SYRIA: ANOTHER BRITISH 'DODGY DOSSIER' AS DESPOTIC UNELECTED SAUDI PUPPETS THREATEN TO BOMB SYRIAN PEOPLE. (14.09.2014)

 

Only the bought and paid for corporate 'news' media could unblinkingly repeat it was considered a good thing that the British government's despotic unelected -Saudi- puppet regime are considering bombing Syrian people.

 

Behind this 'announcement' lies another 'dodgy dossier' that has British Parliament 'researchers' trying to 'develop' their (far from) legal arguments based on a U.S. 'law' blog !!

 

home-grown british 'jihadi' mocking islam through his less than islamic saudi puppets.

 

in legal terms bombing syrian people is called an -act of war- which would mean the british govt. being forced to cut ties etc. with saudi arabia who are their puppet regime.

(source: guardian 14.09.2014)

 

 

 

One utterly bizarre legal scam included in the 'briefing note', from a U.S. 'law' blog would involve (page 18/19) trying to get the...Iraqi 'government' to agree to attacks on Syria so the U.S government could claim it is the 'threatened state' because it is trying to 'protect' Iraq etc !!

 

"...First, a strong case could be made that the US prerogative to strike in Syria would be conditioned on Iraq’s request for assistance including Iraq’s determination with respect to Syria. That is, if the United States were to conduct operations against ISIS in Syria on the basis of collective self-defense of Iraq, the government of Iraq would presumably need to request the US take the fight to Syria. Iraq may thus also need to accept the doctrine of unwilling or unable and determine that Syria fails the test.
 
Second, does Syria present a case of a state that is “willing and able”? Assad has demonstrated that he is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with the ISIS threat effectively. But, the Syria government has now essentially stated that it is willing and able to cooperate with the United States in carrying out strikes against ISIS. And the Syrian government has said, “Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression.”
 
In a statement that is a bit stunning when viewed in light of international law, the State Department spokesperson said earlier this week, “We’re not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime.”
 
Therein lies the complication: What is the international law when a host state (Syria) is willing and able to deal with a nonstate group (ISIS) through military cooperation with the threatened state (the United States) but the latter (the United States) doesn’t want to associate itself with the host state for other potentially unrelated reasons?
 
The “unwilling or unable” test is already a (controversial) exception to international law’s cardinal prohibition on the use of force in another state’s territory. It would be hard, to say the least, to suggest there is an additional “exception to the exception.” Given the importance of the use of force prohibition in international law and politics, it is also difficult to read the exception broadly.
 
I suppose the US government will have to argue that Assad is not truly willing or able even in these circumstances. First, the United States could argue that Assad is not acting in good faith. Indeed, many close observers believe Assad is playing a double game in which he has deliberately failed to quell ISIS in order to try rally parts of the international community to his side. Second, the United States might argue (like here) that the involvement of Syrian military and intelligence would compromise the effectiveness of the operations to the point that the operations would not be able to deal effectively with the ISIS threat. On that front, some close observers think the opposite it true (that the US needs Syrian support for more effective operations).

Not unsurprisingly the 'authors' of this hit piece, say on their 'briefing paper' that they will not discuss anything with the errr...paying public, they all work for. Like how exactly this old chestnut of an 'expert'...'lawyer' was ever included !!

 

It would be -impossible- for the U.S. to argue it was President Assad acting in bad faith, because it is the U.S. who are -legally obliged- to disclose their documented supply of lethal weapons to named people in Syria.

 


what are the names of -all- the participants at this illegal meeting with Jihadi John McCain in Syria in May 2013 ?

 

beheadings: u.s 'democracy' in iraq.

 

the british govt are not squeamish about their saudi puppets be-headings.

 

13.09.2014 OFFICIAL BRITISH 'STRATEGY' TO SUPPORT 'ISLAMIC STATE' AGAINST GOVTS OF IRAQ & SYRIA -HAMSTRUNG- BY RULE OF LAW. 

 

14.09.2014 HAINES: ISRAELI ‘BE-HEADING’ PROPAGANDA -ILLEGALLY- CONCEALS DOCUMENTED U.S, E.U. & U.K SUPPLY LINES OF WEAPONS & OIL THROUGH ‘ISLAMIC STATE’ IN...LIBYA, SYRIA & IRAQ.

Blowjob