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.

 

Reuters reporting US special operations troops deploying to Syria

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
"Nothing to see here. Move along please"

- Military Industrial Complex




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

They say they're supposed to be helping the rebels. I still can't wrap my head around why in the hell are we supporting rebels who also have aligned themselves with terrorists. A terrorist is a terrorist. I say let Russia do their thing, and lets get the hell out of this hell hole in the middle east! Nobody's going to eliminate the radical ideology in these countries! The U.S. population will not support a full scale war if it breaks out in the middle east.

I guarantee Russia and Iran will be getting blow back from their involvement. There will always be those small pockets of resistance who want revenge once the smoke clears.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Now would be a good time to post what I read a couple of days ago.

During lunch with old friends outside MacDill AFB in Tampa, two U.S. Special Operations Command officials, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, reported that the orders are in and that we will be deploying 3,000 troops to the AO (Area of Operations).

"Chip, we are concerned due to the scope of our mission there. We will be embedded with Syrian Opposition forces, we believe that many are al-Qaeda or ISIS sympathizers who are not actively engaged against the terrorist threat but rather in support of a regime change.

In this lies our dilemma. Russia is currently carrying our their air war against both the terrorist threat and enemies of Assad. That places American Troops dead in the target sights of Russia.

We believe that we are being used as pawns and many will be sacrificed as a means to war with Russia. The defense contractors with whom we deal in contracts and purchases are gearing up for a war against Russian style equipment.

There are just too many indicators pointing to the administrations move to false flag a war. At the cost of American Lives again!"

- See more at: allnews.network...

allnews.network...

I didn't post because I just discovered allnews network but seeing it's now mainstream that boots are indeed going on the ground, I thought I would share.

Look, US was busted red handed arming ISIS. They've been lollygagging for a year and now they want to send troops? I think Syria is going to be ground zero for ww3. It's not a matter of IF anymore. If any of you are interested, here's an article from last year about the true meaning behind the Syrian conflict.

The Kerry-Abdullah secret deal

On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia’s lucrative EU trade. A report in the Wall Street Journal noted there had been “months of behind-the-scenes work by the US and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.” [3]


www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
From the article above:
"During lunch with old friends outside MacDill AFB in Tampa, two U.S. Special Operations Command officials, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, reported that the orders are in and that we will be deploying 3,000 troops to the AO (Area of Operations). "

Obama's speaker was just doing a press conference (watching CNN), and they're only admitting to less than 50 trainers and advisors. Combat only if fired upon.
It'll be interesting to see how that story changes over the next while...



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I'm always quite amused by the fact that the US can go illegaly wherever they want to bomb whoever they want and without any sanction. Or better said, the sanction is the killing of their trained military, but seems to not be a concern to anyone, in fact it seems the objective.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I am so pissed off about this. They were so serious about no boots on the ground and here we are. Next it'll be combat missions because "we had no choice but to engage" then that will require more troops. More people will die, some soldier will get videotaped being chopped apart, America will cry for blood, and we have ourselves Iraq part 2. Install the puppet government and move on to the next non western friendly nation. I don't know what one can do to stop this madness.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Only thing we can do to break the system is everyone write in a non puppet on the ballet. Neither party will allow someone against the grain to make the ticket. Rand unfortunately doesn't have a chance and Bernie has 25% of the countries approval but gets as much media attention as Hillary's email scandal.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I'm surprised this wasn't posts a few days ago. I read something about this online earlier this week, maybe from Drudge? But then again, I've been under the weather so I may be totally wrong.

I feel like it'll start with a "few" then it'll go up from there. And up. And up. Definitely do not have a good feeling about it.

Praying they all make it back safely and accomplish their goals.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Lots of people don't to believe pipelines and energy play into this but it is the motivation. Why would any one think the powers of the world actually care about the people living in places like Syria. Energy is huge money.
edit on 10/30/2015 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut
I'm always quite amused by the fact that the US can go illegaly wherever they want to bomb whoever they want and without any sanction. Or better said, the sanction is the killing of their trained military, but seems to not be a concern to anyone, in fact it seems the objective.


Sorry, but I find your comment rather inflammatory.


The U.S. isn't invading Syria. Several other countries have troops who are already there, IIRC.

Trust me, I doubt many of us are excited about this. I know I'm not. But I have mass respect for those who are brave enough to go, the ones who are actually in harms way.

That's what I think about when I hear this kind of news...I think about the human side of things I guess. The men and women who are brave enough to leave their families and friends, to go over there...



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
There is a fairly long list of US invaded countries; it just not referred to as invasion from the political point of view. The military arrives after the political prepping.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Mission...




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I saw this earlier.

This move is absolute lunacy. Now that Russia is bombing they deploy troops?

Lunacy.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
You forgot ...Once upon a time. I heard they were there to help not fight ...but they can shoot if need be. I personally don't want troops over there or anywhere else for that matter. Let them fight their own battles.





posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
Sorry, but I find your comment rather inflammatory.


The U.S. isn't invading Syria. Several other countries have troops who are already there, IIRC.

Trust me, I doubt many of us are excited about this. I know I'm not. But I have mass respect for those who are brave enough to go, the ones who are actually in harms way.

That's what I think about when I hear this kind of news...I think about the human side of things I guess. The men and women who are brave enough to leave their families and friends, to go over there...



Sorry, but putting boots on the ground in a sovereign country that doesn't want you is by any international standards illegal. My comment isn't inflammatory, is just the elephant in the room. The troops allowed in Syria are Quds and Hezbollah wheter you or me agree or not is irrelevant.

This has also nothing to do with the bravery of the people involved which I don't doubt. They do not DECIDE to go, they are sent. The illegality is at the decision-making level, not the operative one.

If you involve the emotional side you cannot see the situation for what it is. The USA want to oust Assad illegitimately and they are stalling the resolution of this conflict. It's not me saying this, it's Ban Ki Moon, and when the Secretary General of the United Nation has a view that is more similar to the bad ruskies, you should start to question if your government is playing with the lives of YOUR OWN people, because sending troops in Siria will surely expose them to russian bombing and ignite WWIII without solving either the ISIS problem nor the sirian one and surely not the european invasion's one.

If you want to solve the sirian crisis and stop the spreading of ISIS you should call your governement and ask them to stop wasting money funding proto-terrorists and put them into american economy where they belong. Israeli/Saudi/Qatari affairs aren't something that you should put ahead of your people. Nor is hegemony at all costs.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: Mastronaut
I'm always quite amused by the fact that the US can go illegaly wherever they want to bomb whoever they want and without any sanction. Or better said, the sanction is the killing of their trained military, but seems to not be a concern to anyone, in fact it seems the objective.


Sorry, but I find your comment rather inflammatory.


The U.S. isn't invading Syria. Several other countries have troops who are already there, IIRC.

Trust me, I doubt many of us are excited about this. I know I'm not. But I have mass respect for those who are brave enough to go, the ones who are actually in harms way.

That's what I think about when I hear this kind of news...I think about the human side of things I guess. The men and women who are brave enough to leave their families and friends, to go over there...






May i ask what you believe american troops are doing in Syria ? and what gives them the legal right to be there ? because i am pretty sure the Assad does not want them there .....
edit on 31-10-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I could not agree more-

President Obama on Friday authorized the deployment of “fewer than 50” U.S. special operations troops to northern Syria, where they will work with local forces in the fight against the militants.

Ugh...,,.,. 50 pairs of special ops... hmmmm anyone else question these tactics? Are not other militarty units bombing now? In another thread, I mentioned that the U.S. is failiing to hit thier targets..



Source here-




NOt to de-rail, but remember when the president said that his program to select, train and arm Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, had failed in part because he had insisted they battle only the militants — and not also focus on toppling Mr. Assad’s government. “I’m the first one to acknowledge it has not worked the way it was supposed to,” he said. Instead, he said the United States wanted to work more closely with Kurdish allies who have enjoyed some success against the Islamic State to see “if we can built on that.”

NY Times




top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join