Another war crime

The US has shot down a Syrian jet in Syria. The Syrian jet was attacking Islamic State. The US have attempted to justify the war crime, asserting they were defending their allies. This defence is absurd. First, the US has no authority in Syria. Its mere military presence is contrary to international law. Second, the claim that the US shot down the Syrian jet to defend its allies is a tacit admission that the US is supporting jihadist terrorists. Thirdly, it makes it plain that the US prefers jihadis to the secular Syrian state.

 

The US action also increases the likelihood of direct military conflict between the US and Russia. Indeed, the US action has provoked Russia into withdrawing from the memorandum of understanding, which is designed to prevent the US and Russia from accidentally coming into conflict. Russia has also indicated that in future Russian forces will track US forces, as a defensive measure.

 

When President Trump was Candidate Trump, he repeatedly asserted that he wanted better relations with Russia. Yet, the actions of the US in Syria under his presidency have made the situation worse rather than better. The US has repeatedly illegally attacked Syrian forces in Syria; each time directly supporting the jihadis, undermining another of Trump's promises.

 

The support of the US for jihadis in Syria is not only illegal, it is a scandal of massive proportions, and it is one which presents a serious risk to the region, Europe and even America itself. The US has consistently supported jihadist terrorists since 1979. Many people took candidate Trump at his word and believed that when elected he would stop the US support for the jihadis and would direct US forces to destroy the jihadis. Instead, he has continued the established foreign policy of attempting to use jihadist terrorists. This is a failed policy. Yet the US foreign policy establishment is committed to it, regardless of the fact that it has been a disaster.

 

The support that the US and its allies have provided the jihadis has resulted in chaos and misery across the globe. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Syria to mention just a few examples. The immigration crisis in Europe and the terrorist incidents. And of course the infamous 9/11 attack, carried out by a group that had been funded and armed and trained by the US and its allies. The very idea that one can use jihadis as weapon has long been shown to be foolish. Yet, the US continues to cling to this self-destructive policy, even unto risking war with Russia.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (37)

  1. jaageet

    You are making a lot of claims here for someone (presumably like the rest of us supporters of democracy) on the outside of government venting about government. The shooting down of the Syrian jet, I agree, is not good. This is the second bad tactical US move in Syria after the cruise missile attack in my opinion. Doesn’t look like Trump is in control of the US military. With the liberals attacking Trump on the home front like a pack of wild dogs nipping at a buffalo, the generals are running loose like mindless cowboys.

    June 19, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Trump explicitly claimed responsibility for the war crime of the tomahawk cruise missiles attack.

      June 19, 2017
      1. jaageet

        True, and not good, in my opinion. US should stay out of all foreign conflicts.

        June 19, 2017
    2. wirelessguru1

      That Brit is a fool.

      June 19, 2017
  2. wirelessguru1

    There you go again with your foolish interpretations…

    June 19, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Another of your insightful, evidenced, and brilliantly reasoned critiques. Thank you.

      June 19, 2017
      1. wirelessguru1

        Fool, lots of other countries are shooting things down in Syria so why is it a “war crime” when the US shoots shit down!?

        June 19, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          You are demonstrating your ignorance.

          June 20, 2017
          1. wirelessguru1

            Fool, ignorance about what?

            June 20, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              International law.

              June 22, 2017
      2. wirelessguru1

        ..and fool, you should be more worried about your own HELL hole in the UK now! WAKE UP!!!

        June 19, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          What should I be worried about in the United Kingdom?

          June 20, 2017
          1. wirelessguru1

            Why are you worried about the USA and Syria!?

            June 20, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              Answering a question with a completely off-topic question is weird. However, to answer your question: I am not worried.

              June 20, 2017
            2. wirelessguru1

              Fool, that was NOT off-topic since you were mumbling about the USA and Syria.
              WAKE UP!!!

              June 20, 2017
            3. stevehayes13

              You said I should be worried about the United Kingdom, I asked you what about the United Kingdom I should be worried about and you responded by asking why I was worried about the US and Syria. If you cannot see this does not follow, I cannot enlighten you.

              June 21, 2017
            4. wirelessguru1

              Fool, there is no way that a fool like you can enlighten Me (God)!

              June 21, 2017
  3. Munkyman

    Sad fact is that international law means nothing with a Security Council veto on your side & that’s been the problem with the Security Council since day one of the UN. Shooting down a war plane, even without a formal warning or declaration is not a war crime, it is an act of war. What I see is a determined march toward WWIII by all concerned.

    June 19, 2017
    1. mrmacq

      international law and having a UN Security Council veto
      are two entirely different things, spunky
      .
      over there, we have apples
      over here we have oranges
      .
      the UN does not make international law
      …be it with veto or not
      .
      you really say some stoopid shit sometimes
      .
      here
      educate yourself
      .
      International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations.12 It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.3 International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to private citizens. National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts.
      Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct.4 This is an issue of state sovereignty. However, other aspects of international law are not consent-based but still are obligatory upon state and non-state actors such as customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens).
      …notice?
      nothing ’bout the UN nor vetoes mentioned

      June 19, 2017
    2. stevehayes13

      An act of war is a war crime unless the war is legal and the US invasion of Syria is illegal. The shooting down of the Syrian jet is just the latest US war crime.

      You might recall it was not long ago that the US were demanding all war criminals be held to account. When are the US war criminals going to be put on trial?

      June 20, 2017
      1. Munkyman

        It was not that long ago the US was led by entirely different people.

        June 20, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          Niki Haley, Trump’s UN ambassador, demanded that all war criminals be held accountable.

          June 20, 2017
          1. Munkyman

            She’s not me & I’m not responsible for her as an individual, I did my part by voting for the best of the candidates.

            June 20, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              I am not holding you personally responsible for the behaviour of the US government.

              June 21, 2017
          2. wirelessguru1

            Fool, the USA is immune of all war crimes.

            June 20, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              “immune” are you trying to suggest that the US is above the law?

              June 21, 2017
            2. wirelessguru1

              What law!?

              June 21, 2017
          3. jaageet

            Unfortunately, for the world, the law we live by is “might is right”. Fortunately, for the US, Americans have might. However, a lot of us are conflicted and many are ashamed of US conduct abroad.

            June 21, 2017
  4. GovMisdirection

    The last time a U.S. jet had shot down another country’s aircraft came over Kosovo in 1999 when a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle shot down a Serbian MiG-29.

    On Sunday, it was a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet that shot down a Syrian SU-22 after that jet dropped bombs near U.S. partner forces taking on ISIS.

    I looked at your claim that the US was supporting the Islamic State in Syria.
    On 2 November 2014, in response to the intervention, representatives from Ahrar ash-Sham, the al-Nusra Front, the Khorasan Group, THE ISLAMIC STATE, and Jund al-Aqsa attended a meeting which sought to unite several hard-line groups against the US-led coalition and other moderate Syrian rebel groups.
    This failed but shows that the Islamic State is not part of the US-led coalition.

    June 19, 2017
    1. jaageet

      The internet is not a reliable source of intel. Even the camels can’t tell what is going on in Syria. They are as well-informed as the camels in the USA.

      June 19, 2017
    2. stevehayes13

      I never said that Islamic State is part of the US led coalition (which is incidentally in Iraq, not Syria).

      June 20, 2017
      1. GovMisdirection

        You didn’t. I showed that the Islamic State was/is in opposition to the US coalition yet you name this as the group the US jets were protecting. As far as the US “attempting to use jihadist terrorists” who are in opposition to the Islamic State, I think that was reported one time here in a cryptic news release. That is insanity!

        June 20, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          The US has been constantly supporting jihadis since 1979. It ought to be a scandal. Yet the citizens of the US seem strangely content to have their taxes used to supporter their murderers. That is insane.

          June 20, 2017
          1. wirelessguru1

            Well fool, we are not “content” about demonrats and Islam right now…

            June 20, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              Really, then why is the US supporting jihadist terrorists?

              June 21, 2017
            2. wirelessguru1

              Like whom?

              June 21, 2017
            3. stevehayes13

              Al Nusra, Islamic State, Islamic Front, Ahrar al Sham, Jaysh al Islam, Liwa al Tahwid, Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, etc and that’s just in Syria. For a god you seem remarkably ignorant.

              June 22, 2017