"Syria Attacks Lebanon with Jets and Helos" Topic

Apparently, Syria has attacked Northern Lebanon with aircraft and helicopters, widening the conflict in the region.

In response, apparently the USA has decided that it will not stand in the way of UK and French efforts to support the Syrian rebels with military arms.

It's unclear if the USA will now be providing them, but it is a considerable change for the administration, in terms of its policy towards Syria.

Arming Islamic terrorists. This will work out well.

Here is what I found: link

Damon.

But in this case, isn't Syria right? If Lebanon won't/can't police its borders, doesn't Syria have the right to pursue rebels into Lebanon, under normal international/military law and custom?

"Syria have the right to pursue rebels into Lebanon, under normal international/military law and custom?"

Yes, I suppose.

"But in this case, isn't Syria right?"

Yes

We're doing it in Pakistan. Makes sense if you're the Syrian government.

And Lebanon is in no shape to resist.

Lebanon isn't really a country as much as it is place for other people to stage raids/fight brushfire wars, provided as a public service by gross incompetence.
-Kle.

wait just who are the Baddies again??

This whole thing confuses me.

But in this case, isn't Syria right? If Lebanon won't/can't police its borders, doesn't Syria have the right to pursue rebels into Lebanon, under normal international/military law and custom?

I'd feel something other than schadenfreude if Syria wasn't a big reason that Lebanon isn't able to police its borders.

Sow/reap.

Ah the circus in that region continues …

There is now debate on more 'direct' NATO and – by extension – US intervention, including establishing a 'no fly zone' and securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.

The rationale is to bring the bloody civil war to a close quickly. Bashar Assad's fall is virtually assured anyway. The only question is how much longer it will take and how many more civilians will get killed the longer the civil war drags on.

I consider it a fait accompli that Syria will disintegrate after the fall of the Assad regime and al Qaeda (many of whom are in the ranks of the Syrian rebels) will find yet another pool of recruits to swell its ranks. Israel will need a 'buffer zone' along its northeastern border.

Just another day in the middle east.

And the far right libertarian americans salute their al qaeda comrades, now in Syria, as they did in Libya, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe you are way off the mark, dafydd.

Yeah … I agree Mako …

knot evin speld wright!

Al queda is dead, they are no longer the monster they once were. Of course 'they' want us to believe they are so we behave…

Syria, very bad. Syria go, to heck with right or wrong.

Dafydd, have you even heard of the non-agression principle? It's kinda key to libertarianism.

Here, educate yourself: link

I'm not sure about saying that AQ is dead … but they certainly are on the ropes. They seem to appear as other franchises like AQIM, etc. … as has been recently seen in Mali. However, they don't seem to be much of a player if at all in Iraq or Afghanistan … Attrition seems to be short (and possibly long ?) answer …

Most Islamic jihadis from UK now go to Syria. It used to be to Afghanistan.

"And the far right libertarian americans salute their al qaeda comrades, now in Syria, as they did in Libya, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan."

Last person I saw miss that badly sneezed just as he pulled the trigger on his Glock.

Last person I saw miss that badly sneezed just as he pulled the trigger on his Glock.

The last person I saw miss that badly was Ryan Leaf throwing an out.

As long as AQ and the like are going to Syria … it's their problem … either side or both …

Any US involvement in this mess will end extremely badly, mark my words. Russia and Iran both have interests in Syria and we frankly don't need to set off a regional war.

Iran, and/or Russia won't get involved with us in a regional war over Syria, since they have too much to lose.

I don't want to help AQ though, so best to let all the bad guys battle one another in Syria, hopefully to a long, drawn out, war of attrition that severely weakens both sides.

They'll be less of a threat to others that way.

And America doesn't have anything to lose?

The Russians might be extending their influence in Cyprus… could be in for some interesting developments in the next few weeks.

But I don't think America has the capacity to put boots on the ground there – too overstretched, especially with North Korea being bullish.

Capacity to do anything is one thing … economics and will to commit are the others … Which may outweight the previous … And I'm pretty sure the US will keep their vast majority of boots at home or else where …

WOW! 28 posts before someone used, 'Boots on the ground'

John

Yea, I agree on Cyprus.

I doubt the Russians will stand idly by while 25% of their money is taken from them. No doubt, there will be some sort of retribution to come.

I imagine it may be in the form of the recent "death due to mysterious circumstances" of the Russian multi-millionaire/billionaire living in the UK (if I recall correctly), who was an outspoken critic of Putin.

A lot of those guys seem to die mysteriously, and much earlier than their time, which seems to me to be no mystery at all.

The Editor wrote:

But in this case, isn't Syria right? If Lebanon won't/can't police its borders, doesn't Syria have the right to pursue rebels into Lebanon, under normal international/military law and custom?

Not tht I'm aware of -- could you say what laws and customs you believe apply?

There was a time in the 1970s when the South African (and possiby Rhodesian, I can't recall) governments used the term "hot pursuit" to describe their incursions over the borders of neighbouring states. However, "hot pursuit" is a doctrine from the law of the sea. It entitles naval forces to arrest vessels that committed some species of maritime naughtiness within their terrirtorial waters even after the perpetrating vessel has escaped on to the high seas (where such arrest would not normally be legal) provided that "hot and continuous pursuit" has been maintained since leaving territorial waters. "Hot pursuit" does not entitle anyone to enter anyone else's territory or territorial waters, though.

Oh, and I am not a lawyer. Not even a sea-lawyer.

All the best,

John.

So far as I'm aware Syria has exactly zero right to intrude on another sovereign territory under any circumstances.

Because, you see, that's what sovereign means…

you'll note that during our unpleasantness in Ulster, we didn't cross the border with the Irish Republic because to do so would be contrary to international law.