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.

 

NATO escalating Ukraine crisis with blatant lies, according to Germany

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: sosobad

Your answer is in the link title

NATOanswered UN call to bomb lybia and protect civilians.


You mean these people?



The 1.7 million people that protested against NATO bombing Libya? So to save the civilians the do the opposite of what they want. That was a quarter of the entire population of Libya in one city protesting.

edit on 8-3-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: anticitizen

I am offended by this article and the title for this thread. I don't see Germany taking this stance the only thing I see is one online newspaper making these claims. The online newspaper does not stand for all of Germany this title should be amended immediately.

As this title stands now for this thread it is pure propaganda and a lie and backed by this site.


i'm sorry to offend your feelings.
but since it's the german government that pointed out the false claims of gerneral Breedlove the title will remain exactly like it is, period.

Also the German Chancellery has referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda". And i guarantee you most of the Germans think the same and are certainly not interested in war.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: rock427
Libya was UN mandated and enacted by countries under the UN security council banner. NOT NATO. NATO remains defnisive in naure. No amount of verbal gymnastics by you will change that.


The UN is nothing but a puppeteer theatre ... it's not an authority.

And your idiotic arguement about NATO is as empty as enything else. NATO is increasing it's territory, and that is "expansion", and expansion falls under the category of "offensive", not "defensive". The word "defence", means you put up borders to withstand assault ... when you advance those borders, "preemptively" or not ... you are no longer defensive ... you are OFFENSIVE.

Or maybe that is too philosophical for you to comprehend.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: rock427

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: rock427
a reply to: Nikola014

I dont think you have the slightest clue who or what NATO is.

NATO is defensive in nature, its also completely voluntary. Sovereign nations have the right to opt in anytime so long as they meet NATO standards and requirements. They also can opt out of the alliance at anytime they wish IF THEY FEEL THE ALLIANCE NO LONGER SERVES A PURPOSE.



Bahahaha Defensive? Was it defensive to bomb Libya? Take a good look at NATO's ahem defensive actions in the past and try that statement again.




I dont think you have the slightest clue who or what NATO is.


Seems like a fitting reply


Libya was UN mandated and enacted by countries under the UN security council banner. NOT NATO. NATO remains defnisive in naure. No amount of verbal gymnastics by you will change that.


Please research before you post

The decision will create a two-level power structure overseeing military operations. In charge politically will be a committee, led by NATO, that includes all states participating in enforcing the no-fly zone, while NATO alone will be responsible for military action.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: anticitizen

Yet all this information/ quotes comes from one online newspaper. Back up your position with more quotes from German media sources or your OP is propaganda.
edit on 8-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

edit on 8-3-2015 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: anticitizen

Yet all this information/ quotes comes from one online newspaper. Back up your position with more quotes from German media sources or your OP is propaganda.
. Better yet read up on your source.


TextFranz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst (born 1957 in the German place of pilgrimage of Kevelaer) resigned as Bishop of the diocese of Limburg, one of the smaller of the 27 German dioceses. [1] He is widely criticized in the German press for allegations of lavishness and pomposity, nicknamed to be a "Fürstbischof" ("prince-bishop") after a medieval class of clergymen-nobles, and seemed to have has earned this title of "vescovo principe" in Roman circles, too.


BS news source



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: anticitizen

Yet all this information/ quotes comes from one online newspaper. Back up your position with more quotes from German media sources or your OP is propaganda.


You should know that Der Spiegel has up until this point pretty critical of Putin and Russia, you should also know that Der Spiegel is a fairly reputable newspaper and is not known for printing propaganda for Russia. Why do you consider this propaganda? They are usually speaking out against Russia ala


So in what way is this propaganda? Are you German? This is one of the most visited German speaking news website.
edit on 8-3-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

The only thing remotely idiotic is your rudimentary understanding of nato. As for nato expanding; perhaps you should start by asking the right question. Why are countries fleeing for nato instead of rejecting it?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

The only thing remotely idiotic is your rudimentary understanding of nato. As for nato expanding; perhaps you should start by asking the right question. Why are countries fleeing for nato instead of rejecting it?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

Yep there's an old line in propaganda it relates to fishing. Give them a little line then real them on in. That's all They have done to you.
edit on 8-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: sosobad

Yep there's an old line in propaganda it relates to fishing. Give them a little line then real them on in. That's all They have done to you.


Ok, so up until this point their criticism about Putin and Russia was false just to post this one story? That's a stretch buddy even by a conspiracy website standards. The build up of them blaming Russia for everything for the last year or two was a ploy leading up to this one story.
Lol that's a good one.
edit on 8-3-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

Was that the entire population? No right? Quadaffis forces were attacking the people according to the UN. so they requested any countries to aid them.You may no t liek them but they did as asked.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

You do know there are other NATO members don't you. Why don't you look at some of the NATO nations that are all a little closer to the front here's one from Poland.

Polenz response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine

Do yourself a favor and look at some of the NATO countries that are closer to the border with the Russia and see what the response is they have a voice also. Instead of cherry picking the articles you want to glamorize.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: sosobad

You do know there are other NATO members don't you. Why don't you look at some of the NATO nations that are all a little closer to the front here's one from Poland.

Polenz response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine

Do yourself a favor and look at some of the NATO countries that are closer to the border with the Russia and see what the response is they have a voice also. Instead of cherry picking the articles you want to glamorize.


Hold on a second how is this propaganda? That is what we are discussing, do you not have anything to back up your claim so now you are talking about Poland? You are a confusing person.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: sosobad

Was that the entire population? No right? Quadaffis forces were attacking the people according to the UN. so they requested any countries to aid them.You may no t liek them but they did as asked.


That was one protest on one day. NATO attacked against their wishes and now Libya is basically a failed state, after having the highest standard of living in Africa previously. You backed the maidan protests in Ukraine and they only had couple of hundred thousand protesters, a faction of this. I don't want to call you a hypocrite but....
edit on 8-3-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
A WAR IS NOT A WAR IF ONE SIDE HAS AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE.............BESIDES IF THEIR WILL EVER BE AN ENEMY-------------ONE LIKES TO HAVE HIS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO..........SO THERE IS PLENTY OF MONEY ON THE PLATE FOR A COMBINED CONTROL..........WHATS BEST FOR NATO....HMMM......NO.......WHATS BEST FOR RUSSIA AND THE USA........TO CONSOLIDATE POWER of COURSE my dear WATSON why DIDNT I THINK OF THAT power OPTION.......SO WHEN THE TIME COMES--------DONT BLINK.......CAUSE BEFORE YA KNOW IT IT WILL ALLL BE OVER ---roger T bone.courtesy of THE LAWMAN LASER.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I completely believe it. Since all of this mess started I have been adamant that war with Russia, or a Russian offensive into Ukraine, is not something to worry about. Being a military history student, I have also made the point that it makes no strategic sense for Russia to send troops into Ukraine while masking their identities, as if they were just partisan fighters, because there is no strategic objective that they could hope to achieve. If Russia had military objectives, and it was prepared to use military force to obtain such objectives, they would use economy of force. Meaning that they would actually use a number of troops that was adequate enough to get the job done, which is capturing or achieving their objectives. Besides this being strategic common sense, my position is bolstered by what Russia did in Crimea. They did not mess around when their objective was at stake. They needed their naval base in Crimea, again for strategic and practical military reasons, therefore they used their military and secured the area. THAT is how it works.

If Russia were going to launch a "surprise" attack into Ukraine, the time has passed. They have lost a great advantage, and they would have known this. It would have been much more advantageous to have invaded at the time the Crimea incident was occurring. Any military offensive launched at present will take more resources, and will cost more in terms of human lives and materiel. However, Russia could still succeed relatively easily in conquering Ukraine outright at this point. They know it, and so does the Ukrainian government and military. The obvious conclusion we can draw from this is that Russia is not prepared to commit military forces to Ukraine.

Think about it from a common sense point of view. If Russia sent in troops piecemeal, some small units at a time, because they did not want the world to know what they were up to, then first of all they could not adequately support those troops with reinforcements, logistical supply, etc., without giving away the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. The likelihood of Russian troops, especially a large number in the tens of thousands, going unnoticed is ZERO. It is not possible. The main reason it is not possible is because military intelligence and reconnaissance sources would EASILY pick out the movement of such a large number of troops. Something people need to understand is that the larger a military force, the larger the logistical branches must be, because many soldiers require a lot of food, equipment, etc...So you can at least double the size of the force in terms of visibility, if not more. Anyway, so if Russia knew that they could not sneak into Ukraine, then why do it at all? If they were prepared to risk it, they would have sent an actual military force of adequate size to get the job done. Things of this nature do not occur in a vacuum, and that is something that everyone needs to understand. So I have not believed that there are Russian troops in Ukraine, and I will not believe it because it makes no sense at present. What I know is happening is that small partisan groups are traveling into Ukraine and fighting with Ukrainian troops and guerrilla forces, but this has nothing to do with the Russian military. Perhaps the military might supply them, but I doubt even that, again because there is no end game in sight.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

Where did I say I supported the protest in Ukraine? Stay on topic its libyia not ukraine. Trying to deflect to something else is cheap no matter how you slice it. I support peoples voices but when the majority abuses the minority then someone should step in and stop it right?



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

No not confusing. Just bringing up facts you would rather not talk about. Instead of looking to Germany for answers look to the countries that are most threatened by Russia for answers. Germany is not all of NATO. Sorry to confuse you with actual facts.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join