It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: Assad Shooting At American Planes Would Lead To His Overthrow

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I simply don't know what anyone can possibly do anymore.America is the most dangerous nation on Earth and it's president the most dangerous man on Earth. America will most certainly be the cause of the destruction of most of humanity. The day will come when the world will hate ALL Americans as Germans were hated because of the Nazis.
The country that stood by watching as it's leader ran rampant through the world.




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Ahhhhhh! So this is how they're gonna do it!!!! When all the good little countries who go there to "fight ISIL", Then, Low and BEHOLD! Assad will start firing on them. He will be drug into the streets and hung like a common horse thief. I see. I see. I wonder if the IDF will dress up like Assads soldiers and start attacking?(rhetorical)
It's all becoming clear
Look out, Iran. These very people will be coming for you!



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

Actually.. the FSA, rather than ISIS (well maybe ISIS too) will target American assets (planes) causing the US to blame Syria and then they will attack Syria. It's sooooo obvious what's coming.

It won't go off script, it's painfully obvious. I mean I wouldn't be my life savings, but I'd take a large wager that "Syria" crosses that line.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
So will Syria be allowed to fly its jets through USA airspace then?


It seems sovereign airspace means nothing now........


I agree 100%.

This announcement is as ridiculous as if Assad were to declare a no-fly zone over the USA.

No logic behind it whatsoever.

But who needs logic when you're the world police



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
Also, this: Iran rejects US bid to coordinate against ISIS


Tell me, if there was a guy who tried to break into your house to steal your stuff for a very long time, has sent a bunch of thugs to do just that, slandered you in public and among family members in order to make people gang up on you and finish you off, would you have any reason to tread him like a buddy to help him get rid of a gang he hired to attack a friend of yours?

Just wondering, because that is pretty much the situation Iran is in when it comes to western countries that ask them for help against ISIS, specifically the US and the UK.

On topic: Since when has something being illegal ever stopped the US and the other western nations from doing it? And this wouldn't be the first illegal war either. Much what you can expect from a bunch of criminals really.
edit on 15 9 2014 by Sirrurg because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This is very objviously world war three but the propaganda is so good I think if I warn my family I'll be disowned. Not much one can do this late in the game right?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Whatever perspective works for you. It is what it is.

The Russians are heavily invested in Syria, and embedded with the Assad regime. There are much broader potential implications here... But, let's just wait and see what happens... Or not.


It's not a subjective perspective, it is real politick and what is demonstrable by history and evidence. Proxy wars with Russia and others.

I am perfectly aware of Russia's interests in Syria, which is EXACTLY why the US wants Assad out, in part to reduce the presence of Russia in the ME. Russia's only port outside of former USSR satellites is in Syria, in the Mediterranean. This is a proxy war.

But you haven't addressed my point. You had implied in your original post that rebels or ISIS would try to draw the US in and therefore help them against Assad. This is the opposite. The US is using this situation and claims of fighting terrorism and fighting for Syrian freedom to in their mind, hopefully overthrow Assad.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
"I love it when a plan comes together" John "Hannibal" Smith, The A-Team

First, set up a fake terrorist organization, fund them, arm them and train them. Second when people notice what you are doing, send the terrorists into a neighboring country to relieve said country of its heavy arms and other things you could not provide them. Let them commit all sorts of atrocities so that you can feign hurt when someone claims they are your creation. Third redirect allegedly terrorist/ally to attack your intended target while claiming that that country is a failed state and home of said terrorist/ ally group. Fourth, get ready to topple the government so shorten the command chain by getting rid of excess command structure www.youtube.com... Fifth, claim your attack on said country is actually an attack on the terrorists who are in fact your real ally/agent.

This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. From disregarding the sovereignty of a country to no fly zone to protecting FSB/ISIS is a small step.

If the bombing of ISIS starts and listen for the claim that ISIS is eradicated or has left Syria for Iran and the US planes must follow. I suspect this will happen after Assad falls and the attack on Iran will start with an ISIS using a WMD taken from Assad. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Seriously, as far a plans go, this is pathetically amateurish, I wonder what war hawkish neo-moron thought this one up. It comes down to kill lots and lots of innocents to justify your killing lots more innocents. kill, kill, kill, yell Allah Akbar, feed the Jin, kill some more innocents and mock God by yelling god is great as you undo his creation. To me, they seem to be asking for the Almighty to come down and smite them old testament style. IMO they are all Satanists and they will all burn for this and it won't be a US airstrike, I fear the US will burn too www.youtube.com...

This is a proxy war and a chess game. I wonder if Putin will preemptively announce the start of his own no fly zone over Syria with agreement from Assad. Perhaps Putin could them send in his Chechen rebel friend to eradicate ISIS. The Chechen leader has already said he would hunt ISIS down www.youtube.com... That would put a wrench in it.

The worst part of all this is how many innocent people are being killed in a shell game for control over resources and geography. Its the BRICS vs US/UK and this time the US has to fast play its empirical ambitions because the US dollar has an expiry date.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
There are a couple of different ways I can see to look at the situation. Yes, it is quite true that the US would be violating Syrian sovereignty if they began flying in their airspace and dropping bombs on ISIS positions. But the other side of the coin is that ISIS is using Syria as a staging point for their extremism, and from there launching incursions into Iraq. It would be impossible to establish a safe Iraq if ISIS is present in Syria. So basically the problem must be taken care of in Syria as well as Iraq, and it does not seem that the Syrian forces have achieved success against ISIS.

I do not have the current operational picture, and I don't know who is really "winning" in Syria or Iraq. I think ISIS has suffered a number of defeats, and their hold on territory has decreased. But they are far from defeat. Part of their nature being that of a guerilla force, eradicating them will be even harder than defeating the part of them that is more like a conventional military...ie their large logistical network, their hardware, etc...

One question I have is why Syria would not want US help to begin with? Do they feel the US will do more than bomb ISIS positions? Does Syria feel the US will hit the wrong targets? Perhaps Syria feels they have a good hold on the situation, and thus do not need outside intervention to help them in defeating ISIS.

Here is something that I want to clear up first: The US should not be focusing on Syria at the moment, if their goal is to defeat ISIS. The US should first eliminate as many ISIS fighters and as much of their materiel as possible IN IRAQ, before even considering intervention in Syria. I'm sure Syria has a feeling the US wants to do a little more than defeat ISIS, and they don't want US planes to hit non-ISIS targets on "accident." Anyway, once the Iraqi government, with the help of US and Kurdish forces, have a good grasp on Iraq, then and only then should action in Syria even be an option.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
One question I have is why Syria would not want US help to begin with? Do they feel the US will do more than bomb ISIS positions? Does Syria feel the US will hit the wrong targets? Perhaps Syria feels they have a good hold on the situation, and thus do not need outside intervention to help them in defeating ISIS.


I'm not sure about Syria, but I am pretty sure the US wants to attack Iran. In order to do that they have to get rid of Assad first, who would probably help Iran... which is why the US and their allies tried it already. Funny how people seem to have forgotten that, it's not that long ago. Once Syria is gone they will finally try to get their hands on the iranian oil fields, which is what all the saber-rattling and accusations in the past years was all about... actually they tried it ever since Operation Ajax.

Anyway, now out of nowhere comes ISIS, making a lot of noise and enemies literally everywhere (which is strange enough), giving the US a new reason to bomb targets in Syria, and you still wonder why Syria doesn't want any US help? Even moreso if you add to that the annoucement that if Assad has the audacity to defend his country they will overthrow him, which was most likely the whole point of the ISIS drama to begin with?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
you are on point. i agree.

originally posted by: Sirrurg

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
One question I have is why Syria would not want US help to begin with? Do they feel the US will do more than bomb ISIS positions? Does Syria feel the US will hit the wrong targets? Perhaps Syria feels they have a good hold on the situation, and thus do not need outside intervention to help them in defeating ISIS.


I'm not sure about Syria, but I am pretty sure the US wants to attack Iran. In order to do that they have to get rid of Assad first, who would probably help Iran... which is why the US and their allies tried it already. Funny how people seem to have forgotten that, it's not that long ago. Once Syria is gone they will finally try to get their hands on the iranian oil fields, which is what all the saber-rattling and accusations in the past years was all about... actually they tried it ever since Operation Ajax.

Anyway, now out of nowhere comes ISIS, making a lot of noise and enemies literally everywhere (which is strange enough), giving the US a new reason to bomb targets in Syria, and you still wonder why Syria doesn't want any US help? Even moreso if you add to that the annoucement that if Assad has the audacity to defend his country they will overthrow him, which was most likely the whole point of the ISIS drama to begin with?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
This is just the latest chapter in a US strategy that began years ago, with the end of the Cold War. A new enemy was needed to keep the money making war machine rolling. The middle east, with its already existing, centuries old, racial and religious differences was ripe for the picking. All that is needed is a poke here, a prod there, create a few power vacuums, arm a few rebel groups and what do you know, the whole middle east is fighting amongst themselves.

This is the oldest trick in the book - divide and conquer. In the mean time, use the chaos to solidify control of a cheap oil supply, which is essential for the growth of any economy. Iraq made the mistake of threatening to sell such oil to China and get rid of the US dollar while doing so. But hey, you can't tell the American people we need to invade Iraq to keep China's economy from surpassing our own, so it's WMD time, time to save the Iraqis from the evil dictator!

Iran is the next big target. Poor Assad, he was considered a moderate, stabilizing force and somewhat "friendly" to the West for years. Unfortunately for him, he has been backed by Iran for so long that he had no choice but to help them circumvent the sanctions the US is trying to use to isolate Iran. These sanctions have nothing to do with nuclear weapons, rather they are intended to devastate the Iranian economy to the point of causing civil unrest, revolution, and general chaos. Sound familiar? Assad is getting in the way of this so he must go. No WMD this time. ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call them, they will do just fine to justify the ongoing strategy of keeping the war machine going and maintaining control of middle east oil.

Yes, the ones who control the US government are evil, power hungry, greedy men but they are not stupid. It seems to me everything is going according to their plan. It still amazes me how easily they use the tools of fear and hate to manipulate the American public to go along with everything. Hopefully, with the help of sites like this, more and more people will wake up to what's going on and we can try to put a stop to this madness.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The funniest thing in all of this is the Assad would probably allow US to bomb ISIS if Obama had the balls to ask him. But no, Obama is to proud to ask lawful president of the sovereign country if he can drop bombs on their territory. US foreign policy needs a reboot button. What it has done in the last 30 years is just awful.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Last spring there was talk of going into Syria and the American people overwhelmingly objected. Now they have an excuse (ISIS). Israel is probably gitty with glee. I'm so sick and tired of this BS. How much is this going to cost the American tax payer? As if the past 10 years of war hasn't cost us enough.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Assad is a rouge regime and not the recognized government of Syria


International recognition of the Syrian National Council



The Syrian National Council (SNC)[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council. One country, Libya, recognises the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria.



Recognised on 5 December 2011
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, deemed the Syrian National Council as a “leading and legitimate representative of Syrians seeking a peaceful democratic transition,” and that the United States was “committed to helping... make this transition.”[19]


Therefore Assad has no national airspace to violate.

All this hand wringing for nothing.

Source
edit on 16-9-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Assad's governemnt in Syria is not worthy of respect. Assad is a dictator who's not above harming his own citizens. If Assad were to target American planes, he would justifyably be targeted himself by the next American wave of fighters/bombers. The world wants this phyco out of power anyway. If he decides to tweek the nose of the American Air Force, he'll feel out response. Assad desrves the same respoect as Saddam, Gaddafi, etc, etc....



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
The audacity of Obama and the US government is astounding. They want to violate Syria's airspace, but threaten to destroy the government's air defences if their planes are attacked.


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 fired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, “Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defence system,” Baker reports. “He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.”

On Wednesday, Obama announced that he had authorised US airstrikes in Syria while laying out a four-part strategy to “destroy” and “eradicate” radical ISIS militants who have captured roughly a third of Syria and a third of Iraq.


www.businessinsider.com.au...

I do despise ISIS and its actions, but to violate a sovereign state's airspace and threaten to destroy the government's defences if they attack any infringing aircraft, is illegal. While the violation of nation-states and their airspace is not a new trend (the USA has been doing it for years), the very act of doing so is illegal if the offending state does not get approval from the United Nations Security Council first. Furthermore, a sovereign state has the ability to exercise its law in its own airspace, and is allowed to refuse entry to others, even the USA.

Obama's decision to attack ISIS inside Syria is illegal. This goes for both, the claims of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'the destruction of ISIS', the grounds of which Obama and his coalition are using to stage attacks on ISIS.




Is humanitarian military intervention against international law, or are there exceptions?



As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention—such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses—is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Although many Western governments have taken the position that such intervention may in some cases be morally justified even if not authorized by the Security Council, most states and international legal experts do not regard that as lawful.


www.cfr.org...

While it must be noted that some states view the legitimacy of interfering in the affairs of other states as morally just, many states and scholars argue that the UN still has the sole right of granting such privileges:


In recent years, states have reached general consensus that they have a "Responsibility to Protect" populations from mass atrocities, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. Many states, however, maintain the position that only the UNSC can authorize armed intervention.


www.cfr.org...





So US vs Syria vs ISIS? Syria is going to crumble in this free for all melee and they have absolutely no choice but to fight.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Since ATS is the feeding and gestation grounds for all things conspiracy....try this one on for size...


The majority here think that strikes on ISIS within Syria preempts strikes on the Assad regime itself, thus taking Assad out...

I posit that nothing of the sort happens. Perhaps targets within Syria are hit - but there will be no slippery slope to Assads removal by U.S. forces.

Crazy right? No war with Syria. No war with Russia. No World War 3. Just coalition forces picking off ISIS fighters ....stretched out over several years.
And boring ole' life keeps lurching forward for all here

edit on 16-9-2014 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   


Obama's decision to attack ISIS inside Syria is illegal. This goes for both, the claims of 'humanitarian intervention' and 'the destruction of ISIS', the grounds of which Obama and his coalition are using to stage attacks on ISIS.
a reply to: daaskapital

No not really, Assad does not have ISIS in check and they have already attacked another nation in Iraq. Any nation has the right to hit ISIS where ever they may be, especially inside Syria where they are based.

I hope ISIS is wiped from the face of the earth in short time via Napalm! They deserve to burn before they get to hell.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow
Since ATS is the feeding and gestation grounds for all things conspiracy....try this one on for size...


The majority here think that strikes on ISIS within Syria preempts strikes on the Assad regime itself, thus taking Assad out...

I posit that nothing of the sort happens. Perhaps targets within Syria are hit - but there will be no slippery slope to Assads removal by U.S. forces.

Crazy right? No war with Syria. No war with Russia. No World War 3. Just coalition forces picking off ISIS fighters ....stretched out over several years.
And boring ole' life keeps lurching forward for all here


1. I don't think so. Syria has anti-aircraft weapons and can legally use them against any military violating it's airspace.
2. If Syria shoots down US fighter, US will bomb Assad.
3. If US bombs Assad, Iran is bound to help him because of the agreements they have.
4. If Iran helps Assad, Israel moves to Iran.
5. With many sides fighting on it's border, Turkey will be sucked in this new war.

All of this can and probably will be used as a chance to deal with 'conflicts' elsewhere - Armenia vs Azerbaijan, North Korea vs South Korea, China vs Japan.

WWI didn't start with just Austrian declaration of war to Serbia. Everyone just used this to deal with their own 'conflicts'.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join