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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Islamic State makes closest advance to Aleppo, Iranian General killed

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: RyleeNator
a reply to: DJW001

Take your own advise don't believe it just because you want it to be true
Debunked by you ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahaha


See my post above - there is no Chinese Carrier in the Med and there is only a single Cruiser with it's escort/tender (PLAN Fleet 152) which has been there for a while on exercises and is on a world tour.

Debunk that, if you can...


(post by RyleeNator removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: RyleeNator

He's right, if Russian troops went into another country without invitation it would be an invasion. Just like Crimea, or Ukraine, or indeed the US in Iraq in 2003.

Thing is though, Iraq has lost control of half it's country and the very same legal reasons the US is operating in Syria could be used by Russia to operate in Iraq.

Also, if I could ask you punctuate your post - it makes it easier to read. There wasn't a single comma or full stop in there - it was one long sentence. I'll leave the spelling for another day....



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think that the BRICS system was well thought out and they knew there would be push backs and ways to bypass Russia's oil and gas . Even the Saudi's offered Russia a membership to OPEC . I am sure there would have been conditions or restrictions and maybe that is why Russia hasn't decided yet . We some times think it's Washington that is calling the shots but Saudi's could do like Iraq or Libya did and cut the USD for their oil . The Saudi's are in like Flynn in the IMF system and without them the IMF would collapse in short order . So China building the new silk roads and investing in land and sea infrastructure is investing in the future of the BRICS and all the other institutes that go hand in hand with it . Syria is the main point on the pipe line route to Europe that would keep the USD/IMF system going for many years to come . It could be that none of what I have said is so but from what I have been seeing and reading that would be my opinion and for that I don't need any proof .



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

I never said there was a carrier I said the Chinese are involved with military advisers for now just because there is no ships don't mean they aren't helping



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: RyleeNator

No, but the other chappy did who was arguing with DJW001 who pointed out it was debunked, which is when you jumped in with your "debunk that hahahahahahah" comment.

How about you actually check information before blindly believing it. There is no Chinese Carrier in the Med (as claimed earlier) and the only warship has been there for a while on exercises and is due to go on a flag flying tour, not bomb Syria. China rarely intervenes in other countries internal messes and I seriously doubt it is going to do much now.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

It's in interview with Assad s aid Oct 6th 08,58 am
edit on 9-10-2015 by RyleeNator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Well MrSpad is quite right that Assad is hated by its own people, hence the tremendous uprising in the beginning of 2011 which of course was answered with with violence from the Syrian regime.
In the beginning it was quite easy to take a stance in this conflict, therefore i see no future for Assad's regime, not even if Syria is divided in certain parts.
It became more bloody because there was no intervention to support the people in Syria, instead it became a killing feast for islamic extremists groups who are attacking, killing and destroying in Syria.

It is really interesting what Russia has in mind, will they progress and fight IS or will they limit their strikes to the western part of Syria and stop when the territories held by rebels are retaken.
One thing is certain, there won't be peace, surely Putin also knows he is helping a dictator who does not hesitate to use violence against the people.
Is putin ok with that? or is there something else to gain for Russia, influence in the region, a strong shiite block, Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-Egypt which obviously means that if there will be an oil pipeline into Europe, it will be the islamic pipeline which was agreed between Syria/Iraq/Iran back in 2009 if i am correct.
But the gulf states want their pipeline to Europe from Qatar which will mean competition for Russia.
All in all, i do not think this is about Assad, Putin does not care about Assad but with him in power Russia has more influence.
Russia has more at stake and therefore will indeed fight against IS when the west of Syria is retaken from the rebels.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Thought that had been cleared up already?

'The Chinese' may not be sending an aircraft carrier, but as has already been said by RyleeNator, incidentally just two posts above your post..they are reported to be sending 'Advisors' (yes, we do all know what that word means) to Syria to fight against terrorists there.

Continually bleating on about carriers that aren't yet ready for theatre is counterproductive and smacks of brow beating...please don't bully members who happen to think differently to you.

It's not big and it's not clever.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: earthling42

Oh right, so you have taken the poll then?

I'd be interested in seeing the results of what you learned when you canvassed the whole of Syria...

It's evident that not all or even 'most' Syrians oppose Assad, since the majority are fighting FOR Assad, not against him, so quite how you support the assertion that 'most' Syrians oppose him is a mystery.

If most were against him, he would have gone years ago.

SOME of the Syrian population are against him obviously, but again, the majority of those 'Syrian rebels' are not even Syrian to begin with, having been drafted into Syria by Saudi Arabia and it's corrupt cohorts.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Listen to Syrian people, read their stories, Syrians have said they were influenced by the uprising in Egypt, the fuse in Syria were a few kids that were detained and mistreated by the regime.
No doubt that there are people who back Assad and his regime, there are always those that benefit.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

No you see that's where your wrong it was said that the Chinese were involved
Then your buddy said it's been debunked that the Chinese were getting involved and projucied a thread he made about carriers at no time where we talking about naval we were talking military advisers so try and get it right stop making yourself look daft funny how you can spell and still look stupid



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: RyleeNator

No actually, you are wrong:

Here is the Chronology of posts..

First, we have DJW001 saying China won't get involved:

a reply to: DJW001

Then we have real_one with his links to Chinese Naval assets:

a reply to: real_one

Then we have DJW001 back saying it was debunked:

a reply to: DJW001

Which is where I chime in:

a reply to: stumason

And then you with your "debunked hahahahahaha" post:

a reply to: RyleeNator

And the rest, as they say, is history.....

edit on 9/10/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join