Been quiet on this subject for a while - no UK votes in it anymore I guess & Turkey has stopped the flood of refugees in return for something no doubt.
This is a good article on what has happened to change the dynamic not only in Syria, but probably also in Turkey. COuld probably speculate lots on this alone.
Equally, in a development that could be of more concern to Syrians will be the two bomb attacks in the Old Town of Damascus. As I have mentioned, the Security clampdown should have prevented this, the Citizens in the central areas of Damascus have in many ways felt “isolated” from the carnage - kind of a The Band Played on in some ways. Bars, Clubs, Restaurants all open, huge numbers of (mainly) Chinese Buinessmen building links for the eventual reconstruction.
It also re-iterates how deep down much of the turmoil in the ME is between the factions of Islam, again, it seems Sunni bombers have targetted Shia Holy sites (which as always pours scorn on the whole simplistic “Western” Good v Bad Black & White bullshit that got this region into such a mess)
Anyway, this has caused some flutters
The Old Town had always been one of my favourite places in the Middle East, of course areas of abject poverty and crumbling homes through to the Soukh/Bazaar through to the Clubs & Restaurants and the stunning Umayyed Mosque
Not Syria, but possibly more indications that “the West” has clusterfucked the Southern/Eastern Med and that Russia are moving in to position to actually exploit the aftermath.
At the moment it still looks from here like Putin is playing a Geopolitical blinder and extending inflluence while everyone in the west plays with Oranges and Brexits.
I like to stick to provable facts these days. According to this article, the US have broken international law, meaning Syria and its allies can legally fight back.
Self-defense may only be used as a justification for the use of force, when a state has been subject to an armed attack. The necessity of satisfying the condition of having been subject to an armed attack was made clear by the International Court of Justice in the already mentioned Nicaragua Case. This interpretation is also consistent with the object and purpose of the charter of the United Nations, which is to prevent the use of force and ensure the peaceful co-existence of States. In this case, there has been no authorization by the UN Security Council.
@pap on a train - just left Waterloo . Convinced I saw a bloke that looked like your avatar that I saw in the Golden Fleece just off Cheapside in t’city
No shit, its only really the alt-right, Infowars and weirdly Katie “I’d like to earn some of that far right media cash Hopkins” who is pushing this conspiracy bollocks.
No investigation was undertaken as to which party used the chemical weapons. We live in the post investigation age, and post international law stage, as it happens.
The US can be legally responded to with force by Syria and Russia. This should not be a surprise. If a US warship sat off the coast of Britain and fired a load of tomahawks into Brize Norton, and we hadn’t attacked them first, we’d be legally entitled to fight back too.
World stability, if it ever existed at all, is teetering on a precipice. I’d be entirely unsurprised if we’re talking about the chemical weapons incident in the same way we talk about the Gulf of Tonkin incident today. If anyone is still around, like.
