[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I also don't think Elf understands that our bombing campaign on Syria is an invasion and an illegal one at that. We can't change the fact that our intervention is an unlawful act because neither Assad or the UN gave us the green light to go in.

Why would we go in and bomb a terrorist group without permission to use Syrian air space by the Syrian government?

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

Whereas that may be half true, there may have been a response from the UN for action that is on the world stage far from coordinated. We will not work with Assad as Russia is and therefor Red Dem is correct and we have no authority in Syrian airspace.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

Whereas that may be half true, there may have been a response from the UN for action that is on the world stage far from coordinated. We will not work with Assad as Russia is and therefor Red Dem is correct and we have no authority in Syrian airspace.

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

B.S Red - you're just 'Tag Teaming'.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

B.S Red - you're just 'Tag Teaming'.

So spank me!

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

So spank me!

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

The UN resolution doesn't say that though: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2249.pdf

What it does do is note that 'the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015'.

That statement of the ISSG that it talks about says: 'The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously. They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.

...

The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique. In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution. Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.'

http://www.un.org/undpa/Speeches-sta...14112015/syria

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

That's a great link MTVN but without seeing the Geneva Communique in its entirety, we can't be sure what it means. What we can be sure of is, Russia is fully involved in this agreement and we all know that Russia is determined to keep Assad in power.

One snippet from that link:
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1. The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin. All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination. ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.

Its still Assad's government as it presently stands.