a rubbish! Their silence is not their agreement. Their silence is their suffering.



Mr Indian!

International law guarantees territorial integrity of any nation. Syria is a nation. Its borders were broached by foreign countries without provocation from Syria - by funding and aiding terrorism in Syria to topple a legitimate government there.

Kashmir never was part of India. It was India which took the issue to UN in 1948. It was India which agreed to hold plebiscite there under UN resolution. This is why Kashmir is a disputed territory recognized under international law.

Why did not agree to hold plebiscite in Rajasthan? Because Rajasthan is part of India and is not disputed.

Maybe You should go back to school and take some geography classes...

There is an unresolved conflict between Territorial Integrity and Humanitarian Intervention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention.

And no, the Assad regime is not legitimate.
Assumed power in a coup, and maintain power using fake elections which even the Russians considers to be a joke.

When the Assad reaction to the Arab spring was mass killing, even that shroud dissappeared.