Obama just declared war on Syria ?

a reply to: Shamrock6

It was not my intention to mislead anyone Obama Has been going at Syria for months this only gives him the green light to do as he wants for 3 years . everyone knows America is at war in Syria and attacking the Syrian oil industry not ISIS who are taking more territory every day did is past tense in this case when it is ongoing

a reply to: douglas5

The info on Congressional investments is not exactly trumpeted from the lamestream media, but IS out there if you know where to look. (Primarily OpenSecrets.org and Maplight.org) I don't know if Kerry had to trim his investments or not, when he became Sec. of State.

www.opensecrets.org...
(2008) OPENSECRETS.ORG: LAWMAKERS INVESTED IN DoD CONTRACTORS
Kerry topped the list that year with between $28-$38 Million "value of investment" in DoD contractors. (I couldn't find this comparable page in the years after 2008.)

www.opensecrets.org...
(2010) JOHN KERRY'S 2010 INVESTMENTS DETAILED

maplight.org...
(Jan. 2015) REPS VOTING TO SPEED UP PERMITS FOR NATURAL GAS EXPORTS, RECEIVED $2.6 MILLION FROM EXPORTING OIL/GAS COMPANIES
With $87.4 Million spent on Lobbying.

a reply to: douglas5

I love how people say the US is attacking Syria, but despite this supposedly going on for months, not a single Syrian military target has been bombed by the Coalition, no major cities have been hit in any way, and Syria hasn't fired a shot at the coalition. Where are the massive cruise missile strikes? The bomber raids taking out the infrastructure? When did they destroy the Syrian Air Force? I must have missed all that.

The US is bombing Syrian territory, but is attacking ISIS targets, with the permission of the Assad government.

originally posted by: douglas5
It was not my intention to mislead anyone

I absolutely do not believe you. You had to consciously remove the QUESTION in your title. You didn't even add a "d" to the word "declare". What you did was intentional. Own up to it.

Obama Has been going at Syria for months

He has not. He's going at ISIS. More dishonesty. How do you expect to have any credibility with the thinking members?

a reply to: Zaphod58


I think they are afraid to strike back at America ,Israel and turkey The main targets of the Americans are the oil facilities so that the ISIS cannot access any funds or revenue by selling the oil. The Kuniko gas plant was bombed as well and this plant feeds a power station in Homs that provides several provinces with electricity and powers oil fields generators. Hasaka city and outskirts of Raqqa were hit by the bombing as well.

Plus would our side report it if they could

www.dietnews.net...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

As i stated to shamrock i see did as past tense not future tense and i just noticed 5 minutes ago i missed the d it was not meant to be dishonest just the way i saw it .

When he trained and armed the Terrorists he declared war on Syria not just Assad

a reply to: Zaphod58

The US is bombing Syrian territory, but is attacking ISIS targets, with the permission of the Assad government.

According to Assad that is not true at all, he says the U.S operates anywhere it likes, it does not inform the Syrian government nor its military of its actions and there is zero communications between Syria and the U.S concerning any military action.

I do not believe the U.S has ever sought permission from the Syrian government to conduct air strikes in Syria. But then the U.S has been actively trying to remove Assad from power for about 4 years now, so....

a reply to: Dabrazzo

a reply to: douglas5

So the Syrian military is afraid to fire a single shot, or even look like it's doing anything against the coalition? There hasn't been a single attempt to do anything against any coalition planes, except by ISIS, and the US has gone completely against their standard doctrine of destroying air defenses of potentially hostile forces and totally ignored Syrian military targets, because Syria is afraid of them. I don't think so.

If this was an attack on Syria without permission, the first step would have been to destroy any air defenses around target areas. Once those were destroyed, command and control facilities and communications facilities would have been knocked out. Instead, we have the US and coalition forces completely ignoring their standard training and doctrine, and flying wherever they want over Syria, like they didn't have a care in the world, and were in neutral airspace.

The Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in parts of Syria, according to a source briefed on the secret arrangements.

The reported agreement would clear away one of the chief obstacles to President Barack Obama’s plan to authorize U.S. warplanes to cross into Syria to attack Islamic State forces – the concern that entering Syrian territory might prompt anti-aircraft fire from the Syrian government’s missile batteries.

The usual protocol for the U.S. military – when operating in territory without a government’s permission – is to destroy the air defenses prior to conducting airstrikes so as to protect American pilots and aircraft, as was done with Libya in 2011. However, in other cases, U.S. intelligence agencies have arranged for secret permission from governments for such attacks, creating a public ambiguity usually for the benefit of the foreign leaders while gaining the necessary U.S. military assurances.

consortiumnews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Again, according to Assad no such permission has ever been sought. The reality of what actualy happened was that the U.S simply informed Syria's permanent envoy to the U.N. that strikes will be launched.

Assad seeks agreement over U.S. air strikes in Syria

...."to make legal cooperation with Syria and start by asking permission from our government to make such attacks".

Assad: Washington must seek Syria's permission to launch air strikes against ISIS militants in Syria

The Interview with President Bashar al Assad

Here is an article concerning the U.S State Departments attitude.

US Airstrikes Syria: 'We Did Not Request The Regime's Permission'

A spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department said President Barack Obama didn't seek permission from Syrian President Bashar Assad ahead of air and missile attacks in the Middle Eastern country

a reply to: Zaphod58

So Obama is "only" going after the ISIL. Considering the ISIL basically wants the whole world, this could mean the NWO is getting the whole planet handed to them:

www.intellihub.com...
(June 2014) ISIL RELEASES GLOBAL TAKEOVER MAP
ISIL - the Saudi and CIA supported, and U.S. military-trained terror army - has supposedly posted its five year “expansion” plan on Twitter.

www.examiner.com...
ISIL AND MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS IN CONTACT - COMING ACROSS SOUTHERN U.S. BORDER

No wonder there are now Texas National Guard units (in addition to Border Patrol) stationed "permanently" on the U.S./Mexico border:

www.nbcdfw.com...
(Jan. 2015) TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD NOT LEAVING SOUTHERN BORDER WITH MEXICO

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I agree. We shouldn't be able to just run roughshod over the world pursuing people who make us upset.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

And after all the back and forth rhetoric, and the fact that pride is everything to people in that region, do you really think that he's going to admit to anyone that he has given permission for other countries to come in and go wherever they want to go hitting targets?

The US has never gone into a recent battle, in potentially hostile territory, and not touched a single target that could be used against them. It's their doctrine, and it works. There's no way they would have left Syrian air defenses, which are modern and dangerous, intact while flying non-stealthy aircraft all around over them. They even flew the F-22s in with external stores, making them non-stealthy. Any Syrian commander would have been all over that opportunity in a New York second if there wasn't an agreement in place.

a reply to: MKMoniker

Have you even paid the least bit of attention to how the US fights? If they were after anything but ISIS in Syria, then the country would be devastated, and their air force and air defenses would have been wiped out in the first days of going into the country. Instead, not a single Syrian military target, or air defense site has been touched.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats really just your own personal opinion to be honest, which if you dont mind ill take with a pinch of salt cheers.

originally posted by: douglas5

a reply to: MKMoniker

Good find about Kerry

he sure has done a 180 since the Vietnam days


Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

www.zerohedge.com...

Yup.

Oil is a secondary concern.

Natural gas is the main point with hundred$ of billion$ at stake.

There are at least 3 major pipeline proposals for gas to Europe through Turkey (Sunni, Shi'ite, Russian).

All 3 conflict and compete for profit.

If the Sunni armies unite, it's curtains for Syria.

Damascus is the end goal.

The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

And many sources that say there's a secret agreement, which makes a lot more sense than "the Syrian military is too scared to try to attack the US forces". Although technically it's not an agreement between Syria and the US. It's an agreement between Syria and Russia, with an agreement between Russia and the US.

In this instance, Moscow used French intelligence operatives, who made it clear that, without a deal, Putin would oppose U.S. bombing of Syria. If a compromise could be struck, they told U.S. officials, Putin would persuade the Assad government to cooperate with Washington and would allow Russian and Syrian military specialists on the ground in Syria to help the U.S. defeat ISIS.

Moscow articulated the concern that neocons within Congress and the Pentagon might use an agreement to bomb ISIS to also target Assad’s military. In Moscow’s view, if that happened there would be serious consequences.

Paris informed Washington a deal with Putin and Assad was the only way for the U.S. not to appear to be the transgressor.

Russia, through the French middlemen, stressed Obama had to limit bombings in Syria to ISIS targets only, and any move by Congress to use militias to attack Assad’s forces while the U.S. was bombing would lead to the collapse of the pact.

According to a Moscow source, who has spoken before to AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Putin has calculated the destruction of ISIS in Syria could be swift if Obama honors their agreement and allows the Pentagon to coordinate a bombing campaign with Russian and Syrian military assets on the ground.

“Of course, the devil is in the detail, and much will depend on Obama keeping his own warmongers out of the mix,” said the source. “Putin sees the deal as one that could lead to better cooperation over Ukraine. On the other hand, there are many in Washington who want regime change in Syria more than they want the end of ISIS or better Moscow-Washington relations.”

americanfreepress.net...

British intelligence officers have been talking to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime to pave the way for attacks on Islamic State thugs.

Members of the MI6 foreign spy agency have been negotiating with the tyrant’s senior foreign office diplomats and spy networks for months in the Syrian capital Damascus in the run-up to Gulf War 3, the Sunday Mirror can reveal.

It contradicts Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond’s insistence that Britain will not strike deals with the despot as such an alliance would not be “practical, sensible or helpful”.

He denied Britain will slip into a “poisonous” pact with Assad, despite calls for such a deal by military experts including former head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannat.

www.mirror.co.uk...

Neither side wants to admit it, but the deals were made. The evidence is there.

a reply to: xuenchen

I read a piece the other day about the amount of gas in the Ukraine estimates were 10 x Americas debt it makes sense when everyone is throwing money at them .

China is very quiet in all this quietly investing away

a reply to: Zaphod58

The U.S State Department including John Kerry and the President of Syria himself, Bashar al-Assad have stated quite clearly there is no such agreement. And this is what Putin has to say about the matter.

Russia condemns U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria

Versus

Tabloid newspapers and some websites that give no source, righty ho.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Yeah, you're right. Syria isn't fighting back because they're so terrified of the big bad US, despite Russian backing and support, and modern air defenses. That makes so much more sense than both sides denying an agreement was made.