Public worship of any religion besides Islam is banned in the kingdom, where Sunnis make up more than 90 percent of the population.

A Washington-based Christian religious freedom advocate denounced the raid, saying that it has always been an official policy of Saudi Arabia to continue its "religious cleansing."

"It is the only nation state in the world with the official policy of banning all churches. This is enforced even though there are over 2 million Christian foreign workers in that country," FoxNews.com quoted Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, as saying.

Harf implied that that the administration might claim the right to strike ISIS in Syria based on the principle of individual self-defense, a clear exception to the need for permission or UN Security Council. Such a rational might be applicable if the American government claims there’s an imminent threat to U.S. personnel in a state that is unwilling or unable to counter that threat. But if administration officials actually try to invoke individual self-defense as a justification, they would likely have to contradict repeated statements by top officials this week claiming ISIS does not present an immediate threat to the U.S. homeland.

...


Another possible international legal justification the administration might use is the right of “collective self defense,” under which the U.S. and its allies could claim that strikes inside Syria are part of the effort to defend the country of Iraq from ISIS. That justification would build on Kerry’s contention that the Assad regime is unable to control its own territory and therefore other states have a right to take action.

But this explanation has drawbacks as well. Namely, it would only justify actions to protect Iraq—not “destroy” ISIS, as President Obama has promised in recent days. Iraq would have to formally declare that it was threatened by ISIS forces in Syria, invoke its own right to self-defense, and then ask other states for assistance.

....

A third possible international legal justification by the Obama administration could be to invoke the same justification it is now using to explain the ISIS war on domestic legal grounds, the principle that the war against al Qaeda is an ongoing armed conflict and that ISIS is part of al Qaeda. That argument must be reconciled with the fact that ISIS and al Qaeda are publicly at war with each other and fighting on the ground every day in Syria.

President Barack Obama would seek to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad if American planes were attacked upon entering Syrian air space, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports .

If Assad's troops f ired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, "Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system," Baker reports. "He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account."

“They are looking for the next big meal ticket and this could be it,” said Sean McFate, a former military contractor for Dyncorp and the author of The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order. “The things they will provide are logistical support, training or retraining security forces.”

McFate said contractors gave Obama the opportunity to accomplish tasks normally associated with the U.S. military without sending boots on the ground. He said the training missions in particular “would look like Iraqi military boots on the ground and not the U.S. military.” But he said, “It’s a political disguise. This is an industry that is a proxy, it is creating the environment of security and protection without too many U.S. soldiers on the ground.”

“The president may rely on the 2001 A.U.M.F. as statutory authority for the military airstrike operations he is directing” against I.S.I.S., the administration said in a written statement provided to The New York Times and attributed to a senior administration official. “As we have explained, the 2002 Iraq A.U.M.F. would serve as an alternative statutory authority basis on which the president may rely for military action in Iraq. Even so, our position on the 2002 A.U.M.F. hasn’t changed and we’d like to see it repealed.”

Congress based its authorization of the Iraq war on the government of Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The war evolved into a grinding battle against insurgents before American forces withdrew in 2011, and one of those insurgent groups was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later renamed itself ISIS.

Legal specialists said the validity of the claim that the Iraq authorization covers ISIS will depend on whether the bombing is a resumption of the old war or the start of a new one. In June, the White House said the Iraq authorization “is no longer used for any U.S. government activities.”

Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor, called the theory “a stretch” and “politically awkward” because, he said, it amounted to a concession that Mr. Obama “was unsuccessful in closing out the conflict.”

BEIRUT - Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between IS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.

Under the deal, "the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime."

Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/563491-syria-rebels-is-in-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

He added that fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is opposed to the Damascus regime and the Isis fighters, had "more experience" after more than three years of conflict, but were in dire need of outside support. "We are tired and running out of provisions. Some fighters have changed sides and now fight with Isis simply because they are able to provide food, houses for their families and good weapons."