A delegation from the Syrian government is invited into a Q&A session in the Security Council. Their final statement in the opening speech reads “any intervention will be viewed as an act of aggression”. In the same breath the Syrian government calls for military resources so as to be able to tackle the threat of IS.
Surprisingly enough very few delegations seem to question the reliability of their statements, intentions or means of warfare in the last number of years.
The Australian delegation posits stationing a UN peacekeeping force so as to “restrict movement in the region”. Is it regional-wide martial law that he intends?
The Syrian delegation: “we do not negotiate with terrorists, maybe the delegation from the USA recognizes this logic?”
Breaking: The Syrian delegation acknowledges the conflict is a “civil war”.
Surprisingly enough very few delegations seem to question the reliability of their statements, intentions or means of warfare in the last number of years.
The Australian delegation posits stationing a UN peacekeeping force so as to “restrict movement in the region”. Is it regional-wide martial law that he intends?
The Syrian delegation: “we do not negotiate with terrorists, maybe the delegation from the USA recognizes this logic?”
Breaking: The Syrian delegation acknowledges the conflict is a “civil war”.