{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/27/2015 8:59:24 PM
17
Its a idea that's out there but I personally think America, Syria, and Iran should make a agreement to fight in different parts of the Middle East. If they would do that watch how ISIS would fall.
English
-
Iran is full of Shiites, ISIS beheads shiites, America really should apply the "enemy of my enemy..." Concept
-
Iran and U.S. Are more allies rather than enemies. There guns were American before they changed them and their aircrafts are still all American.
-
Why everyone is hating on ISIS when they don't know much about them?
-
They are a terrorist group that's killing and -blam!-, and they want to take land, that's enough for me.
-
Terrorists group? Who did they terrorize exactly? They are fighting in a war, so what do you expect them to do give hugs and roses?
-
They beheaded American journalists, a civilian, therefore they are breaking so many international laws of war.
-
Well he went to their land uninvited and in a war zone, so no big deal + he is not the first or last civilian to get killed.
-
[quote]Well he went to their land uninvited and in a war zone, so no big deal + he is not the first or last civilian to get killed.[/quote] I can't exactly recall a single international protocol that legalizes the extrajudicial execution of a civilian because he was in land not legally owned by the group in question. Most of those captured weren't even in IS territory at the time either.
-
Doesn't matter where he was captured as long as it was in Syria or Iraq because they are both dangerous war zones.
-
And? It being a warzone doesn't legalize extrajudicial executions
-
You don't understand, there is no laws in a war zone. You clearly haven't seen a war zone.
-
International law still applies :-)
-
Oh really? Than why Israel or north Korea apply it with their nukes?
-
Edited by DB5: 8/28/2015 1:41:07 PMNot sure what you're getting at here. But for reference: International law is in action with DPRK. They withdrew from the NPT in illegal fashion, but are being held accountable for their proliferation policies. Please see economic sanctions and other isolation tools for reference. As for Israel, they are not a signatory to the NPT. While this doesn't entirely preclude them from its tenets, this does make verification of Israel's weapons program harder to implement. Keep in mind that Israel also is believed to have built a nuke [i]before[/i] the NPT's signing, meaning that those States responsible for supplying it nuclear tech -- *cough* France -- were not in breach of any codified practice nor any established customs.
-
What I'm getting at is that nobody gives a shit about international laws not even the U.S. *cough* last Iraq war *cough*
-
Really? Because before nearly every action States will attempt to clarify the legality of their measures per international law. The mechanisms vary in their potency but in many cases are actually quite strong. Yes, States flout international law. But in so doing they risk a lot of negative repercussions from their peers. The US invaded Iraq illegally in 2003, but that instance is a general anomaly when it comes to the US' usual respect for international law.
-
That's hell of a respect, it's like giving the international laws the middle finger.
