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: 4
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: baburak

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'.

So what'dya say we bookmark this is see where we're at 6 months from now?


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




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Assad is a rouge regime and not the recognized government of Syria


The SNC may see itself as a government-in-exile, and it may be recognised as the 'representative of the Syrian people' by some states. But other states also recognise the Assad government as the legitimate authority. Syria also recently reelected the Assad government, which makes the overall situation even more convoluted.

As a result of the above, the situation is ultimately complicated and can't be concluded by quoting wikipedia.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Assad is a rouge regime and not the recognized government of Syria


The SNC may see itself as a government-in-exile, and it may be recognised as the 'representative of the Syrian people' by some states. But other states also recognise the Assad government as the legitimate authority. Syria also recently reelected the Assad government, which makes the overall situation even more convoluted.

As a result of the above, the situation is ultimately complicated and can't be concluded by quoting wikipedia.



Sure it can, this situation only relates to the US and the US does not recognize Assad as having any airspace. What other countries recognize doesn't matter.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The US will probably have to wind up coordinating its responses to ISIS with the Russians and possibly the Iranians. I don't know why Iran didn't help Syria to crush ISIS a long time ago, when they were the Free Syrian Army.

I think the Iranian leadership is going to come to regret that one day. The Iraqi government under Maliki might have been prevented from granting them overfly rights for troops or airstrikes because of pressure from the Americans.

The Russians should negotiate with the Syrians about moving against ISIS. Maybe a US intervention wouldn't be necessary. Maybe Syria fears an all out war with Turkey if strong action were taken to shut the Turkish border (the ISIS supply route).

What a can of worms.

I think there is every reason to fear that this is a return by stealth, by the US, to a job, the overthrow of Assad, that they were not able to accomplish before.

I have to go back to the Iranian leadership. They should have found a way to help Assad when the jihadis were still in Syria. I think they fumbled the ball badly there.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: baburak

I think countries only feel BOUND to lend aid to other countries when the first country sees lending that aid as beneficial to itself. Iran is not going see coming to the aid of Syria, against the US, as a move beneficial to Iran. Just an opinon.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Once they route Assad's forces through sheer intimidation, they will seek his overthrow with their FSA/kurdish ground forces, what's left of ISIL will coalesce and turn against the next big thing, Ayatollah Khameni, at a convenient time in the future for Israel



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TownCryer

I know you replied to someone else, but I think in fact Iran has pledged to help Syria if it is attacked, but the promise of support might be viewed as toothless.

The following article from the Jerusalem Post, 09/05/2013 is very revealing of "mullah think" and "mullah speak", if it is accurate.



www.jpost.com...


On Wednesday, 170 Iranian parliamentarians released a statement in support of Assad, and warned the US and Israel against attacking Syria. The Iranian legislators warned that "any invasion of [Syria] will herald the collapse of the arrogant powers' tyrannical and cruel system," Fars reported.

"If the Islamic Republic decides, we will be ready to sacrifice our lives beside our Syrian brothers against the (front)line of infidels and oppressors," the statement said.

Despite the messages of support from Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.



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



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   


So what'dya say we bookmark this is see where we're at 6 months from now?



OK.
but I hope that I am wrong.



I think countries only feel BOUND to lend aid to other countries when the first country sees lending that aid as beneficial to itself. Iran is not going see coming to the aid of Syria, against the US, as a move beneficial to Iran. Just an opinion.


I think Iran will respect the agreement they have with Syria since Syria is one of the few allies of Iran in the region.
edit on 16-9-2014 by baburak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Obama REALLY wanted to go into Syria a while back, but Putin was clever and found a way to keep us out. If our planes are flying over a Syrian war zone then at some point one is going to get knocked out of the sky. It'll be Obama's 'lets go to war' excuse. He'll do a run around congress and declare war all on his own. He'll get that war in Syria that he so desperately wants.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: baburak

I'm no expert, (in anything, really), but is Iran going to risk it's own existance over an agreemnet to come to the aid of an ally that's literally on the verge of collapse? I respect that kind of theoretical loyalty. But I'm thinking Iran would rather issue strongly worded condemnations than try to cope with strongly armed American air power. But maybe I'm mistaken.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Think about the power of Russia. Back in the days of the Cuban Nuclear Missile crisis, an american spy plane called U-2 was shot down above Cuba. And nothing was done about that. In the end, Russia pulled away from Cuba with the missiles, but only after secret talks where the US was to dismantle the defense systems in Turkey. Russia got what they wanted.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jungian
Think about the power of Russia. Back in the days of the Cuban Nuclear Missile crisis, an american spy plane called U-2 was shot down above Cuba. And nothing was done about that. In the end, Russia pulled away from Cuba with the missiles, but only after secret talks where the US was to dismantle the defense systems in Turkey. Russia got what they wanted.


Actually, it was in exchange for removing the obsolete liquid fueled Jupiter IRBM's from Turkey.

The Polaris SLBM and George Washington class SSBN had already taken their place.

The U.S. came out of the Cuban missile crisis with the strategic high ground, so to speak.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Perfect set-up for a false flag incident...I don't know if Obama hates ISIS more than he hates Assad...To me, they are all murdering muzlims who would love nothing better than to kill Americans...

This has the makings of one massive civil war amongst the Arab nations...



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital Typical of the Western govts. They wage a war against an unknown or identifiable enemy which can go on as long as they want. It is easy for them to make propaganda videos with people wearing Muslin head gear because they once again can't be identified. it is very convenient. Now they can wage war against these invisible enemies in which ever country they decide are harboring terrorist or where terrorists are operating. Who the hell are ISIS anyway. I thought the Taliban and Al Qaeda were the enemy. Now they just go make up another enemy to suit their needs.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
So, Obama is going to blow up one of his own planes and blame it on Assad.

Hello Iran and Russia.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Assad is a rouge regime and not the recognized government of Syria


If the US rules Syria like it rules Iraq then it would be legitimate.
edit on 16-9-2014 by neo668 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Syria will be defeated so its new government will go into debt to the world bank to rebuild, then there will be 2 countries left not under the world bank?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I'm in a hurry here so I can only reply to the O.P. so many pages into a thread

Yes it has worked so well for the US and the people of the countries they invaded when they overthrow a leader of a county in the Islamic world and bring our form of democracy that allows us control over their resources and they over their government.
Okay...the point if you want to be an islamist, you want a theocracy... but since you cant decide which schism of your religion you like, then a dictator works best instead
His hard rule keeps the peace
since islam is the religion of peace
let peace live in the middle east
and let the dictators rule the people with the iron hand required to rule the rebels who want their factions to rule to be put aside as calm heads of men who know how to take the lead keep their positions



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcouncil=wisdom
ya know what
Im going to reply to myself its late I'm tired
But I'm pretty sure that is the best post I've ever made
maybe a more alert me later with sleep may disagree...but at this moment
I applaud me




posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: baburak

Well, the first part is partially true - Turkey decided to join the party. Other Arab countries want in too, despite Iraq warning them they want just air support from NATO. A little different from what I said, but results are the same.
Now I just hope that other conflicts around the world (that we hear nothing about oddly enough) won't escalate.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join