What's new

U.S Admits supplying terrorists in Syria with Lethal weapons

by them, but not by the UN, you know the intentional laws are by the UN, and if that member is not part of UN, then that doesn't mean they break the laws... so your argument is invalid, since the US, UK, France are members of the UN they have to follow UN laws...

Yeah, about that, the UNGC has never gotten to vote on the issue, so as far as I'm concerned, it comes down to individual nation's decisions. The reason why the UN hasn't decided on this issue is because it's never been brought up at the UNGC, so your argument is invalidated.
 
Yeah, about that, the UNGC has never gotten to vote on the issue, so as far as I'm concerned, it comes down to individual nation's decisions. The reason why the UN hasn't decided on this issue is because it's never been brought up at the UNGC, so your argument is invalidated.
UNGC is nothing, it is all about UNSC... again your arguments all are invalid...
 
by them, but not by the UN, you know the intentional laws are by the UN, and if that member is not part of UN, then that doesn't mean they break the laws... so your argument is invalid, since the US, UK, France are members of the UN they have to follow UN laws...


dude, get over it, they discussed AQ... since many Europeans are joining AQ, the west wanted to know who are in Syria so when those terrorists return don't kill innocent people in Europe, and Syria would for sure discuss with the enemy to save the lives of innocents in Europe...

So you are saying that Syrian officials are credible to you when it comes to this case, but for other cases they are liars... :rofl:

It's not about credibility, it's about telling a lie from a truth. When they're lying we can tell, when they're honest we can tell.
 
Now if we could get Vladi to admit to supplying the pro-Russian terrorists in Ukraine......
 
It's not about credibility, it's about telling a lie from a truth. When they're lying we can tell, when they're honest we can tell.
once a liar is always a liar, no? again you are cherry picking articles to fit your agenda...
 
UNGC is nothing, it is all about UNSC... again your arguments all are invalid...
Actually no, the UNGC has quite a bit of power, more than people give it credit for. For example, if the Palestinians wanted, they could go to the UNGC and ask for full membership (like they did for partial membership) and do it that way, but politics keeps from from trying. The UNGC decides on who is recognized and who is not.

The UNSC decides on security issues, like it's nation implies.
 
once a liar is always a liar, no? again you are cherry picking articles to fit your agenda...

Western nations admit they CANNOT remove Assad from power in Syria | Mail Online

  • Western nations believe losing Assad could result in a militant takeover
  • Diplomats from Britain and the U.S. are said to be more concerned with combating Islamist militants than removing Assad from power
  • This is causing divisions with other countries who backed the three-year revolt against him
  • The claim was made at an anti-Assad Friends Of Syria alliance meeting

..................
 
Perhaps, US taxpayers should pay 10 billion dollars to donate 1,000 M1A2 tanks to insurgents only to be blown up by Kornets. The US sure has money to burn:victory:
 
Actually no, the UNGC has quite a bit of power, more than people give it credit for. For example, if the Palestinians wanted, they could go to the UNGC and ask for full membership (like they did for partial membership) and do it that way, but politics keeps from from trying. The UNGC decides on who is recognized and who is not.

The UNSC decides on security issues, like it's nation implies.
UNSC can only decide memberships of the UN... the UNGC just shows popularity vote...
 
Besides, with no legitimate international observers, the elections lost their legitimacy as soon as they were announced.


There were Russian and Iranian observer present. At the end of the day, observers merely observe, not count votes.
 
Western nations admit they CANNOT remove Assad from power in Syria | Mail Online

  • Western nations believe losing Assad could result in a militant takeover
  • Diplomats from Britain and the U.S. are said to be more concerned with combating Islamist militants than removing Assad from power
  • This is causing divisions with other countries who backed the three-year revolt against him
  • The claim was made at an anti-Assad Friends Of Syria alliance meeting
..................
Yes, even the west admits Alasad is staying thanks to the Syrian people... thanks for this article...

Perhaps, US taxpayers should pay 10 billion dollars to donate 1,000 M1A2 tanks to insurgents only to be blown up by Kornets. The US sure has money to burn:victory:
I think there own puppets in gcc are paying for those terrorists...
 
Yes, even the west admits Alasad is staying thanks to the Syrian people... thanks for this article...

Yeah sure...because of the people...because they want to protect Israel and make sure Muslims don't have any freedom. Like in Libya, Muslims are pursuing their own interests and that's gotten them mad.
 
UNSC can only decide memberships of the UN... the UNGC just shows popularity vote...
Actually, that's a very common myth. The UNSC can't actually block a decision of the UNGC, but what it can do is try and change it.

The Palestinian issue is special, because the UNSC literally pre-empted the UNGC by passing a resolution that required Palestine from asking UNSC permission first (which legally isn't required).

There were Russian and Iranian observer present. At the end of the day, observer merely observe, not count votes.
Yeah, Russian and Iranian, both of whom have called Assad an indispensable ally, and both nations who have a vested interest in keeping Assad in power. If you honestly think they're unbias, you need to rethink life. Also, do you even know what observers do?
 
Back
Top Bottom