UK took part in strike that killed Syrian soldiers
Thread Starter
UK took part in strike that killed Syrian soldiers
British aircraft took part in air strike that killed dozens of Syrian soldiers, Ministry of Defence confirms | The Independent
What are the legalities involved here? This involvement isn't sanctioned by the UN. Would Syria have the right to appeal or ask the UN to expel US and UK forces?
What are the legalities involved here? This involvement isn't sanctioned by the UN. Would Syria have the right to appeal or ask the UN to expel US and UK forces?
Who on the UNSCR will vote to take such action? (Expel US and UK in areas where the Syrian government has No control and has more or less ceded sovereignty as part of its five year long civil war with a variety of factions trying to toss out the Assad regime ...) Oh, wait, I am pretty sure that there are two members on the UNSCR who won't. Fail.
The Syrian government can file a protest. If they have not already, I suspect that they will. If they file it in the GA they'll at least get some PR/Propaganda/sentiment points with people sympathetic to their cause.
Just curious: do you understand how the UN really works, or are you not familiar with its actual function when it comes to collective security activity? When it comes to expelling one group of folks from a territory, you might wish to review three cases:
1. South Korea. (more or less successful, with side effects)
2. Kuwait. (Successful)
3. Bosnia. (Unsuccessful when it was the UN alone, successful when a regional collective security organization, NATO, decided to act and tell the UN Dual Key RoE twits to take a hike).
In each case, the involvement of the UNSCR, and in particular its permanent members, had a significant influence on what action the UN did, or did not, take.
The Syrian government can file a protest. If they have not already, I suspect that they will. If they file it in the GA they'll at least get some PR/Propaganda/sentiment points with people sympathetic to their cause.
Just curious: do you understand how the UN really works, or are you not familiar with its actual function when it comes to collective security activity? When it comes to expelling one group of folks from a territory, you might wish to review three cases:
1. South Korea. (more or less successful, with side effects)
2. Kuwait. (Successful)
3. Bosnia. (Unsuccessful when it was the UN alone, successful when a regional collective security organization, NATO, decided to act and tell the UN Dual Key RoE twits to take a hike).
In each case, the involvement of the UNSCR, and in particular its permanent members, had a significant influence on what action the UN did, or did not, take.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 19th Sep 2016 at 15:29.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's war and things happen. I did not read the exact statement of the US representatives, but even in the Russian media it was said that they expressed regrets, if not apologies. IMHO, that's more than enough in this particular situation, and the others in the US-led coalition may not elaborate more as they were obviouly getting the target information from US.
Syrian government can file the protest, and likely will, otherwise it would lose the "remainders of its face". But it does not control a significant part of its territory and better shut up letting the others wipe the garbage out of their territory.
UN is toothless, and the only thing that really matters is to make real forces operating in this filed (read, US/NATO and Russia) talk to each other and coordinate their activities. Russia is likely having better ISR as they are operating in Syria (i.e. not coming from Iraq like the coalition does) and Syrian land forces (who are reporting to them) can obviously better locate small Daeash groups than UAVs and sats. The coalition has more hi-pres weapons on the theatre, so there might be a place for "synergy".
There were some signs of hope that such a coordination plan was being worked out not long ago, but it was not disclosed and thus it's difficult to judge. I wonder why it is kept in confidence. Were there anything about kurds that would make Erdogan angry (which neither Russia, nor US are interested in)?
Syrian government can file the protest, and likely will, otherwise it would lose the "remainders of its face". But it does not control a significant part of its territory and better shut up letting the others wipe the garbage out of their territory.
UN is toothless, and the only thing that really matters is to make real forces operating in this filed (read, US/NATO and Russia) talk to each other and coordinate their activities. Russia is likely having better ISR as they are operating in Syria (i.e. not coming from Iraq like the coalition does) and Syrian land forces (who are reporting to them) can obviously better locate small Daeash groups than UAVs and sats. The coalition has more hi-pres weapons on the theatre, so there might be a place for "synergy".
There were some signs of hope that such a coordination plan was being worked out not long ago, but it was not disclosed and thus it's difficult to judge. I wonder why it is kept in confidence. Were there anything about kurds that would make Erdogan angry (which neither Russia, nor US are interested in)?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalities aside, the Syrian troops killed were fighting OUR enemies and some were reportedly crucified in the IS attack enabled by our air strikes. No, there's not much the UN or anyone else are about to do about it but it's still a good day for IS. Why would our tactical picture have been so much less accurate than that of the Russians who called a halt?
@ShotOne: fog of war? It happens even in this day and age.
Anyone who tells you differently is either lying, or trying to sell you something. (Possibly both)
Anyone who tells you differently is either lying, or trying to sell you something. (Possibly both)
Some 15,000 French civilians killed on or about D-Day. Collateral damage was expected. They didn't cancel Operation Overlord because of this..
RAAF is in headlines here about the Syrian event
RAAF is in headlines here about the Syrian event
there were 2 F16s and 2 A10s (only used by USAF) in the action
now Denmark, UK and Australia accept responsibility for two possible planes, something stinks big time here
now Denmark, UK and Australia accept responsibility for two possible planes, something stinks big time here
Thread Starter
Thanks Lonewolf.
I understand how the UN works or in reality doesn't work. I also understand the double standard applied by the permanent UNSC members which from your reply makes the whole UN a complete farce.
Fog of war I don't think so. It's no secret the US and its coalition is to over throw the current Syrian government. They have supplied training and weapons to the opposition groups. This is not a blue on blue situation.
That was a different era when carpet bombing of cities was accepted by all sides.
I understand how the UN works or in reality doesn't work. I also understand the double standard applied by the permanent UNSC members which from your reply makes the whole UN a complete farce.
Fog of war I don't think so. It's no secret the US and its coalition is to over throw the current Syrian government. They have supplied training and weapons to the opposition groups. This is not a blue on blue situation.
Some 15,000 French civilians killed on or about D-Day. Collateral damage was expected. They didn't cancel Operation Overlord because of this..
“Two Danish F-16s participated along with other nations’ aircraft in these attacks. The attack was immediately stopped when a report from the Russian side said that a Syrian military position had been hit,” the statement read.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting at least four different air forces together must have involved advanced coordination. We have sensors which can identify a particular individual and follow his daily routine. Trotting out a phrase like "fog of war" doesn't explain it. Wasn't there supposed to be a truce (now comprehensively shattered!) in place, anyhow?
Last edited by ShotOne; 20th Sep 2016 at 07:20.
ShotOne wrote
The truce didn't cover ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.
Syrian ceasefire: Is it all over after aid convoy strike? - CNN.com
Wasn't there supposed to be a truce (now comprehensively shattered!) in place, anyhow?
Syria ceasefire - Parties - Assad regime and some opposition, but not ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (Previously known as al Nusra Front)
@flyhardmo:
EDIT: -deleted my noise_unneeded carping.
I just agree with you that it's not in the class of "blue on blue" -- given the Crayola Crayon box of colors with all of the different fighting factions in that area, I am not sure how to color code it.
Beyond that, as a career military man, if you for one minute think that anyone is immune to the fog of war, in the year 2016, then you may be buying into too much propaganda from the USAF shills and a wide variety of arms and systems salesmen. The adverts don't tell the whole story.
It's alive and well, the fog of war, all electric gizmos considered.
@Shot One. You know better, and yes, it's alive and well as of this morning. It takes so little to create confusion.
EDIT to add: coordination between the Russians and the West has had some effort put into it, I am unaware of any coordination attempts between the West and Syria even though in some areas we are after the same faction, and in other areas the West is supporting a faction that is fighting the Syrians.
The opportunity for confusion abounds. The problem with "who to support and who to bomb" amplifies it. (Heck, it's hard enough to keep it clean when there is just one enemy).
EDIT: -deleted my noise_unneeded carping.
I just agree with you that it's not in the class of "blue on blue" -- given the Crayola Crayon box of colors with all of the different fighting factions in that area, I am not sure how to color code it.
Beyond that, as a career military man, if you for one minute think that anyone is immune to the fog of war, in the year 2016, then you may be buying into too much propaganda from the USAF shills and a wide variety of arms and systems salesmen. The adverts don't tell the whole story.
It's alive and well, the fog of war, all electric gizmos considered.
@Shot One. You know better, and yes, it's alive and well as of this morning. It takes so little to create confusion.
EDIT to add: coordination between the Russians and the West has had some effort put into it, I am unaware of any coordination attempts between the West and Syria even though in some areas we are after the same faction, and in other areas the West is supporting a faction that is fighting the Syrians.
The opportunity for confusion abounds. The problem with "who to support and who to bomb" amplifies it. (Heck, it's hard enough to keep it clean when there is just one enemy).
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 21st Sep 2016 at 14:16.
I watched the American UN ambassador on TV and her sheer contempt for the 60 odd soldiers killed. A 3-second response was like " yes sure **** happens".
But she was much more concerned and outraged at the Russians for daring to challenge the US involvement in the event.
But she was much more concerned and outraged at the Russians for daring to challenge the US involvement in the event.