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.

 

Putin: No need to distinguish between ‘moderate’ & other terrorists

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: crazyewok
The USA cocked up badly in Syria = Fact


Russia blocked all UN resolutions dealing with Syria and Assad so it would be Russia who cocked it up and not the US. Secondly the US is not the only country sending weapons. Something you and others really need to learn as you apparently seem to think the US is the only country on this planet.


Thats because the USA wanted a outright invasion , supporting a band of terrorists at a time when the war the war was still a internal dispute. And we know how US invasions like that turn out......

The USA should have proposed enforceing a ceasefire under the current government and took it from there.


And You obviously have a very small memory as I have acknowledged in past threads that the UK has done its share of harm. So again useing deflection to divert from a indefensible position.




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

I agree, a terrorist is a terrorist. The U.S. has a history of supporting terrorists or rebels when it suits their interests. We even have an ally (Saudi Arabia) who is known to fund extremists and supports sick Sharia law. Considering 15 of the 19 hijackers on 911 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, you have to question what side the United States is truly on.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope, when taking Crimea people didn't die, they voted for getting back.

If you mean the war in Ukraine sure people died there but Russia didn't invade that country with tanks.
Sure there where probably some Russian (ex?) soldiers but no real proof they where send by Russia, let alone a tank battalion or fighter/bomb planes
People from Europe are fighting in Syria so you even could say Europe invaded Syria LOL. And in fact that last part ain't far from the truth, since Europe and the US gave them lots of money / support (''moderate'' terrorists).
edit on 23-10-2015 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra


Illegal invasions - Ukraine.



Illegal invasions - iraq

I find it funny how the Pro US groupies forgot there history of invasion.

As for indefensible actions I meN supplying arms and training to the various terrorists groups in Syria.

Are you done now?
edit on 23-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
He is right of course,a terrorist is a terrorist we either accept them all or condem them all.This is the kind of stuff the U.S. president should be saying.


George Bush was the one started this whole, your either with us or your with the terrorists, rhetoric and we are allies with certain countries in the region who are funding the Islamist fighters.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope, when taking Crimea people didn't die, they voted for getting back.

If you mean the war in Ukraine sure people died there but Russia didn't invade that country with tanks.
Sure there where probably some Russian soldiers but no real proof they where send by Russia.
People from Europe are fighting in Syria so you even could say Europe invaded Syria LOL.


O quit it, your just as bad as doctor propaganda.

People died and are still dying in Ukraine.

Russia and the USA han both hang there heads in shame.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Read my last response. People didn't die in Crimea, there is a difference between Ukraine and Crimea.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just one quick question.

How do you call sending your troops in another country to overthrow a legal government? Just another day in the US president's office?

Jokes aside, the west invaded Syria.

On the other hand, where are Russian forces in Ukraine? Are Russia and Ukraine fighting? If so, on what channel? BBC?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Finally..



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

* - RT - Russia will veto no fly one - 2013
* - BBC - Russia and China veto UN move to refer Syria to ICC - 2014
* - Russia blocks a UN Security Council statement condemning the Syrian government's increasing military offensive on the city of Aleppo.
* - UN - Complete list of UN vetos from the mid 1940's to present
* - Four Syrian hospitals bombed since Russian airstrikes began, doctors say

* - Reuters - Factbox: U.N. Security Council action on the Syrian conflict - Feb2014


VETO ONE - October 4, 2011 Link

Russia and China blocked a European-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria and hinting it could face sanctions if its bloody crackdown on protesters continues. The draft resolution received nine votes in favor and four abstentions from Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa.



VETO TWO - February 4, 2012 - Link

Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-driven draft resolution endorsing an Arab League plan for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand power to a deputy to make way for a transition towards democracy. The remaining 13 members of the council voted in favor of the draft resolution.

Russia complained that the draft resolution was an improper and biased attempt at "regime change" in Syria.




VETO THREE - July 19, 2012 - Link

Russia and China vetoed a Western-backed resolution that threatened Syrian authorities with sanctions if they did not halt the violence. The resolution - to extend for 45 days a U.N. mission in Syria observing a failed ceasefire - received 11 votes in favor, while South Africa and Pakistan abstained.




ADOPTED ONE - April 14, 2012 - Link
The U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed to deploy an advance team of up to 30 unarmed observers to monitor a brief, fragile ceasefire.

Before agreeing to support what was originally a U.S.-drafted text, Russia had demanded the U.S. and European delegations dilute it so that it would not "demand" that Syria comply with the resolution. The approved resolution uses softer language so that it "calls upon" Syria to implement it.



ADOPTED TWO - April 21, 2012 - Link

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that authorized an initial deployment of up to 300 unarmed military observers to Syria for three months.

The Russia-European drafted resolution said that deployment of the U.N. observer mission would be "subject to assessment by the Secretary-General (Ban Ki-moon) of relevant developments on the ground, including the cessation of violence."

It also noted that the cessation of violence by the government and opposition is "clearly incomplete" and warned that the Security Council could consider "further steps" in the event of non-compliance with its terms.




ADOPTED THREE - July 20, 2012 - Link

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to extend the monitoring mission in Syria for a final 30 days.




ADOPTED FOUR - September 28, 2013 - Link

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that demanded the eradication of Syria's chemical weapons but did not threaten automatic punitive action against Assad's government if it does not comply.

The vote by the Security Council capped weeks of intense diplomacy between Russia and the United States. It was based on a deal between the two countries reached in Geneva earlier in September following an August 21 sarin nerve gas attack on a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds.

The resolution does not authorize automatic punitive action in the form of military strikes or sanctions if Syria does not comply. At Russia's insistence, the resolution makes clear a second council decision would be needed for that. Russia has made clear, however, it would not support the use of force against Assad's government, a close ally.



Yup.. Russia is doing all they can to protect Assad while lining up Syrian citizens against a wall for Assad to shoot.

You should be upset with Russia and China yet for some reason you defend them - why?
edit on 23-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I still think the US should go in and remove Assad. I personally think countries should become militarily involved when only humanitarian issues exist and the government decides to ignore them.

As for illegal the doctrine the UN adopted in 2005 says otherwise, especially when a government is killing its own citizens and refuses to stop.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Which western country has troops on the ground in syria?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yea the US says Assad killing his people like crazy, where is the proof? Assad is fighting IS and other terrorists groups who c came there after the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia + even supporting terrorists with tons of money...
US main goal yes is getting rid of Assad, IS is second, hence they are bombing them for a year or so and the only result is that all those people flee to Europe now (no wonder if everything gets flattened?

Also according the latest research indirectly about 2-4 million people died alone in Iraq since the Iraq war and they say Assad is so bad.. Sure he may have killed some people of his own (which happens with wars) but the west says he's responsible for all civilian deaths (2-300.000?).. Of course IS or other terrorists groups are a much bigger factor and the reason for this war in Syria...

So Russia veto's no fly zone above syria so syria then is not allowed to bomb terrorists in his own country? what?
edit on 23-10-2015 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

No matter what anyone's opinions are. Putin is what a real leader looks and speaks like.

We haven't had anything but puppets spewing propaganda since Kenedy.

We need a real president. One who speaks the truth and does what he/she says they are going to do. I am tired of blatant liars running this country.


Where are we going to find a real President, the likes of what you speak of?

Puppets have master's, if they are in control, do you think they are going to allow that person that may be ideal for the job to ever be elected?

If by some miracle this fantastic person did get elected, how long do you think he/she would remain a fantastic President; dead of alive?

The problem isn't really our government as much as it is the American people.

We are willfully ignorant of the truth of our government, we turn a blind eye and a death ear to what it has, and is doing to us, our country and the world.

Believing the lie is so much easier. You can use plausible deniability and continue to believe that our country is the greatest, and all it wants is to bring peace and freedom to all the peoples of the world. We can go on pretending our government is for and by the average American, and it serves us.

There can be no real President or even a real America until we have real Americans.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Because I think putting Syria back under central control even if under Assad is the best of a lot of bad options at this point.

Seeing as the terrorists or "rebels" as you call them are a fractured, divided and badly organised group, there is no point removeing assad to hand the country over to them as you will just have them war.

The saying better the devil you know comes to mind. And its not our job in the west to export "freedom " and "democracy " to syria, especially not when we are propping us tyrannys like Saudi Arabia. Our job should be just to stabilise syria and stop the war spreading over international borders. Handing the government over to a bunch of fracturd divided terrorists is the last thing in my opinion that will accomplish that!

So I am not critizeing Russia role in Syria as I dont feel I have much to critize in this case. In this ONE case Russia aims line up with mine.


Now as for Russia and China other actions elsewere in the world I cant say the same thing. I could critize them all day. But thats not for this thread as its for another topic.

Hell I have denounced Russias actions in Ukraine enough in the Ukraine threads. And though I was and still am 100% against military intervention in Ukraine , I fully support the sanctions levelled on Russia, infact I have said time and time again (though you will forget again I will suspect as it does not fit your black/white narrative ) that the sanctions did not go far enough!



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So there it says;


For the first time in this report we found that the widespread detention of civilians in Al-Raqqah and their systematic torture amount to crimes against humanity. said Pinheiro. “Among the violations are murder, summary executions, torture, hostage taking, rape and sexual violence, recruiting and using children in hostilities and other violations and other crimes.


Well look what happens with UN/US soldiers when they fight wars in country's far away in the past.. the same things happening there! They raped girls for example in Korea, or just killed them for no reason.. war is hell yes.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

I still think the US should go in and remove Assad. I personally think countries should become militarily involved when only humanitarian issues exist and the government decides to ignore them.

As for illegal the doctrine the UN adopted in 2005 says otherwise, especially when a government is killing its own citizens and refuses to stop.


And you remove assad then what?


There is no united opposition. You remove him and tge war still continues. And you are naive if you think all the terrorist groups will drop there guns and take to democracy to solve the issue. You will just end up like iraq with another ME quagmire to sink US lives and money into.


But its academic now anyway as the USA missed its chance and Russia is there now. So unless you are insane and want to start a war with Russia, the USA and you need to just accept the chance for USA is now over in Syria and its Russias problem now.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Because I think putting Syria back under central control even if under Assad is the best of a lot of bad options at this point.


The Syrian people don't seem to agree. Why not remove Assad and occupy the country and let the Syrian people decide their own fate? When I say remove I am speaking of all countries, the US and Russia. There is no reason they cant work together to protect civilians.



originally posted by: crazyewok
Seeing as the terrorists or "rebels" as you call them are a fractured, divided and badly organised group, there is no point removeing assad to hand the country over to them as you will just have them war.

See my post above.



originally posted by: crazyewok
The saying better the devil you know comes to mind.

Having the devil as the only option is the problem.



originally posted by: crazyewok
And its not our job in the west to export "freedom " and "democracy " to syria, especially not when we are propping us tyrannys like Saudi Arabia. Our job should be just to stabilise syria and stop the war spreading over international borders. Handing the government over to a bunch of fracturd divided terrorists is the last thing in my opinion that will accomplish that!


and its not Russia nor Chinas job to defend dictators who murder their own citizens. The only reason China and Russia take those positions is because they do the very thing in their own countries to their own people.



originally posted by: crazyewok
So I am not critizeing Russia role in Syria as I dont feel I have much to critize in this case. In this ONE case Russia aims line up with mine.


Yet you do have grounds to criticize yet you refuse to because you are ignoring facts that dont agree with your position. Specifically Russian and Chinese involvement in vetoing UN resolutions that could have made a difference. I get the impression you only support Russia and China because the Us is involved.



originally posted by: crazyewok
Now as for Russia and China other actions elsewere in the world I cant say the same thing. I could critize them all day. But thats not for this thread as its for another topic.

Hell I have denounced Russias actions in Ukraine enough in the Ukraine threads. And though I was and still am 100% against military intervention in Ukraine , I fully support the sanctions levelled on Russia, infact I have said time and time again (though you will forget again I will suspect as it does not fit your black/white narrative ) that the sanctions did not go far enough!



and Russia has vetod many resolutions in Ukraine that would have ended the conflict... Just like they are doing in syria.

To borrow a line from the Russian supporters Russia and china have no business being in syria as its not in their sphere of influence. The arab league came together and Russia ignored it.

Or is the ME not in the Arab Leagues sphere of influence?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
And you remove assad then what?


Maybe read the remainder of my posts (this one) for starters?



The Syrian people don't seem to agree. Why not remove Assad and occupy the country and let the Syrian people decide their own fate? When I say remove I am speaking of all countries, the US and Russia. There is no reason they cant work together to protect civilians.

edit on 23-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join