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.

 

White House Gave Isis 45 Minute Warning Before Bombing Oil Tankers.....Thanks, Obama!

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: dogstar23

Thanks.
"deaf ears"
More like deaf, dumb & blind but like they say "you can't fix stupid".

What I have yet to see is anyone actually wonder or question just who it is in Iraq that is buying "ISIL oil".
But then that would entail actually considering the larger strategic theater & thinking vs just hyperventilating over some partisan pig poop you stumbled across on the net.
K~


Iran




posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: DBCowboy




Our method of fighting an ideology appears to suck.

How would you recommend defeating ISIS?


To fight guerrilla warfare, one must think like a guerrilla.




Exactly. We have to sink to their level. We have to out terror, the terrorists. We have to be worse than them. We have to not just beat them, but also scare them. They have to become afraid of us.



Doing that the terrorists win. What they hope to accomplish is exactly that for you to change your morals and beliefs to match theirs. People with this attitude is just playing into their hands. They all ready have you willing to kill women and children indisrininately from their every thing else is just a small step.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: paraphi
Dragging us back to the OP.

This is a rule of engagement and we should be thankful that this type of thing happens. It is likely the drivers of these tankers were civilians, possibly forced to work.


Probably forced to work..... great argument.

Are you telling me that the US would not have bombed People who aid terrorists in any way? Is that the New doctrin the US fight against terror now? That was not the case before.

Never has been the case. US bombs hospital in Afghanistan full of wounded combatants and medical personnel, bombs it repeatedly, then turns around and drops leaflets in Syria to ISIS "truck drivers".

Aww, we're so nice…

US forces attacked the hospital because Afghan troops called for air support on the location. Ad an forces claim their was Taliban fighters firing from that location. True or not doesn't matter because US forces are not on the ground in Afghanistan this will happen again. Afghan fighters are not concerned with civilian casualties they expect it. The US forces will have to come up with an effective way to verify air strikes while still maintaining air support for the Afghan miliatry.

Can this be done without mistakes being made I doubt it. When you have a group of enemy fighters taking up positions around a field hospital I'm going to bet a ham troops will call for air support.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


True or not doesn't matter because US forces are not on the ground in Afghanistan this will happen again.

Sorry, cant respond to someone that says things like that.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

the only reason putin is an enemy is because hes an enemy to the politicians/elites and their retarded schemes. so why should the people of the US see him as an enemy? explain that to me.
edit on 23-11-2015 by AVoiceOfReason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

These truck drivers and the peopel working at these oil refineries have been safe until Putin brought this up just a while ago. I am not sure if he repeated the same issue at the UN Meeting last week.

The US and UK have been flying drones....the US have also been flying jet sorties over the North east of Syria and along the Syrian/Iraq boarder for a year now. And never spotted any of these 500 trucks or any of the oil refinerys ??? It is unbelievable..

The UK have had the SAS inflitrate ISIS to the Northern part of Syria.... And nothing at all about these oil trucks or refineries from them???

US SF have been flying their own drones over the Iraqi boarder into Syria, and have seen nothing??

But they can find one or two terroris anywhere else in the world within 48 hours???

We are talking about the US here....who claim to have the best intelligence reasources know to man (This is supported by many here on ATS) and they cant find ISIS anywhere in the Northern part of Syria???



Ironic much??

What I surmise from all this is...
The TPTB via the US gov and whatever allies are involved knew what/who these people were and did not want to touch those convoys,
which means they wanted them to pass through,
which means they have directly supported the finance stream of these terrorists,
which means they dont want to stop ISIS but are in fact financing them,
which means they are indirectly/directly responsible for the deaths of countless human beings on both sides.

The math just keeps adding up whichever way you look at it.

ISIS, ISIL, IS, Al Nusra, Al Ciada etc are their proxy weapons, until they dont want them to be, then they are scape goats to be used as PR/cannon fodder - when it suits, occasionally regurgitated, re-branded and let loose again - when it suits. Rinse and repeat.

In the mean time we AKA the people, the ones that can't or won't do their own thinking, are manipulated to support their agenda....

Like "We gotta bomb Syria" and "Assad must go" cause ya know hes..ummm... a bad man.....and good triumphs over bad men..ya know...

Bombing Syria isnt gonna stop ISIS etc..Stopping their funding will have more effect and its cheaper and wont kill anyone, but will they?
From your observations, it does not look like they want to, or will do.

Of course "they" will occasionally kill a terrorist or bomb something legit for the vid and sound bite, and proudly use it as evidence of being the good guy fighting the bad guy. The sheeple will lap it up and go back to sleep and the wolf will carry on.

In the meantime lock-downs, terror threat warnings and degradation of liberties will be the norm.....Hail the NWO



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: aethertek

the only reason putin is an enemy is because hes an enemy to the politicians/elites and their retarded schemes. so why should the people of the US see him as an enemy? explain that to me.


So you don't think it might be the fact Put in keeps invading his neighbors and threatening to nuke them? I'd say this doesn't make you very popular among world leaders



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

You are aware they destroyed the site seems you are missing that point. When destroying facilities you can limit the death toll if you wish. Had nothing to do with hidden support. If that were the case they would not have attacked in the first place and allowed operations to continue. Funny part is that had they just went in and bombed the area we would have the same people on here arguing how the US just bombs civilians and point to this bombing with hundreds of casualties. The 45 min warning allowed hundreds to evacuate the facility saving their lives.

I should know better however the anti amarican sentiment runs high on here probably do to the nature of paranoia. When I was in Iraq air strikes were regularly called off for fear of civilian casualties, Which means we had to remove the insurgents the old fashioned way a direct raid. US forces has all ways been mindful of civilian casualties and all are military personnel agree that we always tried to clear out civilians in a combat area.

This sometimes means bad guys get away and yes it prolongs the fight but it is the right thing to do. I'm sure if fighting was going on in your country you would want the military to at least try to avoid civilian casualties and not take out a market or populated area to get fighters.
edit on 11/23/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
yes, that is how it was way back....in 1967.........same exact thing.....they are still there and my brother buddy....has to use pen and paper 'cause he can't talk after the LAWS rocket accident



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: DBCowboy




Our method of fighting an ideology appears to suck.

How would you recommend defeating ISIS?


To fight guerrilla warfare, one must think like a guerrilla.




Exactly. We have to sink to their level. We have to out terror, the terrorists. We have to be worse than them. We have to not just beat them, but also scare them. They have to become afraid of us.



Doing that the terrorists win. What they hope to accomplish is exactly that for you to change your morals and beliefs to match theirs. People with this attitude is just playing into their hands. They all ready have you willing to kill women and children indisrininately from their every thing else is just a small step.


The terrorists are already "winning". How are they losing? The US isn't beating them.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Not exactly right.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I prefer not to subscribe to this meme being thrown around about the truck drivers having guns to their or their families heads, it's a false narrative. The real reason Obama is doing this is because it would not be a good thing to kill the people on his bankroll, it kind of discourages your paid mercs to fight for you when you are killing them.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
I prefer not to subscribe to this meme being thrown around about the truck drivers having guns to their or their families heads, it's a false narrative. The real reason Obama is doing this is because it would not be a good thing to kill the people on his bankroll, it kind of discourages your paid mercs to fight for you when you are killing them.

Any evidence that Obama's white house is paying people to drive trucks for isis? I thought not way to promote a false narative. I see it on the web all the time claims of us support. It all started with an Iranian blog. Sadly people don't need to confirm facts if it fits into their beliefs even if it is false.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kloejen

That's a MUCH better source and one that I am more willing to believe (at least after I've read it) as opposed to Infowars who likes to report a little bit of truth then exaggerate it into silliness territory.


Most of us here, can just see what side you are on, and go the other direction, know why ??

Cause your sources are just as biased if not more than Infowars.

Imagine what it must be like to be so religiously fanatical about the great truths spewed on mainstream news.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
No matter what it is , this current President cannot bring himself to do anything major against Radical Islam. For some unknown (to me anyway) reason. The French are attacking without warning. The Russians are painting "For France" on their ordinance and delivering it with "loving care" without warning. So , whats up with our Commander in Chief ? He states , on television in front of the world , that we are going to destroy ISIS . How ? Does he have MAAGGGIIC that he is going to use from the Oval Office ? Ridiculous...


edit on 23-11-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: aethertek
Emigrate to Russia then since you love you some Putin pudding so much.
Get out of MY Country!
So sick & &%&^* tired of all the reichwing whiners expressing their love for a sworn enemy of the Nation.

Oh as far as the rest of that BS you posted all they did was drop leaflets, SOP when you plan on bombing noncombatants.
Look at the bombing footage, nothing but tank trucks no Mil vehicles.
Those truck drivers were more than likely just average joes who were probably told drive or die & not "ISIS".
Hell even the Israelis have the decency to do the same before they take out apartment blocks in Palestine.
K~


Who is our sworn enemy?


fear


Ahhahah!!

I never quite summed it up so nicely as you, NOW I understand how all of the people who blindly support all official stories.

FEAR.

It is nice to understand this fully, and to see just how easy it is to control you.

How does it feel to be totally owned by everyone , and everything, and to feel a desperate need to believe in something that does not want to attack you ???

You would never even consider the attacks coming from within, because well, it is just too dam SCARY! Weeeeeeee!



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Read through first few pages of this, then decided to post.

I see that the argument of limiting unnecessary civilian casualties has been well argued.

One component of that argument,I have not seen mentioned is the strong possibility such an action might have left nationals of a NATO member dead.

IF, ISIS is somewhat self funding it is through the oil blackmarket. Adjacent to ISIS held territory you have a contested Syria with a route to the sea through Lebanon, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have no use for blackmarket oil. If it is possible to get oil to the sea through a contested Syria and Hizbollah sympathetic Lebanon the skim from those facilitating would be very high. That leaves Turkey as the route for the blackmarket oil.

I'm not a fan of this administration, but the decision to give warning by leaflet to truckers carrying a product 30-45 minutes before attack isn't at all stupid.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

You are aware they destroyed the site seems you are missing that point. When destroying facilities you can limit the death toll if you wish. Had nothing to do with hidden support. If that were the case they would not have attacked in the first place and allowed operations to continue. Funny part is that had they just went in and bombed the area we would have the same people on here arguing how the US just bombs civilians and point to this bombing with hundreds of casualties. The 45 min warning allowed hundreds to evacuate the facility saving their lives.

I should know better however the anti amarican sentiment runs high on here probably do to the nature of paranoia. When I was in Iraq air strikes were regularly called off for fear of civilian casualties, Which means we had to remove the insurgents the old fashioned way a direct raid. US forces has all ways been mindful of civilian casualties and all are military personnel agree that we always tried to clear out civilians in a combat area.

This sometimes means bad guys get away and yes it prolongs the fight but it is the right thing to do. I'm sure if fighting was going on in your country you would want the military to at least try to avoid civilian casualties and not take out a market or populated area to get fighters.

Dont remember making a comment about this "You are aware they destroyed the site seems you are missing that point".

And Im not paranoid and Im not anti-American. I am "critical of PTB at the top" what ever country they come from whoever they are..
America ends up being criticised because America has the biggest footprint on the worlds geopolitical landscape and should be critiqued.

Back to the subject
.
I just had a thought. If the "Allies" wont bomb the tankers cause of "civilian" drivers, then why didnt/dont they bomb the roads they use. I know they will get rebuilt, but just bomb them again and again. It couldnt be too many roads out of Syria and easy to identify them with all the high tech in the air.Or bomb a strategic bridge or two. It would at least delay "the oil for money/weapons" funding.

Drones could do that on the cheap. Or a bomber, they would only need a couple of sorties a day. They would only have to do it near the borders.

Bombed infrastructure no casualties, no oil for funding. Win win.

Trucks would back up for miles, drop some leaflets and "turkey
shoot".

Is there any logistical problems with this...Any military experts care to enlighten.

See I can compromise too



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Ngatikiwi

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Ngatikiwi



Your taxes pay for drones that bombarde weddings and funeral processions...

You're already responsible and doing zero to stop that funding.



Stop paying taxes and go to prison if you're as brave as you're making out.

Come on it's only prison, it's not like they'll set fire to the cage your in, is it?


Im not American


Forgive me, my intention was to say that generally to make a point, not to target you individually.


All good and fair point.
We dont go to prison for that here unless its fraud.
And im not brave, I just wont bow to bullies, I dont fear death and I havnt got family to be concerned about in that type of situation.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Iran


Citation?
Because you know the whole Sunni-Shia thing.

K~




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join