9/11: 'PRESIDENT' OBAMA'S PHONEY 'ISIL' PRETEXT DOES NOT PROVIDE -LEGAL GROUNDS- FOR HIS DECLARATION OF WAR ON...SYRIAN PEOPLE. (11.09.2014)
Last updated 5pm.
The laws of physics prove that the U.S. government's 'Official' version of 9/11, is like the U.S. government, a murderous criminal fraud, that in failing to respect the people's rule of law, lacks any legitimacy.
The U.S. 'President', and all the fools who sail with him, are very much mistaken in thinking they can continue to insult the intelligence of the law abiding -majority- of thinking people, all around the world.
this is the -legitimate- Syrian armed resistance to 'President' Obama that he seeks to...murder.
Most people are not remotely 'confused' at all by the corporate advertisers, whatever their shape and form.
Murderers are murderers and apologists are apologists.
There are no -legal grounds- that the U.S 'President' has provided to wheel out his latest phoney pretext of 'ISIL' to declare war on the ...Syrian people.
It is (for example) the long unwelcome U.S. -military- bases in Europe that could be used to further illegal U.S. military actions in Syria, which are illegal.
what are the names of -all- the participants in this illegal 'meeting' in Syria in May 2013 ?
"...First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.
Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
al-bahra & co: more illegitimate self-serving criminals who will murder any of their fellow human beings, so they can make money.
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people -- a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all..."
People can expect the usual deafening silence of any -legal challenge- from the entire spectrum of 'controlled opposition' in the U.S. where no real resistance to the U.S. government exists.
British corporate politicians are pointedly thus far, keeping their heads down muttering about Scotland, while publicly saying nothing about Obama's latest grandstanding.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that supporting air strikes in Syria is a higher-risk strategy than supporting air strikes in Iraq?
Mr Hammond: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a qualitative difference between any proposition of air strikes in Syria and such an activity in Iraq. The legal, technical and military differences make the proposition of air strikes an order of magnitude more complicated in Syria.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the military differences, as he said that there were quantitative differences between Syria and Iraq? We are talking about a process. What are the air strikes meant to achieve? Would they achieve something different in Iraq from in Syria, or are we taking this the wrong way round?
Mr Hammond: When I talked about a military difference between Iraq and Syria, I was referring to the different air defence systems that protect the territory in those two countries. In Iraq, the skies are open over ISIL-controlled territory, whereas in Syria a sophisticated
10 Sep 2014 : Column 915
integrated air defence system protects the whole of the country’s airspace and would make air strikes complex and difficult to deliver.
The Prime Minister has described President Assad as “illegitimate”, implying that Britain and the United States could act in Syria with impunity. Surely that position is legally questionable, given that Assad won recent—admittedly highly manipulated— elections, and given that the divided rebel factions do not constitute an alternative Government. Russia, Assad’s ally, would be likely to veto any attempt to gain United Nations authority for air strikes, and Assad can deploy sophisticated Russian-made air defence systems and fighter planes. His air capacity may have been degraded, especially over the parts of Syria that he no longer controls, but it is still formidable. I simply do not see how we could mount air strikes—as I believe we must in Syria if we
10 Sep 2014 : Column 945
are to degrade and help to defeat ISIL—without engaging with the regime in some way. That does not mean befriending Assad, and it does not mean legitimising his regime in any way. It could mean back-channel contact. But whatever the means, a way must be found to clear the path for air strikes. We should also have to engage with Iran, and with Russia—which, again, will be difficult, especially given Putin’s behaviour in Ukraine, but which is, in my view, essential.
The elephant in the room (see weasel words below), the British government have learned through the real resistance of our campaign, is real -legal challenges- from the people, using the people's rule of law, in a court of law, that politicians would like to 'find new ways' to avoid.
10 Sep 2014 : Column 960
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con):
It is very easy to say that we should have a vote in this House before we deploy soldiers. Of course, that is an easy and a populist thing to say—most people would agree with it. In the past 500 years, we have taken part in umpteen wars. There is only one year since the second world war when a British soldier has not been killed on active service—1968. In every other year we have lost a British soldier on active service. We have taken part in dozens of wars over the years, but on only two occasions have there been substantive votes prior to the deployment of troops. The first was in 2003, when Mr Blair took us to war in Iraq; there were three votes on that occasion. I suspect that not a single person listening to this debate believes that that was the right thing to have done. The second vote was this time last year, on Syria. It may well have had the right outcome, but frankly it was something of a procedural shambles, and I am not certain that we would necessarily want the same thing to occur in future.
10 Sep 2014 : Column 961
My view, and the view...is that there are substantial difficulties in calling for a vote in the way that is very easily done. First, Back Benchers have to be alerted to often secret intelligence, the strategic position and the tactical position on the ground. The Government’s legal advice has to be shared with people like me...
...My co-author, Mark Lomas QC, thinks that it is wrong to have a vote in this House on every single military action. He would like us to preserve the royal prerogative that we have always used for the past 500 years. I think that genie is out of the bottle and we cannot go back to the days when the Prime Minister and the Executive simply did what they wanted to do.
None the less, there are substantial difficulties involved in having substantive votes. For example, if we have the new NATO rapid reaction corps that the Prime Minister announced last weekend, it will have two days to go into action, and it will do so under the control of NATO, not of this House. What if this House disagrees with NATO—or the United Nations, for that matter?
I am therefore seeking to advance the thesis that we must find a new way of doing this. The solution I propose is that we write into law the parameters under which we would go to war. The easiest one would be the age-old theory of just war. That lays down the reasons for warfare, about which we could have a huge debate, including the parameters under which we would decide to go to war. It also lays down the way in which we conduct war—the Geneva conventions are based on the theory of just war—and the way in which we conclude wars: what we do after a war has ended and how we treat enemies and those who have been defeated.
Such theories are as old as the hills and as good as they ever have been. If we were to write them into the law of the land in this House, we would allow the Executive and the Prime Minister to take the country to war as they do at present, but they would no longer do so under the royal prerogative; they would do so under what I would like to call the parliamentary prerogative. It is this House that would lay down precisely what the Executive should do in the future. I think that is a much better way of doing it than bogging ourselves down in votes that we might or might not win.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con):
"...the vote on Iraq. The decision to go to war blinded us to the wider strategic considerations that should have been at the forefront of our minds. We obsessed about the wrong things. Incidentally, the opponents of war obsessed about the wrong things too. They obsessed about legality, instead of effect.
The National Security Council needs a template — a doctrine of thinking —in approaching such matters...
All the 'politicians' who demand anything -but- the people's rule of that they must live and abide by too, lack any legitimacy at all.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con):
I was in touch with the Free Syrian Army spokesman just this afternoon, and he reminded us:
“We are the west’s partners—we share the west’s value...
The extremists threaten Syria—they threaten Assad and his regime—and in return for work our air forces can do against extremists, is there not something to get negotiators back to the table? I am not talking about Assad — he is expendable to both the Russians and the Iranians—but the remnants of the Syrian regime, together with the FSA, could negotiate, provided the incentive is there, and possibly we can provide it.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD):
....Although it was suggested a moment or two ago that legality was perhaps too much in the minds of those who took that course of action, the truth is that unless we are able to persuade the House of Commons that what we are about to do is legal, we will have very little chance of persuading the public outside the House of Commons that what we are proposing to do is in the best interests of the public.
Mr Jenkin: The point was not to criticise any legitimate discussion about legality, although I do not think there was any question about that legality. The problem was that we spent all our time discussing that [legality] and talking through the United Nations...
Sir Menzies Campbell: My recollection is that the discussion was mainly about illegality, and I think the hon. Gentleman does himself and his party a little less well than he could have, because the Conservative spokesman, translated to the House of Lords as Lord Ancram, was among those who were arguing very strongly that there was a complete absence of a plan about what needed to be done after the military action had been successfully concluded. That attitude and those matters were under active consideration by the hon. Gentleman’s own party, even though it had voted to go to war anyway.
There have been some criticisms about strategy....I wish to emphasise my support for the notion of values. Values have been invoked in some thoughtful speeches in the course of this debate—including freedom of speech, the rights of women and the right to free expression. I would like to put it slightly differently and start with the rule of law, which is a fundamental constituent of any democratic society. Human rights are important, too—in a sense, they embrace some aspects of freedom of speech and the rights of women. Democratic structures are important, too, of course. These are the values...
10 Sep 2014 : Column 972
...I think that we should be nothing other than determined—indeed, almost arrogant—in promoting them, because of the stability that they undoubtedly create....
...I do not really care whether it is a matter of law, a matter of prerogative or a matter of politics, but before this House endorses military action which would have the result of putting our men and women of the three armed services in danger’s way, the Government should come to the House and explain what they are proposing, and the House should endorse it. Anything other than that will not satisfy public opinion.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con):
Secondly, in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad no longer has control of the whole of his country. There was a movement in favour of democracy, but that has been overtaken by extremists, including Hamas and the much increased force of the so-called Islamic State, which is still more extreme. It has taken over a third of Syria and has moved into Iraq, murdering men and raping women and children of the Christian faith and other faiths who refuse to convert to Islam.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con):
The Government are right to make a commitment that there will be no air strikes in Iraq unless that has been debated in this House and approved.
....Ministers realise the difference between air strikes in Iraq, which many of us could support, provided certain preconditions were in place, including a request from the Baghdad Government, and air strikes in Syria, which would be a much higher risk policy, not only because of Russian-built air defences, but because of the legalities...
"...Who the hell are you to be studying us and issuing us Euro-American directives on “good governance” and “conflict resolution”?
Crises of governance and conflicts which have been engineered by none other than your governments , with your intellectual cover....
What Syria needs is more women who understand how their liberation is linked to their freedom and dignity as human beings who are free from all forms of exploitation and subjugation.
An integral part of this freedom is a sovereign and unitary Syria which is free from the predatory ambitions of the Empire and its Arab minions..."
We do not live in an age where the law abiding -majority- of people all around the world will any longer accept, that 'political solutions', can be violently imposed through corporate U.S. & U.K. state violence, that illegally seeks to take precedence over the people’s rule of law, that exists to protect life.
This is the age where self-serving corporate politicians, like the murderous Obama will be made to accept they are subject to and will live by, the people’s rule of law.
It is noticeably the U.S. 'President' who is actually violently running from accountability in any court of law.
It remains the criminal U.S. 'President' who is -legally obliged- to disclose the -names- of those he has (illegally) provided weapons to in Syria, along with details of -all- those lethal weapons.
It is the U.S. 'President' who in ignoring the primacy of the people's rule of law, has lost all legitimacy.
A reasonable person knows that the U.S. 'President' is hiding from the true facts and evidence, that prove that the U.S. 'President' has illegally armed 'opposition' in Syria -including- the 'Islamic State'.
The only intention of the U.S. 'President' is to continue what have been years of Genocide in the Middle East, by trying to illegally overthrow the Syrian government, to continue stealing...oil.
No real -resistance- would ever accept the likes of Jihadi John McCain as their murderous mouthpiece.
The Guardian meanwhile just made up lies in an unattributable non quote that they claimed an unidentified PM's spokesperson made.