{"id":75523,"date":"2014-09-24T13:02:58","date_gmt":"2014-09-24T13:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2014\/09\/24\/attaques-en-syrie-fantasy-narrative-et-verite-de-la-situation\/"},"modified":"2014-09-24T13:02:58","modified_gmt":"2014-09-24T13:02:58","slug":"attaques-en-syrie-fantasy-narrative-et-verite-de-la-situation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2014\/09\/24\/attaques-en-syrie-fantasy-narrative-et-verite-de-la-situation\/","title":{"rendered":"Attaques en Syrie : fantasy-narrative<\/em> et \u201cv\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la situation\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Attaques en Syrie : fantasy-narrative<\/em> et v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la situation<\/h4>\n

Les attaques a\u00e9riennes US en Syrie (contre ISIS, ou Daesh<\/em>, ou Tartempion &Co) sont, du point de vue du droit international, absolument ill\u00e9gales en ceci qu’elles constituent un viol flagrant de la souverainet\u00e9 d’une nation ind\u00e9pendante. Mais, comme l’on sait, le droit international, on s’y cale confortablement le cul dessus, particuli\u00e8rement depuis quelques ann\u00e9es et au son des flons-flons de la Communaut\u00e9 Internationale. Cela constat\u00e9, il y a des cas o\u00f9 cette audace est justifi\u00e9e par certaines circonstances, et d’autres o\u00f9 l’explication de cette audace r\u00e9v\u00e8le un \u00e9tat d’esprit, une complexion, une psychologie \u00e9voluant entre pathologie et l’inversion consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme art de vivre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRobert Parry, de ConsortiumNews<\/em>, nous donne, le 23 novembre 2014<\/a>, les deux versions. Nous commencerons par la seconde, par esprit d’inversion sinon esprit de contradiction… Il s’agit de l’argument officiel justifiant l\u00e9galement<\/strong> (!) les attaques, dans un emportement de sophistique qui porte sans aucun doute la patte hyst\u00e9rique de l’ambassadrice des USA \u00e0 l’ONU, Samantha Power. L’argument est simplement celui-ci : nous tapons parce que le danger est grand pour la civilisation et que la Syrie est impuissante \u00e0 assurer ce devoir \u00e9l\u00e9mentaire, tout cela sur fond de rappel que les pays qui ont rendu la Syrie impuissante \u00e0 assurer ce devoir \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires sont justement ceux qui se servent de cet argument pour attaquer. C’est un exercice en pure hypocrisie sophiste, d’ailleurs compl\u00e8tement gratuit lorsqu’on mesure les avantages qu’il y a \u00e0 proc\u00e9der de la sorte. Mais c’est d’autant plus beau que c’est gratuit, ou d’autant plus significatif…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe Obama administration has devised an extraordinary legal justification for carrying out bombing attacks inside Syria: that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies have the right to defend Iraq against the Islamic State because the Syrian government is unable to stop the cross-border terror group.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself, said the U.S. letter delivered by Ambassador Samantha Power to United Nations officials. Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL<\/em> [Islamic State<\/em>] threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbYet, beyond the danger to world order if such an expansive theory is embraced by the international community (does anyone remember how World War One got started?), there is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and many of those same Gulf allies arming, training and funding Syrian rebels for the purpose of preventing the Syrian military from controlling its territory and then citing that lack of control as the rationale to ignore Syria’s sovereignty.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn other words, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other enemies of Syria covertly backed the rebels inside Syria and watched as many of them including thousands of the U.S.-preferred moderates took their newly acquired military skills to al-Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations. Then, the U.S. and its allies have the audacity to point to the existence of those terror groups inside Syria as a rationale for flying bombing raids into Syria.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnother alarming part of the U.S. legal theory is that among this new coalition of the willing the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan only Jordan shares a border with Syria. So, this novel principle would mean that distant countries have the right to destabilize a country from afar and then claim the destabilization justifies mounting military attacks inside that country.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Maintenant, passons \u00e0 la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la situation, comme nous avons coutume de dire. Toujours bien renseign\u00e9, Parry a obtenu de ses sources des services de renseignement l’explication du processus suivi pour parvenir \u00e0 ces attaques. Il s’av\u00e8re, selon ces sources, que la coop\u00e9ration avec la Syrie est compl\u00e8te, allant jusqu’\u00e0 une rencontre de deux d\u00e9l\u00e9gations militaires syrienne et am\u00e9ricaniste pour r\u00e9gler les d\u00e9tails de l’attaque, tout cela avec des interventions russes pour faciliter les choses, les Russes qui, vous le savez, sont les gens les plus ignobles du monde, avec lesquels il est d\u00e9sormais interdit de parler de la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on qu’on doit \u00e9viter le virus Ebola d\u00e8s qu’on l’aper\u00e7oit sur sa route.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abI was told last week that U.S. intelligence had used Russian government go-betweens to clear the airstrikes with the Syrian government which gave quiet permission for the bombing campaign in parts of Syria. I was further told on Monday that U.S. military officials and their Syrian counterparts have met face-to-face to ensure that the U.S.-led airstrikes would encounter no Syrian air defenses. That tacit approval from the Syrian government could be a sound legal basis for the airstrikes, much like other governments such as Yemen and Pakistan have tolerated or even encouraged U.S. air attacks on domestic enemies associated with al-Qaeda and other militant groups.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbYet, Obama may find it politically impossible to state the truth that a realist approach to foreign affairs sometimes requires working with disreputable governments. So, instead of simply saying that Syria has no objection to these bombing raids, Obama has invented a dangerous new legal theory to justify the violation of a country’s sovereignty.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 24 septembre 2014 \u00e0 13H03<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attaques en Syrie : fantasy-narrative et v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la situation Les attaques a\u00e9riennes US en Syrie (contre ISIS, ou Daesh, ou Tartempion &Co) sont, du point de vue du droit international, absolument ill\u00e9gales en ceci qu’elles constituent un viol flagrant de la souverainet\u00e9 d’une nation ind\u00e9pendante. Mais, comme l’on sait, le droit international, on s’y… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[3870,7714,13758,4464,3571,2730,3867,1267],"class_list":["post-75523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-droit","tag-international","tag-isis","tag-parry","tag-power","tag-russie","tag-syrie","tag-terrorisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}