Daesh needs to be defeated, that's for sure, but what has this silly "UN" and its "Security Council" to do with it? Do you suggest, David, that everyone must wait for its formal decision to attack Daesh?

Oh yes Yuyutsu, I think all the other countries of the world should rush in to Syria, willy nilly, and attack anything that moves, without any coordination or cooperation at all.

Then they could all move on to any other country that may remotely have any 'daesh' members at all, and obliterate them too.

Yes, that should work....

#Yuyutsu

Yes - unless Syria invites countries in to help it - which it has with Russia but not America.

America claims to be in Syria at the invitation of Iraq to help prevent Islamic State spreading from Syria into Iraq - a very tenuous legal assertion and one fraught with great dangers where Russia and America are operating under separate command structures.

The only way to clear up the legalities and ensure a world effort to defeat Islamic State is through a UN Security Council resolution under article 42 of the UN charter.

The Security Council has already declared Islamic State a threat to world peace and security and has tried to defeat it by non- military action which has failed.

The time for armed action under Article 42 is long overdue.

It is clear that had this action been taken six months ago untold numbers of lives would have been saved and the immigration crisis facing the European Union would have been avoided.

Putting off the inevitable always makes doing the deed that so much harder.

Dear David,

My hope and aim is to clear up Daesh - not to clear up legalities.
To ensure that they are wiped off the face of the earth - not to ensure that efforts of whatever kind are made.

Had your own house been infested by red-backs, would you also apply to the security council first, fill all the forms and wait 6+ months till they perhaps approve? I would reach straight for the broom!

Do you advise Israel also to wait for the UN when attacked by Arab terrorists?

But I do understand where you come from, you seem to have just one criterion to decide between right and wrong: "Is it good for the Jews?".

I agree that such delay-tactics so that Daesh is destroyed later rather than sooner are good for the Jews, only TALKING about how bad Daesh are, because meanwhile they engage Hezbollah, keeping them away from Israel's Lebanese border and spilling their blood so it will take them years to lick their wounds and attack Israel again.

Also, you must be worrying that should the authority of the UN be undermined, then what should be the state of their original decisions to have a Jewish state, as if the existence of Israel depended on a piece of paper. When the Halutzim first came to Israel they didn't ask for the world's permission to settle, they just did!

... or perhaps you are concerned that should the UN be ignored, then international lawyers like yourself would be out of job...

Sorry, but I care for the Yazidis and the Kurds just as well.

#Yuyutsu

Your concern to wipe out Islamic State and for the welfare of the Yazidis and Kurds is very touching.

How come you were unable to express those feelings when I published the following articles on 9 ,10 and 11 September 2013 in OLO?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15451
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15459
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15466

May I suggest you butt out and spend the time reading article 42 of the UN charter and try to understand why action is now needed under that section to end the slaughter in Syria - given the failure over at least the last two years to bring this about.

Yes Yuyutsu - I was writing out against what was happening in Syria in 2013 and what was required to bring it to an end. I have written many articles on Syria and Islamic State since then.

What were you doing? Point me to some posts you might have made anywhere since then or before similar to those you are making now in response to this article.

Dear David,

I checked and found that between Sep. 9-11 2013, I only posted in OLO 4 times, on 2 different topics, none of which related to the Middle-East.

It is likely that I haven't even had the time to notice your article then, let alone read it and comment. I do have a busy life other than on OLO and there are times when I am busier than others. Overall I would estimate that on long-term average I read about 1/3 of the articles here, then comment about half of those.

What concerns me most that brings me to OLO, is the issue of individual freedoms in general and religious freedoms in particular, mainly within Australia where I live. I usually (but not always) also read the articles on Israel because it concerns the welfare of my family who lives there.

As I prioritise what to read, I would tend to select articles containing "Israel", but deselect articles whose title begins with the word "Obama" - after all, what have I to do with those Americans?

Regarding the UN, I already voiced my view that they are good for nothing and we would be better without them.

#Yuyutsu

You state:
"As I prioritise what to read, I would tend to select articles containing "Israel", but deselect articles whose title begins with the word "Obama" - after all, what have I to do with those Americans?"

Funny thing - You read one of my articles titled "Obama admits defeat on renewed negotiations for two-state solution" and commented on it.

Your claim to deselect articles beginning with the word "Obama" is false and misleading.

You managed to definitely read another one of my articles whose title included"Obama":
"Unscrambling the mandates omelette guarantees more egg on Obama's face"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16748

In that article I wrote:
"ISIL has already declared an Islamic State in large parts of Syria and Iraq exceeding the area of Great Britain - - expelling or butchering Christian and other religious communities who have lived there for centuries. ISIL has been repelled in Lebanon and also threatens Jordan."

I also quoted a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"… everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam.

Typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Kurds – no creed, no faith, no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And it's rapidly spreading in every part of the world."

You expressed no concern then for getting rid of Islamic State or showed the slightest interest in the welfare of the Yazidis or Kurds.

Your current statements posted in response to this latest article cannot therefore be seen to be sincere or made in good faith:
"My hope and aim is to clear up Daesh - not to clear up legalities.To ensure that they are wiped off the face of the earth - not to ensure that efforts of whatever kind are made."
and
"Sorry, but I care for the Yazidis and the Kurds just as well."

I repeat - have you anywhere else in any post on any occasion expressed those feelings of concern - or are they empty words devoid of any meaning or feeling?

Trustyu Yuyutsu?

Not likely

Dear David,

The title of the first article that you mentioned contained "two-state solution": that expression, especially when coming from you, obviously wasn't about Sudan, Canada, Belgium or Korea, but about Israel, so I was interested. My response there had to do with Israel and didn't mention Obama.

In the second article, "Israel" and "Netanyahu" were quite eye-catching at the top, so I probably tried to skim it for more references to Israel, then kept the comments open on that account. I'm pretty sure however that I never completed reading it because even now I find it so boring and I won't even attempt to understand that egg-metaphor. I then remained silent on the article and only commented when I saw your reply to Rhrosty, with your signature: "This means direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel".

Your reply to Rhrosty was already mostly off-topic and I admit that I followed it completely off-topic without even bothering to read the original article. As it angered me that you wish to punish Israel and Jordan by dumping that cursed territory on them (either singly or jointly), I replied with "Why not China?".

So here is my position regarding the ideal situation in the Middle-East:

Daesh - non-existent.
Iran - Islamic regime overturned.
Kurdistan - prosperous over northern Syria and Iraq.
Iraq - peaceful and harmonious relations between Sunnis and Shiites (within remaining area).
Saudi Arabia - King issues vast reforms, including freedom for women and other religions.
Syria - Assad confined to the Alawaite north-west, Kurdish in north-east, independent/democratic new state in the south.
Lebanon - Hezbollah gone, Christians and Druze live without fear.
Jordan - prosperous under the wise rule of King Abdullah, may he live forever.
Israel - prosperous, strong and peaceful within exactly its pre-1967 borders.
So-called "Palestine" (including Eastern Jerusalem) - surrounded by a big wall over the 1967 green-line on its west, south and north and the Jordan river on its east. Within that cursed zone, let the Jewish settlers and the local Arabs do what they like and let it be none of anybody else's business.

#Yuyutsu

You failed to answer this question:

"I repeat - have you anywhere else in any post on any occasion expressed those feelings of concern - or are they empty words devoid of any meaning or feeling?"

Please answer this question.

Dear David,

Those concerns for the victims of violence and cruelty are uncontroversial and shared by all.

I probably haven't express them explicitly on OLO just as one doesn't have to explicitly write "the sun is shining".