It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NATO Airstrikes Target Grain Silos In Syria – Defeating ISIS By Starving Syrians?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:35 PM

originally posted by: kwakakev Perhaps if military intelligence was not such a paranoid, self obsessed bully they might of actually learnt something about how that situation turned out. Or maybe they did and they just do not care?

Dollars to donuts says that the military submits a target list and the administration politicos get to actually pick the targets. This isn't the sort of administration that tells the military, "just go do your thing".

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:44 PM
You have to understand the cunning plan of the US to drain the morale of isis though!.. The US will just kill anyone in the region before isis can get to them! Through bombings or heck, through starving em to death! that will teach those isis scum not to kill innocent people, i guess?

originally posted by: kwakakev
Sounds like the exact same MO as with Libya and it's no fly zone, bomb all critical public infrastructure. Perhaps if military intelligence was not such a paranoid, self obsessed bully they might of actually learnt something about how that situation turned out. Or maybe they did and they just do not care?

Libya exactly, except kadhaffi was dumb and scummy enough to get enough of his own population against him with a little help from the anonymous international interests and biased/skewed msm. With assad, not so much, so like i posted above, the tactics are being adjusted, but in the end, they'll get his people against him either way im sure, or theyll silence the plenty that still support him and feed us one sided propaganda to support and actually make the ignoramuses applaud another continuation in supporting a future of even more crimes against humanity.

Lets just starve the stubborn pro-assad syrians (that refuse to cross the borders and havent died in bombings) to death.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:53 PM

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: NoNameNeeded

It's clear you only have a cursory knowledge of what is going on over there, then..

Why did they target Oil refineries? Well, they were ones setup by IS to process the crude they have been extracting from captured wells. If they take out IS source of income, that will lead to a degradation of their overall capability, won't it? Some sources say IS makes $2 million a day from oil sales.

But as you are clearly an astute strategist and clued up on what has been happening (and lets face it, most of the "IS is a NATO false flag" crowd seem to think IS didn't exist prior to June 2014), I am sure you were aware of this.

And, where does it say this is a "conspiracy" site? The motto has always been "deny ignorance" - ie, lets get to the truth, not half baked theories. And the thing about people who push these half-baked theories is that they always have this massively inflated sense of self-importance, that they've seen "the bigger picture", that everyone else needs to "wake up"...

I've been around long enough to see that the vast majority of the paranoid nonsense posted here never comes to pass, yet it keeps getting regurgitated. Apparently, we should have invaded Iran about a dozen times by now and those FEMA camps were in preparation for Martial Law that never materialized, for example.

Thank you for pretty much ignoring my entire point and just using your reply as an excuse to vent your opinion about conspiracy folk as you've come to see them, and including me in your gross generalisation. Should you ever wish to debate the actual topic instead of how people act and how i must inevitably also be (because i say a small part of me that is aware life can end at any time can see A bigger picture? Im not seeing #e more than you my friend, but i'm more creative with what i see and I wont be insulted for my creativity thank you very much.), please feel free to!

Oh and telling someone he must not know a lot about the subject has never won anyone an argument, but nice try starting your reply with a badly disguised ad hoc though.

Also, thanks so much for mentioning how long you've been around, i feel like such an idiot for missing that under your nickname, as it would've made it so much easier for me to recognise you as my superior in all ways but most of all intellectually. In all seriousness, you deserve an honest reply but your insinuation I've made ANY prediction whatsoever, was quite insulting to me.

You've been around long enough? Guess what, me too, and I've never said they would invade iran tomorrow, but ignoring the US and israel want iran GONE is plain idiotic, netanyahu is frickin honest about his intentions, i dont understand why you cant be.

edit on 1-10-2014 by NoNameNeeded because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2014 by NoNameNeeded because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: NoNameNeeded

Aww... Bloody hypocrite, seeing as you opened your first post replying to me with:

You sound so willing to discredit all of this as soon as you can, and to be honest this seems quite usual for you, but don't forget this is a conspiracy site..

So, before moaning about ad hocs from me, get your house in order first, hey? You opened your post with a cart blanche dismissal of my opinion, so get your panties in a bunch when it happens to you.

And what was your point? You rambled on regurgitating the same old tired arguments that have never born fruit...

No one is going into Iran and I am willing to bet that any Western strategist is now viewing Iran as an important player in the ME, as much as they'd not like to admit it. They have a a lot of influence over the Shia in the region and are actually playing along with the whole nuclear question - there is no reason or even desire on the part of the Western nations to even begin to take Iran down. In fact, most Governments have actively been working with Iran over the past 12 months to bring them back into the fold.

And my mentioning of being around for the past decade was not an attempt to appear superior. The fact you took it that way betrays your own inadequacies rather than anything I was saying. Rather, it was me saying "I've heard it all before".. We've apparently been on the verge of bombing Iran since about 2005! Still, not one single weapon has been fired. It's the same, tired old arguments, usually based on a piss poor analysis of the geopolitical situation.

And yes, you did make predictions - about Assad and Iran, so don't feign false indignation when I call you out on it. In fact, you wasted an entire paragraph on your predictions:

When syria is gone as we know it (and to be honest, it already almost is, the ideology was destroyed a couple of years ago, only the infrastructure is left but in crumbles), only Iran remains, and today netanyahu has again informed obama he is really concerned with their nuclear program, so imo, the masters have already considered syria a done deal, time to focus on iran again, isis will be forgotten as soon as assad is replaced (the event that leads to his removal will be what distracts the public enough to make them forget we were there for isis in the first place, and they wont discover until they no longer care to remember they were again scammed) unless it can be further exploited to get to iran too, or they could reemerge later on when boogeymen are needed again.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:34 PM
a reply to: stumason

Comprehensive reading, go follow some course.

LoL how on earth is me pointing out that imo you are openly skeptical for being on a conspiracy site (ill call it what I want thx) an ad hoc and even remotely on line with you telling me im clearly uninformed???

Never said anything about bombing iran, you fail to recognise every individual on here is an INDIVIDUAL and instead, after hearing 5 sentences, you think you can put me in a box With the other, no doubt in your opinion, nutters.

The only thing that was exposed here, rather than my inadequacies, is probably your being a shill, or a very narrow minded self centred individual

Last paragraph you quoted? Ripped out of context, how exactly is that a prediction when it is part of an analysis of what COULD be A bigger picture?

Why do I again have to explain this is A bigger picture I could POSSIBLY SOME DAY see unfolding? This is ats, if you cant be arsed to realise im free to speculate as long as i mention im doing so, you should just stop replying please. I mentioned very clearly, A PART OF ME LIKES TO TRY AND SEE A (emphasis on A) BIGGER PICTURE.

Im not deluded, im not uninformed, and quite frankly, after a long break from ats im already fed up with people like you who make me feel like either my english must be horrible or they are here to jump the gun and draw conclusions about people. Well sod off then, im done, apparently even when you mention you're going to color outside for the lines abit, the thought nazis of ats are ready and waiting to tell you to stay in between the lines. Im doing my best to put my point across in a language that is not my own, regarding subjects that are not usually discussed in such a context. Excuse me if I have to explain myself with so many words you wouldnt even read my post in the first place, for you to even comprehend what im saying. If you didnt get my point, why did you bother replying?...

Back to lurking and mentally telling you you could be wrong, the difference is nil anyway. Enjoy your next 15.000 posts, to each their own way of achieving status in life I guess
im respected for my ideas and opinions in my current personal relations, but then again, getting to talk one on one is a bit easier than talking to someone who has you figured out after one post and from there on fails to use much other than blanket statements.

I hope you feel smart, another unknown infidel driven from your holy lands of what once was a breeding place for truth called ats
edit on 1-10-2014 by NoNameNeeded because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2014 by NoNameNeeded because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 11:25 PM
This is not news, but is an opinionated conspiracy theory of sorts. They make claims that are not factual, but they are presenting them like a news piece containing factual information. As an example, the phrase "NATO backed ISIS forces" is not factual. But they don't expand on it, rather they just sneak it in there like it has been proven. Consider the name of the website as well. Obviously it is a site designed to promote a certain agenda, and that agenda happens to be an unproven conspiracy theory that ISIS was purposely created to invade Syria.

Now I will not dispute the possibility that the US is destroying food supplies. This would be in keeping with the US military's strategy against ISIS, at least from my point of view. This is a conflict of attrition, rather than a conflict of maneuver, focal points, and gravity, and that means slugging it out with ISIS and their resources. So I think that if the US is bombing grain silos, ISIS is either utilizing them or these supplies are on the verge of falling into the hands of ISIS. A website of this nature would rarely be the first place to publish factual information coming out of Syria, as no credible source would choose such a site for their eyewitness accounts. I am not saying it is impossible, as there could be certain circumstances that allowed a conspiracy site to be the first to publish FACTUAL information, but there would have to be some direct eyewitness connection to the ground in Syria. It seems much more probable to me that other outlets would obtain such information first.

I haven't seen any corroborating information, but I also have not been looking. I would bet that if it is factual, it is out there on a more respectable site somewhere. It just seems to me that this site presents as news what someone would write in an ATS thread, if the information contained within were unproven. I just see an agenda, that agenda being to out ISIS as a western creation with the intent of using them for a false flag operation. If that were the case it would have made a lot more sense for this western creation to have showed their heads before the US withdrawal from Iraq, because then there would have been more US resources in place for an attack on Syria. Of course there are arguments to be made for the opposite view, that it would have been better to withdraw the troops first, but I don't think they are as sound.

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:32 AM
a reply to: NoNameNeeded

Blah, blah , blah... You really know how to type a lot and say absolutely nothing!

Anyhoo.. Just like you've said you're "free to call it what you want" and "free to speculate", I too am entitled to my opinion. Instead of getting you're little panties in a bunch and don't want to be "offended", maybe next time you won't single me out in a thread and start having a pop, questioning why I am here and taking cheap shots?

Thought Nazi - funny, when it was you who was trying to tell me what to think. Go take your melodrama back to your "personal relations", I'm not going to lose any sleep

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in