# I'm a Libby Lib who is starting to feel markedly different when it comes to foreign policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401 "2013-09-09T11:40:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/81 "2013-09-11T22:05:50Z")
Well, at least the Syrian rebels have God on their side. [Islamic cleric decrees it OK for Syrian rebels to rape women](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/3/islamic-cleric-decrees-it-ok-syrian-rebels-rape-wo/) > [@](#): > > An Islamic cleric has cleared the path for rebels in Syria, who are trying to oust President Bashar Assad, to rape women, so long as they’re non-Sunni. > > Salafi Sheikh Yasir al-Ajlawni, who hails from Jordan but who lived in Damascus for 17 years, sent a message via YouTube: It’s a “legitimate fatwa” for Muslims waging war against Mr. Assad and trying to put in place a Sharia government to “capture and have sex with” Alawites and other non-Sunni, non-Muslim women, Human Events reports. Mr. Assad is part of the Alawites sect. > > In the video, the cleric called non-Muslim women by their Arabic term, “melk al-yamin,” Human Events reports. The term is from the Koran and refers to non-Muslim sex slaves, Human Events says. I wouldn’t send a popgun to either side in Syria. The fact is there are no good guys in that conflict. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/82 "2013-09-11T22:06:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of armed force against any noncombatant, even in civil wars. Post #79, the one right above yours, points out that even Obama acknowledges they appear to have been targeting Al-Qaeda rebels (albeit mighty imprecisely), not civilians. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/83 "2013-09-11T22:09:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Which ones? Cite? In 1966 the General Assembly adopted a resolution that called for all nations to observe the ban [(page six here)](http://untreaty.un.org/cod/UNJuridicalYearbook/pdfs/english/ByVolume/1966/chpIII.pdf), and in [1969 the GA recognized that use of the weapons was a violation of international law.](http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNGARsn/1969/110.pdf) > [@](#): > > I’m unimpressed by the “we agreed to not use calculators so you can’t either” argument. I know, but nobody cares if you’re impressed. You said it was no fair making Syria observe the ban because they hadn’t signed on to it. I wouldn’t much care if they hadn’t agreed, but it turns out they did so. That’s apart from the absurdity of saying it’s bullying to stop a government from gassing people. > [@](#): > > My understanding was that it was a suburb full of Al-Qaeda rebels. That’s not quite what Obama said, but I agree that that’s probably your understanding. > [@](#): > > ETA: Just so I understand clearly, if Assad had carpet-bombed those neighborhoods instead of gassed them, you’d be ok with that, right? No, I wouldn’t be OK with it. But it wouldn’t be a violation if international law and wouldn’t violate treaties Syria has signed, and thus it’d be treated differently. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/84 "2013-09-11T22:12:35Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I wouldn’t send a popgun to either side in Syria. The fact is there are no good guys in that conflict. Agreed. What Assad is doing to the neighborhoods controlled by the rebels is bad, but what the rebels will do to the Alawites if they win will also be bad. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/85 "2013-09-11T22:28:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Post #79, the one right above yours, points out that even Obama acknowledges they appear to have been targeting Al-Qaeda rebels (albeit mighty imprecisely), not civilians. “Trying to clear neighborhoods with opposition forces in them” is not quite the same thing as “full of Al Quaeda rebels”. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/86 "2013-09-11T22:28:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In 1966 the General Assembly adopted a resolution that called for all nations to observe the ban [(page six here)](http://untreaty.un.org/cod/UNJuridicalYearbook/pdfs/english/ByVolume/1966/chpIII.pdf), and in [1969 the GA recognized that use of the weapons was a violation of international law.](http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNGARsn/1969/110.pdf) > I know, but nobody cares if you’re impressed. You said it was no fair making Syria observe the ban because they hadn’t signed on to it. I wouldn’t much care if they hadn’t agreed, but it turns out they did so. That’s apart from the absurdity of saying it’s bullying to stop a government from gassing people. You’re first link is broken, and the part in red is wrong. I explained why in Post #75. To summarize: the Geneva Protocol applies to international conflict between “the High Contracting Parties” and Syria has never signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention which would’ve prohibited them from gassing the Al Qaeda rebels within their own borders. The second link repeatedly refers to “international conflict”, which this isn’t. Did I miss the portion where they “recognized that the use of the weapons in internal conflicts was a violation of international law”? I admit I mostly skimmed your link and its format doesn’t allow easy searching. > [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not quite what Obama said, but I agree that that’s probably your understanding. Fair enough. I think it’s fair to characterize them as locations that had civilians intermingled with Al Qaeda rebels. Certainly more on the side of a legitimate military target in the civil war than the start of a campaign of genocide (at least in my eyes). You seem to agree that if they’d use conventional artillery shells instead of chemical ones, and some civilians had died in the attacks, there’d be no problems internationally. ---
**Author:** ![A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/76d3ee/32.png) [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/87 "2013-09-11T22:37:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yeah, in _Tripoli_. What that has to do with Ben Gazzara is not clear. You are right. I was wrong. It was just a consulate, not an embassy. No wonder we still haven’t done anything. What difference does it make anyways? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/88 "2013-09-11T22:41:10Z")
> [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](#): > > You are right. I was wrong. It was just a consulate, not an embassy. No wonder we still haven’t done anything. What difference does it make anyways? Yeah, it’s not like it had an ambassador in it or anything … :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/89 "2013-09-11T23:41:46Z")
If you understand what he’s on about, please explain. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401/90 "2013-09-12T03:15:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You’re first link is broken It’s fixed now. > [@](#): > > and the part in red is wrong. I explained why in Post #75. > > To summarize: the Geneva Protocol applies to international conflict between "the High Contracting Parties There is nothing about contracting parties in the newer resolutions. > [@](#): > > and Syria has never signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention which would’ve prohibited them from gassing the Al Qaeda rebels within their own borders. The second link repeatedly refers to “international conflict”, which this isn’t. Correct. I’m not sure how “domestic” use of these weapons is treated by the international community. We know what happened when Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and Iranians, of course: at the time nobody did much of anything, and later it was widely agreed to have been a war crime. > [@](#): > > Fair enough. I think it’s fair to characterize them as locations that had civilians intermingled with Al Qaeda rebels. That sounds more accurate than the first version, yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-libby-lib-who-is-starting-to-feel-markedly-different-when-it-comes-to-foreign-policy/668401.md?page=4)