We all know Iraq was in the wrong after Saddam's removal. I don't know anything about the Yemenis and the thing about Hamas is that they have a close relationship with Hezbollah. So it's not all sectarian everywhere.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Iraq. Is it better now?? (AKA ISIS/ISIL/IS/name-of-the-week-here) (25 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Well, you have to know Shiite gangs conquered Sanaa, the capital of Yemen yesterday. This is the fourth Arab capital they control now.
Anyway, Hamas and Hezbollah had good relations when Hamas leadership was in Syria before the Syrian revolution started in 2011. When the revolution started, Assad called his allies to help him in killing anybody who calls for freedom. Hezbollah responded and sent their troops inside Syria while Hamas decided to leave the whole country. Since then, their relations are not good, to say the least
Anyway, Hamas and Hezbollah had good relations when Hamas leadership was in Syria before the Syrian revolution started in 2011. When the revolution started, Assad called his allies to help him in killing anybody who calls for freedom. Hezbollah responded and sent their troops inside Syria while Hamas decided to leave the whole country. Since then, their relations are not good, to say the least
good point
- - - Updated - - -
I'm right-wing christian as are many of my friends/family and I can assure you we don't look at politics of the US as a vehicle of God. No one I know says "we need to go here or there because God is on our side and we are doing something he would approve." Maybe I'm not right-wing enough.
- - - Updated - - -
As long as it isn't the West, right? @swag
- - - Updated - - -
Notice he didn't answer one of your questions about proof or providing a source.
- - - Updated - - -
Shiite hit the fan 
- - - Updated - - -
I'm right-wing christian as are many of my friends/family and I can assure you we don't look at politics of the US as a vehicle of God. No one I know says "we need to go here or there because God is on our side and we are doing something he would approve." Maybe I'm not right-wing enough.
- - - Updated - - -
As long as it isn't the West, right? @swag
- - - Updated - - -
Notice he didn't answer one of your questions about proof or providing a source.
- - - Updated - - -
Hustini & Bjerknes vs. Rebel & Turk
Again with the Sunni vs. Shia thing. Why don't you just label them Houthis ? Isn't that more politically correct ? It makes it sound like you have an undying hate for Shias everywhere Rebel, more so than the Israelis. I don't know what's going on in Yemen but if it leads to a more unified government with equal human rights for everyone, then that's fine by me
Well, we know there's always going to be innocent civilians crossed in the line of fire and Hezbollah's decision to join the war might have been sketchy but deliberate massacring people because of their faith when they barely do it in their home country raised my eyebrows.
Notice he didn't answer one of your questions about proof or providing a source.
US ties itself in legal knots to cover shifting rationale for Syria strikes
US government lawyers have invoked Iraq’s right to self-defence and the weakness of the Assad regime as twin justifications for US bombing in Syria, in a feat of legal acrobatics that may reopen questions over its right to intervene in the bitter civil war.
In a letter to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, released near 24 hours after attacks began, US ambassador Samantha Power argued that the threat to Iraq from Islamic State, known as Isis or Isil, gave the US and its allies in the region an automatic right to attack on its behalf.
“Iraq has made clear that it is facing a serious threat of continuing attacks from Isil coming out of safe havens in Syria,” Power wrote.
“The government of Iraq has asked that the United States lead international efforts to strike Isil sites and military strongholds in Syria in order to end the continuing attacks on Iraq, to protect Iraqi citizens and ultimately to enable and arm Iraqi forces to perform their task of regaining control of the Iraqi borders.”
The brief letter did not mention the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which rested on erroneous claims of weapons of mass destruction and arguably contributed to its current instability, but stresses instead the country’s right to self-defence in the face of this new threat.
“The United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing Isil threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders,” it said.
The US also argued that there was legal right to pursue Isis inside Syria due to the weakness of that country’s government – a regime the US has been actively urging be undermined by rebel groups for much of the past two years.
“States must be able to defend themselves, in accordance with the inherent right on individual and collective self-defence, as reflected in article 51 of the UN Charter, when, as is the case here, the government of the state where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory for such attacks,” Power wrote.
The legal circumlocutions to avoid requesting a UN security council resolution match similar efforts to avoid requesting specific legal authority from Congress.
Fearing that US politicians up for re-election in November may balk at voting for a third military attack on Iraq and being sucked into a Syrian quagmire, the White House has avoided seeking a fresh authorisation of the use of military force, preferring to rely on early authorisations against al-Qaida granted after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
But this means arguing that Isis is equivalent to al-Qaida, even though the groups are split – logic that several critics in Congress, such as Virginia senator Tim Kaine, have argued is flawed and requires a fresh authorisation to fix.
Power reached for similar arguments in her letter to the UN, arguing that Tuesday’s separate attack on Khorasan rebels in Syria was also an act of self defence by the US due to the group’s closeness to al-Qaida.
“The United States has initiated military actions in Syria against al-Qaida elements in Syria known as the Khorosan Group to address terrorist threats that they pose to the United States and our partners and allies,” she wrote.
“Isil and other terrorist groups in Syria are a threat not only to Iraq but also to many other countries, including the United States and our partners in the region and beyond,” Power’s letter said.
Recent testimony by US intelligence and homeland security officials in Washington has acknowledged that Syrian groups such as Isis are not known to be planning any direct attacks on the US.
Earlier justifications for attacking Isis in Iraq rested instead on the argument that the US needed to defend its personnel in the country, even though many had been moved to the north of the country specifically to tackle the group.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/us-legal-knots-shifting-rationale-syria-strikes
US government lawyers have invoked Iraq’s right to self-defence and the weakness of the Assad regime as twin justifications for US bombing in Syria, in a feat of legal acrobatics that may reopen questions over its right to intervene in the bitter civil war.
In a letter to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, released near 24 hours after attacks began, US ambassador Samantha Power argued that the threat to Iraq from Islamic State, known as Isis or Isil, gave the US and its allies in the region an automatic right to attack on its behalf.
“Iraq has made clear that it is facing a serious threat of continuing attacks from Isil coming out of safe havens in Syria,” Power wrote.
“The government of Iraq has asked that the United States lead international efforts to strike Isil sites and military strongholds in Syria in order to end the continuing attacks on Iraq, to protect Iraqi citizens and ultimately to enable and arm Iraqi forces to perform their task of regaining control of the Iraqi borders.”
The brief letter did not mention the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which rested on erroneous claims of weapons of mass destruction and arguably contributed to its current instability, but stresses instead the country’s right to self-defence in the face of this new threat.
“The United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing Isil threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders,” it said.
The US also argued that there was legal right to pursue Isis inside Syria due to the weakness of that country’s government – a regime the US has been actively urging be undermined by rebel groups for much of the past two years.
“States must be able to defend themselves, in accordance with the inherent right on individual and collective self-defence, as reflected in article 51 of the UN Charter, when, as is the case here, the government of the state where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory for such attacks,” Power wrote.
The legal circumlocutions to avoid requesting a UN security council resolution match similar efforts to avoid requesting specific legal authority from Congress.
Fearing that US politicians up for re-election in November may balk at voting for a third military attack on Iraq and being sucked into a Syrian quagmire, the White House has avoided seeking a fresh authorisation of the use of military force, preferring to rely on early authorisations against al-Qaida granted after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
But this means arguing that Isis is equivalent to al-Qaida, even though the groups are split – logic that several critics in Congress, such as Virginia senator Tim Kaine, have argued is flawed and requires a fresh authorisation to fix.
Power reached for similar arguments in her letter to the UN, arguing that Tuesday’s separate attack on Khorasan rebels in Syria was also an act of self defence by the US due to the group’s closeness to al-Qaida.
“The United States has initiated military actions in Syria against al-Qaida elements in Syria known as the Khorosan Group to address terrorist threats that they pose to the United States and our partners and allies,” she wrote.
“Isil and other terrorist groups in Syria are a threat not only to Iraq but also to many other countries, including the United States and our partners in the region and beyond,” Power’s letter said.
Recent testimony by US intelligence and homeland security officials in Washington has acknowledged that Syrian groups such as Isis are not known to be planning any direct attacks on the US.
Earlier justifications for attacking Isis in Iraq rested instead on the argument that the US needed to defend its personnel in the country, even though many had been moved to the north of the country specifically to tackle the group.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/us-legal-knots-shifting-rationale-syria-strikes
