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.

 

Russia says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

page: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: devilmoon




I don't speak Chinese or russian.

that's what I'm told by the people I know who live there.

unlike you lot and your sources they have no reason to lie to me.


So just more BS that can't be backed up...well then that is all I needed to see.

My lot you say...care to clarify that one?

Ah yes unlike Russian media where the truth prevails...gotcha.


Of course it does. They even call one Pravda(Truth).




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: devilmoon




I don't speak Chinese or russian.

that's what I'm told by the people I know who live there.

unlike you lot and your sources they have no reason to lie to me.


So just more BS that can't be backed up...well then that is all I needed to see.

My lot you say...care to clarify that one?

Ah yes unlike Russian media where the truth prevails...gotcha.




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If Russia says it will retaliate, it will retaliate)))LOL

One more thing..most important

Title wording, 'retaliate' is not the translation of what word in Russian diplomatic language is said. In media same phrasing is used. Much softer and peaceful terms are used. Most common sounds similar to 'take measures', 'ensure defence measures'. See the difference?

'Retaliate' is 'translated' so western press could artificially connect Russia with negative word association inside average Joe's brain.
Then from what follows from the article only reinforces idea that war maniacs are leading Russia against democracy. Which in reality can be an opposite. Just pointing out a possibility.





D0.


edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
And this stun is not easily done with Ukraine. Languages are so similar, and so many Russian speaking folks live there that this neat translation trick is not fully applicable. Not working, in other words)))LOL
Another, more radical treatment had to be used bringing Ukrainian populace to collective mental episode. Which is hard to sustain for long btw.

D0
edit on 25-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Gianfar

like i said.

don't get too distracted by the oil thing.

it's important yes.
but crude is actually only a tiny portion of a very very large global economy. for example china is a coal economy and up until fairly recently Iran was a massive petroleum and plastics importer.

we now live in the days when the most wanted "war criminal" barely left their apartment near the black Sea. and from there emptied western bank accounts to the tune of hundreds of billions.



Opinions are all very well and good, but I'm just attempting to explain something quite fundamental in geopolitical architecture. The engineers of economic domination plan everything in regional terms. Bottom line is that the US wants to decide who controls the flow of petroleum for obvious reasons. In other words, in the case of Iraq, it harbors the largest untapped reserves. It also lies in the region of the eastern petrol consortium (Russia-China) and was being developed by them jointly. I can personally say from my chat with a former NSA analyst that the US went into Iraq primarily to make it a client state in order to keep the oil out of Russian and Chinese controls. This was explained to me quite plainly in a private conversation several months before the invasion. I can give you more details about that conversation if need be.

This being said, the concurrent military aggressions of Russia threatening Europe (occupation of Crimea and Ukraine) and the Chinese (military Island installations) threatening Southeast Asia in the Pacific region, are consequentially explained in the fact that the US basically initiated this trend in the Middle East invasions, and now hold the largest Air Force bases in the Middle East region. The US policy was executed at all costs and as we well know from leaked video footage, snipers were used to murder members of the free press attempting to document US human rights abuses and rampant bombing in areas heavily populated by civilians.

All I can say is that I hope you aren't one of the posters hired to "downplay" this sort of information. If not, I can only say that some sort of passive invalidation attempt would otherwise be a sign of denial and lack of information on your part.





edit on 25-6-2015 by Gianfar because: Corrections



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gianfar


What's the point? Are you emphasizing details of the profiteering aspect or the global effects of a war that was purposed in corrupt agendas, now threatening world conflict?


No, I'm asking you to stop making false and inflammatory statements and backing up what you do say with facts.


As for the data concerning who profits, there are articles all over the net, as well as other media publications written by journalists. Google it and you'll get the idea.


Funny, I thought you were the one trying to make a point. Why don't you google it and then come back here and prove what you claim? Or did you do it already and found out that the claims your have been making are completely unsupported? (That's usually the case when someone tells someone else to do their research for them.)




If you're looking for an education then I would 'admonish' you to read books written by minds obviously smarter than you, instead of expecting your intellectual peers to come to you. Its very telling that you believe Google Links can fill your information gaps. If you really want proof, spend the next couple of decades studying the exhaustive research of people like Noam Chomsky and Anthony C Sutton, Robert W McChesney, William Blum and so forth. If these names aren't familiar to you, then I would assume you don't know much about the roots and workings of your society, government and thus your decided role within it.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

No they didn't. China by far came out on top with regards to Iraqi oil.



You and I have had this chat on several occasions and you always harp on smaller, integral parts of the the larger agenda. Its not about your point at all. Its about why the US wanted Iraq, and how the obvious was seen by China and Russia as a play for global domination an any cost. Understanding the roots of regional western objectives in the neocon era explains the subsequent aggressions of Russia and China on western interests in Europe and Pacific Asia. If you don't understand the delicate global balances in place to prevent aggressions like Iraq, Ukraine and the Pacific rim region, then it comes down to the side issues, like the one you've been obsessing over.

I've attempted to explain it many times, but people just aren't getting it or perhaps my explanations are too segmented.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gianfar


Haha, I thought you were smart enough to Google it yourself.


Please try to square these facts with your statements:



Source.



What's happening between the US and Middle East aggression, and with the US and Russian, Chinese aggressions is not about service contracts. You're focusing on small, after the fact points that have relatively little context in these most important global events. It seems that you don't have the larger, regional - global view in mind. Take another look at the result of what the US actually did in the Middle East (not what they thought they were doing) and how that has shaped a totally new paradigm in the global competitiveness of the three super powers. Come back with something we can really chew on.



edit on 25-6-2015 by Gianfar because: Corrections



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
If Russia says it will retaliate, it will retaliate)))LOL

One more thing..most important

Title wording, 'retaliate' is not the translation of what word in Russian diplomatic language is said. In media same phrasing is used. Much softer and peaceful terms are used. Most common sounds similar to 'take measures', 'ensure defence measures'. See the difference?

'Retaliate' is 'translated' so western press could artificially connect Russia with negative word association inside average Joe's brain.
Then from what follows from the article only reinforces idea that war maniacs are leading Russia against democracy. Which in reality can be an opposite. Just pointing out a possibility. D0.




A point well taken. Unfortunately the average Joe gets his world view from propagandist media CNN and Fox News.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

Your geopolitical opinions are stuck in the cold war. YOur Firmly Stuck In THE 80s. Time to update your information starting with the Bush doctrine this wad an attempt to figure out how to deal with the middle east in a post Soviet world. His logic was to try to promote democracy 8 thr middle east. Needless to say this wasn't thought out very well. You can't go into the middle east and force democracy. Now the Bush doctrine is dead and currently Obama is for the first time trying a diffrent oproach. He wants to promote a lifestyle . His advisors figure given time countries as they advance naturally move towards western ideals. This aproach will only be moderately succesful in that it requires fundamental changes in their world view.

We are talking several decades and lots of turmoil for the muddle east to realize and accept western ideals. With the young it's not a problem but it's going to lead to alot of turmoil like what happened in Egypt. As the young fight to remove the old and this fight will leave huge power vacuums that groups like Isis can exploit.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar

->Bottom line is that the US wants to decide who controls the flow of petroleum for obvious reasons.
very true.

for a long time refining technology was on the list us export banned weapons. (not sure if it still is)

but now every tom dick and Harry country has refining capacity (with a lot of help from russia) they no longer do.

mix that in with the attempts to get the Iran oil bourse up and running. and key g7 strategic advantages are vanishing fast.

which is actually a key way russia could "take measures"
won't take much now for russia and china to throw their weight behind Iran becoming the center of global oil trade. at which point its pretty much game over.

the g7 has been lucky so far in managing to curtail that policy. I don't see that success continuing given the kind of bs being posted on here.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: devilmoon

Chinese media has been showing plans to launch a nuclear attack on the US since at least 2013.


thanks.
that's what I thought



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: devilmoon

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: devilmoon

Chinese media has been showing plans to launch a nuclear attack on the US since at least 2013.


thanks.
that's what I thought


Don't worry the maP was made by a news reporter speculating how the Chinese could attack mainland US. It had crazy targets on it like Lansing michigan. Absolutely no syrategic value they just put dots on a map. China has a problem to attack they are limited to the west coast for the most part unless they get their navy into the atlantic. They rely heavily on their navy as a delivery system. Most if their ICBMS is actually pointed at Russia estimated 50 to 75 of them. But they have 240 warheads. Most of them carried by their navy. Meaning yes a Chinese missile strike could be averted for now leaving only rhe naval option. This is why they pointed them at Russia they know they have anti balistic missile capabilities . Meaning Russia can clear out most of rhem as well.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

do you have a copy?

you don't really point these things anywhere afaik. no idea where you got that from. what I heard was they were stationing them all in submarines off the us coast.
edit on 26-6-2015 by devilmoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: devilmoon

The info is posted in the identical threads people have made thru the years who seem to disappear and reappear at the influx of new green names who concentrate in the same threads, raising the very questions that were asked and answered and then ignored, just to start the same discussion allll over again.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

says someone that's been insisting it's not true for the last few pages.

rather just see this supposed map thanks. sounds like you know where it is.

or is this just more diatribe.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: devilmoon

It means you and some others need to do your own research as its obvious you aren't taking our words for it.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gianfar


What's happening between the US and Middle East aggression, and with the US and Russian, Chinese aggressions is not about service contracts. You're focusing on small, after the fact points that have relatively little context in these most important global events. It seems that you don't have the larger, regional - global view in mind. Take another look at the result of what the US actually did in the Middle East (not what they thought they were doing) and how that has shaped a totally new paradigm in the global competitiveness of the three super powers. Come back with something we can really chew on.


In other words, you can't square the facts with your beliefs, so you want me to find an explanation for you. That is intellectual laziness at its worst. You see, you rely on the writings of intellectually bankrupt academics like Chomsky who eke out a living telling wannabe revolutionaries what they want to here. If you can dismiss information arbitrarily as being nothing more than propaganda, you can create a fantasy picture of the world that does not rely on facts.

Please explain, in your own words, what you believe the actual goals of the United States are, what strategy they have adopted and then, most importantly, what concrete actions they have taken and how these tactics support that strategy. (In other words, why don't you start a new thread? I would be happy to engage you there.)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I did. I can't find it. and I can't find copies of the news report.

I know they exist.

just some simple keywords to help find it would do.

or is it not available in English at all?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Xcathdra

I did. I can't find it. and I can't find copies of the news report.

I know they exist.

just some simple keywords to help find it would do.

or is it not available in English at all?


Oh good grief. Here:



Here is a cherry-picked summary of the Chinese report from an American fear-mongering site:

thetruthwins.com...

The sit is run by an End-of-Days fanatic who seems to believe that the contrail caught in the sunset a few years ago was really a missile fired from a Chinese sub off the California coast. It has long since been revealed to be a hoax:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join