Obama: Assad Shooting At American Planes Would Lead To His Overthrow

The audacity of Obama and the US government is astounding. They want to violate Syria's airspace, but threaten to destroy the government's air defences if their planes are attacked.

President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports.

If Assad’s troops fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, “Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defence system,” Baker reports. “He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.”

On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had authorised US airstrikes in Syria while laying out a four-part strategy to “destroy” and “eradicate” radical ISIS militants who have captured roughly a third of Syria and a third of Iraq.

www.businessinsider.com.au...

I do despise ISIS and its actions, but to violate a sovereign state's airspace and threaten to destroy the government's defences if they attack any infringing aircraft, is illegal. While the violation of nation-states and their airspace is not a new trend (the USA has been doing it for years), the very act of doing so is illegal if the offending state does not get approval from the United Nations Security Council first. Furthermore, a sovereign state has the ability to exercise its law in its own airspace, and is allowed to refuse entry to others, even the USA.

Obama's decision to attack ISIS inside Syria is illegal. This goes for both, the claims of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'the destruction of ISIS', the grounds of which Obama and his coalition are using to stage attacks on ISIS.

Is humanitarian military intervention against international law, or are there exceptions?

As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention—such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses—is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Although many Western governments have taken the position that such intervention may in some cases be morally justified even if not authorized by the Security Council, most states and international legal experts do not regard that as lawful.

www.cfr.org...

While it must be noted that some states view the legitimacy of interfering in the affairs of other states as morally just, many states and scholars argue that the UN still has the sole right of granting such privileges:

In recent years, states have reached general consensus that they have a "Responsibility to Protect" populations from mass atrocities, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. Many states, however, maintain the position that only the UNSC can authorize armed intervention.

www.cfr.org...

Now we just have to wait until the first plane is conveniently shot down.

a reply to: daaskapital

This is how the US and mid east partner operate. They create a 'monster' they have and all the vassal states have to go an sort out. They make, in this case Syria, but could easily be Russia or anyone eles who dissagrees with them, the enemy so they attack them to.

The whole idea is to invent ISIS, if they even exist at all, then say they going to into Syria that way they have to be attacked in Syria and while there they bomb the shirt out of Syria demonize them and so bomb them more and make it easier for the crowed sourced bitza opposition to hand the country to the US.

Something else to consider, thoughtfully: President Obama has not received congressional approval to attack IS. For this thread I'll leave out notions that the US may have been directly involved in supporting ISIS less then a year ago.

I understand the position of the President that IS poses a threat to the region. Their tactics are ruthless, and they have no shortage of American and British prisoners apparently. They present an open threat to the entire region, even though no threat to America directly. Where I have my big beef is when the President decides it's within his executive authority to use American military assets with no congressional approval. This is still America, there are still (supposed to be) laws for checks and balances. While generally both sides of the isle are supportive of military action against IS, the process should be honored, and a congressional vote to approve those actions should be sought.

The other side to that argument is easy to see. Obama's legal team will have advised him that he has the authority to do exactly as he did because of historical precedent. The last 3 presidents preceding Obama had legal teams that advised them they could make order military action based on their authority as POTUS. However, even G. W. decided it was best to gain congressional approval before officially moving in.

A quick Google search pops an article that was just written on the subject as well. It sheds more light on the subject and the write feels similarly. Deseret News Yes, I lol'd at agreeing with a news source from Utah.

Summary

When a commander in chief proposes to engage in acts of war that are not part of a short-term emergency but are commitments that stretch over an indefinite period of time, he should ask for formal congressional approval...

In terms of international law, since when has the United States ever given a flying... Team America, world police. On that same note, good luck to any other nation who tries to enforce it. We're a charter member of the UN security council and arguably the strongest militarized force on the planet. Bottom line is, if the US wants a war with IS, whatever borders they're behind won't matter... especially Syria's.

a reply to: daaskapital

If Assad’s troops fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, “Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defence system,” Baker reports. “He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.”

There it is. I wonder if they will drop leaflets that say we are your friends, don't shoot?

America attacks Syria, Syria are well within their right to take it as a declaration of war.. Sorry, any other country would also.

a reply to: daaskapital

This is obviously ploy to destroy Assad who is ally of Russia while the bomb ISIS.

The question is, will Russia let US get away with it.

After they destroy Syria completely and ruin contless lives, they will then try to destroy Iran and murder millions.

US is funny that way, it goes around killing and pillaging. AHAHAHhaha ha ha ha h h a a .......ah

Well there we have it then. The excuse for any attacks against Syrian government targets has been communicated.
Cue an American aircraft being shot down or attacked by ground or air assets of Syria!

Of course, all those manpads supplied to ISIS - I mean the FSA - will NOT be used to attack an American aircraft. Oh no! Any attack will be of Syrian government origin, trust us, we're the government and never lie!

a reply to: daaskapital

$1000 says if a US plane is shot down by Assad forces the anti-Obama brigade will be the first to criticize the man for not retaliating quick enough and not protecting the pilots.

Once again the US fumbles and falls.

What is likely to happen next, is that Putin will back Assad up and warn the US.

Following that, Putin will thank the US for their kind offer but hey, Russia can do this and Assad is willing to allow our help. Russia will send in some help.

And the forces of Isis will suddenly grow to be anyone at all, that is not on the side of the Syrian Government.

Once again, the US will have egg running down their face.

That is how my crystal ball sees it.

P

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: daaskapital

$1000 says if a US plane is shot down by Assad forces the anti-Obama brigade will be the first to criticize the man for not retaliating quick enough and not protecting the pilots.

Assad shoots at them outside Syria, no worries but the likelihood of that happening is next to Zero.

Assad shoots at them inside Syrian borders, then bad luck.

a reply to: daaskapital

America thinks it have two wars in one region? this is getting comical.

So will Syria be allowed to fly its jets through USA airspace then?


It seems sovereign airspace means nothing now........

a reply to: crazyewok

It seems sovereign airspace means nothing now

Not To America's Government as they believe own everything and own the airspace sovereigns of all the countries as they can bomb and invade whichever country they please.

As for the UN... The UN mainly is a pawn a tool of America and its wars.

a reply to: Britguy

Exactly. This is the type of thing that can be faked and fed to the masses who are asleep a world over. They will be going into Syria either way, as was likely their plan from the start; coalition or not. Obama even said he didn't need congressional approval to do this.

Their enemy is clearly not ISIS but Assad. Anyone with a computer and two neurons can find this out for themselves with an objective look at the issue. Yet no one really actually cares- to the average person they are just going over to stop the terrorists. Some people don't even know why they should care, and in that case i would direct them to the fact that the POTUS just stood up in front of the country to lay out a strategic plan to destroy a fabricated threat, coupled with a disconnected tire pumping of his own country. It's going to be a # show for everyone when the Saudi's officially agree to sell their oil in other currencies and i say that because the states will start shooting long before that happens.

As I believe has been offered up - is that the USA ( and apparently some allies )
have declared war on the IS-Whatever !

That did not stop the US going after Binladen regardless of borders.

Same crap different target.
Maybe they should stop beheading random humanitarians ...

Jump on the nest or face a plague !

Once Assad is removed my bet is I.S will magically disappear as fast as they magically appeared, and all of a sudden Iran will be fighting "rebels" that the west just needs to help.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

Color me skeptical, I just don't trust one damn word that comes out of Iran. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain Russia and Iran have been buddies. More recently Russia has offered them infrastructure support and made deals over oil. I'm on the fence with regarding what their goals are between them, the US and Syria.

a reply to: AnonyMason

I don't trust any of them.

Doesn't it seem weird that Russia and the us are at logger heads over Ukraine, yet Russia still allows the us a supply route through their country to Afghanistan.

Also, this: Iran rejects US bid to coordinate against ISIS