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.

 

Syria crisis: Nato to discuss Russia air campaign

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Hmm, send in paratroopers in between two enemy fronts hey?

That is strategic suicide. The goal is to push the enemy back from one side, not get yourself surrounded.

Assad has said before that some rebels have joined the army and others now fight alongside it. So,that is their choice, you are with Assad to pacify the nation or you are an enemy.

Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister has asked the USA for information about these moderate rebel groups so he can contact them. He has commented that he believes the Free Syrian Army is just a construct. After all, most of them joined what became ISIS.

Putin put forward his vision of post war Syria to Obama and it is of several autonomous regions made up of the various ethnicities that make up Syria. He is open to Assad going after the place is under control too.

So, who's the bigger Jackass? Putin or Obama?




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InnerPeace2012
Yanukovich always made sure that Svoboda got more media coverage than it deserved. It's nice to have a monster you can threaten the disaffected with.


Call him a monster, because western media thinks he is, that's the kind of brainwashing, that needs to be deprogrammed, right there. We can't be too sure what the Western media is spewwing these days on the Syrian crisis, not saying that Russian Media is telling the truth. Everyone one is just pushing forth their agenda's

I just think Western media is more sinister than the Russian aggression they paint.


I see... Russia doesn't have any paratroops.


You seem to forget that it's not a Russian war, they are only assisting the legitimate Syrian government advancing it's fight against insurgents.

They just happen to have the right strategies at assisting the advancement of the Syrian army.



And Assad and Russia are going to make sure all the political opposition is eliminated before the get rid of Daesh.


And how sure are you on that assumption? Right now they are fighting Insurgents which is a good thing, don't you think?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Looks like WW3 is on the way and it may be televised!


Gen. Keane warns Putin starting proxy war with US



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: InnerPeace2012


Call him a monster, because western media thinks he is, that's the kind of brainwashing, that needs to be deprogrammed, right there. We can't be too sure what the Western media is spewwing these days on the Syrian crisis, not saying that Russian Media is telling the truth. Everyone one is just pushing forth their agenda's

I just think Western media is more sinister than the Russian aggression they paint.


So you don't think Svoboda is a monster? You just think the western media is misrepresenting them? Seriously? You don't think that Daesh is a monster compared to Assad? Then why are you in favor of killing them? Just because Assad wants them killed?



You seem to forget that it's not a Russian war, they are only assisting the legitimate Syrian government advancing it's fight against insurgents.


The moment you start killing people, it's your war.


They just happen to have the right strategies at assisting the advancement of the Syrian army.


I thought their objective was to wipe out terrorism.


And Assad and Russia are going to make sure all the political opposition is eliminated before the get rid of Daesh.

And how sure are you on that assumption? Right now they are fighting Insurgents which is a good thing, don't you think?


But they are not fighting insurgents, they are killing Syrian rebels who would constitute the opposition if there were a fair election.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
but didn't Russia defeat Georgia a few years back ? I seem to recall that they did but for some reason Georgia is still not part of any Russia federation and is still not occupied other then maybe some peace keeping .


Yes, mighty Russia "defeated" Georgia - a tiny country with a population less than half of London - despite it's military showing it's massive deficiencies during the campaign. Russia now occupies the breakaway portion of Georgia and has annexed it into the Russian Federation.

Nothing to be proud of.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

NATO has no involvement in Syria whatsoever.

If member nations independently decide to get involved, that's their doing, but it's not NATO.

You're just showing your ignorance here.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973


Hmm, send in paratroopers in between two enemy fronts hey?

That is strategic suicide. The goal is to push the enemy back from one side, not get yourself surrounded.


They are already surrounded. They should be pushing northeast the jihadists were the objective; instead, they are pushing northwest.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
More hot air and antagonistic behavior from impotent fools.

Turkey is just pissed because it's plan to rid Syria of Assad is going awry with the arrival of the Ruskies. Maybe you shouldn't have bought all that oil off ISIS Mr Erdogan.

Just saying




Turkey, impotent? Hardly. Russia would do well not to antagonise them, Turkey would give Russia a good run for their money and actually outsize Russia in terms of their Military.

Whilst Erdogan is a prize pillock, he has at his disposal the largest Army in NATO, along with the second largest Naval and Air Forces.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

This is not a NATO-mission, never said it is. But when 9 members partake we can say NATO is involved. Just imagine an incident in the Syrian airspace, thus Stoltenberg will think they're under attack. We will see retaliation, nobody would ask if the NATO had an UN mandate to operate in that area in the first place.

 



NATO was formed in 1949 as a system of collective defense. Member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. Germany joined in 1955.
The intergovernmental military alliance of 28 nations has stationed anti-missile Patriot batteries from Germany in Turkey, but they are due to be removed later this year. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on arrival in Brussels that the air defenses would still be withdrawn.
"The question is what will banish which dangers, and in this context it's the right decision," von der Leyen said.
On his way to the Brussels meeting, UK Defense Minister Michael Fallon said Russia was "making a very serious situation in Syria much more dangerous."
Fallon said: "We'll be calling on Russia specifically to stop propping up the Assad regime, to use their influence constructively to stop Assad bombing his own civilians."

www.dw.com...

Anyway, think we wouldn't withdraw our Patriot batteries if there was a real threat.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: stumason

This is not a NATO-mission, never said it is. But when 9 members partake we can say NATO is involved. Just imagine an incident in the Syrian airspace, thus Stoltenberg will think they're under attack. We will see retaliation, nobody would ask if the NATO had an UN mandate to operate in that area in the first place.


No, you can't. You wouldn't describe it as a UN mission, or a EU mission, or an OSCE mission simply because some of it's members have joined in. You can only call it a NATO mission if NATO is actually taking part - it is not.

In regards to the Patriot batteries, they were placed there to protect Turkish (a NATO member) Air space from missiles/aircraft flying from Syria, at their request. They are not involved in any of the fighting or airstrikes against IS or anyone else. In fact, I don't think they have even been fired.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

I think its just easier to say NATO than USA + allies.

I know I have done that just out of laziness cause I'm busy and rush typing.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
NATO countries are orchestrating provocations against their own armies to remain in Afghanistan. NATO’s secret services plant bombs along the roads in Afghanistan and blow them up under their own troops. Then blame local islamists and al-quaeda as an excuse to continue the illegal occupation. This has been going on since 2005 at least. Whenever some voice argues for leaving Afghanistan, a bomb goes off under some American or other European Humvee. That’s how most NATO soldiers died, on IEDs placed by their own governments.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Terrorists are on the run and are taking loses, lots of reports of desertion in thier ranks.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

He who fights and runs away
Shall live to fight another day.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




Looks like WW3 is on the way and it may be televised!


Now that's funny...So now Fox news is credible.

Remember that when someone post's Fox news as their source.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




Terrorists are on the run and are taking loses, lots of reports of desertion in thier ranks.


So Syria has their own propaganda channel on youtube...imagine that.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86




NATO countries are orchestrating provocations against their own armies to remain in Afghanistan. NATO’s secret services plant bombs along the roads in Afghanistan and blow them up under their own troops. Then blame local islamists and al-quaeda as an excuse to continue the illegal occupation.


Care to provide a source for this?



Whenever some voice argues for leaving Afghanistan, a bomb goes off under some American or other European Humvee. That’s how most NATO soldiers died, on IEDs placed by their own governments.


Right because there is no Al Qaeda, and those who would do this just because they hate the US aren't real...is that what your saying?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join