Why Obama started bombing to protect Yazidi's but did nothing for Syrian Sunni's?

[kalu_miah]

More than 100,000 Syrian Sunni's were killed by Assad regime, but Obama did nothing. Didn't they deserve humanitarian protection from Assad's forces when the rebellion did not even start.

But when Yazidi's are victims suddenly Obama springs into action. Is it the Kurdistan and nearby oil fields being threatened? Or is it because they are non-Muslim and hence get greater sympathy and public support of the US and hence are a safer bet for Obama to save, keeping in mind that Obama is already accused of being a Muslim by right wing nuts.

Please don't get me wrong. I despise these IS terrorists, and I support bombing them out of existence. And I support 100% saving these defense less Yazidi's.

But I am just puzzled by Obama's actions, why the double standard. So fellow forumers, please present your views, if you may.

 

[Falcon29]

Because you have to go their way. They don't want people who oppose their interests. You either support Israel and local regimes or you will be targeted in various ways.

The least of them being by violence. People only believe in black and white. So since not enough bombing is done for the international public to notice the real agenda in the Middle East nobody will believe that it is all tied to one thing. The very same thing it always has been.

They don't notice the 99% of the non-violent measures being taken to suppress Sunni Arabs/Political groups/etc...

 

[illusion8]

More than 100,000 Syrian Sunni's were killed by Assad regime, but Obama did nothing. Didn't they deserve humanitarian protection from Assad's forces when the rebellion did not even start.

But when Yazidi's are victims suddenly Obama springs into action. Is it the Kurdistan and nearby oil fields being threatened? Or is it because they are non-Muslim and hence get greater sympathy and public support of the US and hence are a safer bet for Obama to save, keeping in mind that Obama is already accused of being a Muslim by right wing nuts.

Please don't get me wrong. I despise these IS terrorists, and I support bombing them out of existence. And I support 100% saving these defense less Yazidi's.

But I am just puzzled by Obama's actions, why the double standard. So fellow forumers, please present your views, if you may.

Probably because the Yezidi's (except the Kurds which the US is backing anyway) don't have any support in the region while the Sunni's and the Shia's have plenty.

And, also probably because they will be extinct if the US don't act...probably worth saving as well.

 

[IR1907]

Because according to International law, Bashar Assad is fighting terrorism in his country. You cant bomb a government that fights terrorists.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Because according to International law, Bashar Assad is fighting terrorism in his country. You cant bomb a government that fights terrorists.

No, that is not 100% correct.
According to International Law you cannot bomb a country unless:

1. You are fighting a legitimate war vs the country
2. You have the approval of the legal government of the country
3. There is a UN Security Council resolution giving You a mandate.

Iraq fits into category 2.
Since Russia is blocking any such resolution in the UNSC, Syria cannot legally be bombed.

 

[kalu_miah]

No, that is not 100% correct.
According to International Law you cannot bomb a country unless:

1. You are fighting a legitimate war vs the country
2. You have the approval of the legal government of the country
3. There is a UN Security Council resolution giving You a mandate.

Iraq fits into category 2.
Since Russia is blocking any such resolution in the UNSC, Syria cannot legally be bombed.

Did the US have any of the above 3 reasons to invade and occupy Saddam ruled Iraq?

 

[Sage]

More than 100,000 Syrian Sunni's were killed by Assad regime, but Obama did nothing. Didn't they deserve humanitarian protection from Assad's forces when the rebellion did not even start.

But when Yazidi's are victims suddenly Obama springs into action. Is it the Kurdistan and nearby oil fields being threatened? Or is it because they are non-Muslim and hence get greater sympathy and public support of the US and hence are a safer bet for Obama to save, keeping in mind that Obama is already accused of being a Muslim by right wing nuts.

Please don't get me wrong. I despise these IS terrorists, and I support bombing them out of existence. And I support 100% saving these defense less Yazidi's.

But I am just puzzled by Obama's actions, why the double standard. So fellow forumers, please present your views, if you may.

A very valid question and I am not having any answer for it even though I searched a lot about it ...Even UK sent them the provisions within 24 hours ...

 

[IR1907]

No, that is not 100% correct.
According to International Law you cannot bomb a country unless:

1. You are fighting a legitimate war vs the country
2. You have the approval of the legal government of the country
3. There is a UN Security Council resolution giving You a mandate.

Iraq fits into category 2.
Since Russia is blocking any such resolution in the UNSC, Syria cannot legally be bombed.

You went into great details there, lol. But i think my comment was clear why Syria can not get bombed.

 

[HRK]

More than 100,000 Syrian Sunni's were killed by Assad regime, but Obama did nothing. Didn't they deserve humanitarian protection from Assad's forces when the rebellion did not even start.

But when Yazidi's are victims suddenly Obama springs into action. Is it the Kurdistan and nearby oil fields being threatened? Or is it because they are non-Muslim and hence get greater sympathy and public support of the US and hence are a safer bet for Obama to save, keeping in mind that Obama is already accused of being a Muslim by right wing nuts.

Please don't get me wrong. I despise these IS terrorists, and I support bombing them out of existence. And I support 100% saving these defense less Yazidi's.

But I am just puzzled by Obama's actions, why the double standard. So fellow forumers, please present your views, if you may.

@kalu_miah would ask you not to analysis every political development under religious influence, it's a strategic decision of USA which has practically endorse the division of Iraq, as this event of victimization of Yazadies is used by US to arm Kurds instead to the National Army of Iraq.

So Kurdistan has came into existence as an Internationally accepted State.

 

[kalu_miah]

@kalu_miah would ask you not to analysis every political development under religious influence, it's a strategic decision of USA which has practically endorse the division of Iraq, as this event of victimization of Yazadies is used by US to arm Kurds instead to the National Army of Iraq.

So Kurdistan has came into existence as an Internationally accepted State.

Can you back up the bolded part of your statement?

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

Did the US have any of the above 3 reasons to invade and occupy Saddam ruled Iraq?

Good point.

 

[HRK]

Can you back up the bolded part of your statement?

Why Obama started bombing to protect Yazidi's but did nothing for Syrian Sunni's?

Source: Why Obama started bombing to protect Yazidi's but did nothing for Syrian Sunni's?

 

[JUBA]

Cuz Kurds support and have relations with Israel while Sunni Syrians don't, simple as that.

 

[kalu_miah]

Why Obama started bombing to protect Yazidi's but did nothing for Syrian Sunni's?

Source: Why Obama started bombing to protect Yazidi's but did nothing for Syrian Sunni's?

Don't post nonsense.

 

[WAR-rior]

Did the US have any of the above 3 reasons to invade and occupy Saddam ruled Iraq?

Dont be naive. US attacked Saddam in pretense of point 1. To earn the eligibility, it talked bout the Bio Weapons and its usage a decade ago by Saddam and hence in name of War against Terror, its declared war against Saddam as he refused to allow Americans its air and space.