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.

 

Russia threatens permanent world war if Saudis add ground troops to U.S. coalition

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Esoterotica





We may as well get it over with already. It's going to happen anyways so long as the petrodollar reigns.


Really you want to get it over with...speak for yourself as a world war is not what most of the world want.

And blaming the petrodollar is only closing your eyes to the real problems.



We are already in a world war, this isn't the early 20th century anymore.


No we aren't, and I never said it was.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness




Russia's move towards the Ukraine was in interest of their own national security to keep ISIS at a distance further than arms reach and to prevent ISIS creep into these less secure neighboring countries.. as ISIS was heavily recruiting for those areas.



Russia's move toward Ukraine had nothing to do with ISIS...it had to do with Putin not wanting them to become more western than Russian, something his ego won't allow.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness




Well certainly so... but if these countries have no other means than NATO to protect themselves and only after an assault of some sort has been made on it... is it illogical that Russia does not want that so close to home nor evolve into that destabilizing yet another region?


If Russia wasn't destabilizing the region around them those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union do not want to go back down that path so they look to the only place that give's them security from Russian encroachment, and that is NATO.

You have to remember these countries do not have the military might to keep Russia at bay because Russia was their military might until they left, and Russia knows this which is why they are doing what they are in the region...perfect example is Ukraine and Georgia. Problem is Russia thought those countries would be an easy target until they found out differently.

NATO doesn't look for countries to join them...countries look to join NATO and have been denied so Russia's complaint about NATO is unfounded.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
So why is this thread not in LOL, or at least have this ridiculous title changed?

Russia made no threats whatsoever here.
edit on 13-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh look, Russia is mentioned so there is activity again.




Russia's move toward Ukraine had nothing to do with ISIS...it had to do with Putin not wanting them to become more western than Russian, something his ego won't allow.


Lol, yeah I am sure it is his ego and his ego alone. You see, Putin is a very very bad man.....


edit on 13-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

NATO doesn't look for countries to join them...countries look to join NATO and have been denied so Russia's complaint about NATO is unfounded.


Total nonsense................ You train up the former Soviet youth in YOUR American universities Saakashvili style then send 'em back to the former Soviet countries and position them in power, then they invite their own kind (brainwashing adopted parents) in. This is how it happens and you know it. You get into foreign countries through the back door. The USA.......... Devious when it wants to be



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It is amusing to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. When an analyst in Washington correctly warns that deposing a dictator could create a power vacuum in a particular region, allowing non-state actors to seize power, it is used as "proof" that America deliberately fomented a revolution to put terrorist groups (which they supposedly created) in power.

Now analysts in Russia are pointing out, correctly, that further Saudi involvement in Syria would prolong the conflict in the region. This is now being presented as "proof" that Russia wants to start World War Three.

Put on your critical thinking caps, people.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter




Total nonsense................ You train up the former Soviet youth in YOUR American universities Saakashvili style then send 'em back to the former Soviet countries and position them in power, then they invite their own kind (brainwashing adopted parents) in.


And you have proof of this?

And being as your from the US you know exactly how the universities run in the US...oh that's right your making assumptions from across the pond, but you know more than those who actually live here.

People come to the US for an education they can't get in their countries then return to where they were born and that is bad because the US is where they want to learn...amazing.

And exactly who is there own kind...those who want to better themselves with an education, are those the kind of people your talking about?



This is how it happens and you know it.


Wrong, but just because you think that doesn't make it true...and you know that.




You get into foreign countries through the back door.


As do most countries...including those you want to defend.



The USA.......... Devious when it wants to be


Let me fix that for you...The whole world...devious when it wants to be.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief




Oh look, Russia is mentioned so there is activity again.


Oh look I have nothing to say about the topic at hand...I can only talk about other members.

Usually when a thread title has Russia in it that is what usually get's talked about.




Lol, yeah I am sure it is his ego and his ego alone. You see, Putin is a very very bad man.....



And you have proof it isn't?

You see Russia didn't have a problem with Ukraine until they decided to move to closer ties with the west something Putin didn't want happening why...it hurts his ego that he couldn't keep one of the former union members under the sphere of influence he wants to keep.

Well let's see Putin killed innocent civilians as a ruse to go to war with Chechnya, he invades a country on lies where innocent victims died because of it, he has his opposition thrown in jail or killed because he doesn't want to lose his power...so yes he is a bad man, and his ego is making him very dangerous.

Feel free to provide us with all the attributes that make him such a good man.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Usually when a thread title has Russia in it that is what usually get's talked about.


Yes and? Did I question that? What I am saying is that when a thread title has Russia in it you suddenly see certain posters becoming active.




And you have proof it isn't?


You made the claim. Do you have proof that every decision or action by Putin is ego driven?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

For those of us that don't use twisted logic, can you explain what point you are trying to make, exactly?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: DJW001

For those of us that don't use twisted logic, can you explain what point you are trying to make, exactly?


Partisans seize upon statements by government officials of countries they are biased against and twist them to suit their own agenda. Have you never been exposed to that concept before? This time, the Putinistas have to defend Russia against the same type of unfounded accusations they usually make against America.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So can you give the example of the case in which an American leader said something that was taken out of context to place blame on America?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Putin - the villain of the Western MSM could be appropriate hero of Dan Brown's next book (he may put also Francis to play his own role). But frankly do you have another candidate to suite better the West? Don't tell me Navalni or even Chodorkovski. Navalni doesn't get 2% of the vote even in Moscow where he supposedly enjoys most of pro-Western people. If Putin resigns today or falls ill, or dies (as the internet rumor had it last year), something not to happen so easily, but he is also mortal after all not a Greek god, and if somehow Medvedev resigns his acting-president position, the next to come to power will be a leftist person. I don't remember who is in the succession line, was it the speaker of the Senate. It will be more radical, not more pro-Western than Putin. Anywhere between Zyuganov the communist leader and some fearful general with his finger on the red button.

Let be realists. If the West still enjoys relative peace after all that happened in those decades, it is because the Russian leaders are still moderate. One doesn't have to love them, as Duma leftist MP said, the respect is enough.

Let say again about the nukes. According to the Russian rules, published online (can't provide the link, google it) the codes are held by three groups of people:

1. the president and his successors in line.
2. The generals chiefs of staff.
3. The commanders of units armed with nuclear weapons, while the codes are not visible but sealed in case of pre-ordered scenario or may be emergency.

Those 3 were posted online. 1 overruns 2 overruns 3.

I would add 4. Perimeter automated system of launch if everything else fails, once started it will overrun any command communicating directly with the missiles from near space. That is fearful, may be the Americans have similar system, but it comes to tell us, Russia cannot be just defeated, as some dream in semi-official reports posted online behind brand names that I don't want to repeat. As if the Western public opinion is such. No it is not! The Western public opinion knows very well from the lived Cold War that the West have no chance to win, regardless of how the nuclear war will end. Because the West will never repair after such destruction. While Russia frankly does not care so much, having less than fair share of the European rich historical buildup (still she has it too, for everyone who never visited those grand cities comparable to the best the West could offer culturally).

So we come back to the drawing/drinking table with the question: whose next, what's next? Not the plan of the Western MSM. It already failed. If it weren't we wouldn't have waves of immigrants that overflow the previous waves of unemployed youths at the heart of Europe. 26 years after the fall of Communism. If one needs excuse, he may go back 26 years, but the reality is Europe failed to secure its gains after the Cold War, and now pays the price. Russia didn't "surrender". Gorbachev scrapped projects that now USA develops (lasers in space). For the name he received as of a traitor. I don't think of Gorby as traitor. But the West should be a little more thankful to the people and peoples who brought the end of the Cold War and S-18 Satans. Because the outcome could be TOTALLY DIFFERENT and still it could happen. Perhaps the survivors will be sorry their leaders didn't strike a deal with Putin and Medvedev when it could stil be done. The pope understands that, but he is a voice in the desert. Does the West listen to him, the jesuit who came in the last moment on the playground? The answer is one big NO. Obama goes to his last months (that could be the last of the civilization as well). The West doesn't have a politician to offer a different perspective than the one of Madam Merkel. Trump? If he is elected? I don't think we will survive in this situation until January 2017. It is a miracle we still write online in February 2016. The end has been rescheduled many times after Year 2000.
edit on 13-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: DJW001

So can you give the example of the case in which an American leader said something that was taken out of context to place blame on America?


I see you are new here. Here are two random examples:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit to add: You used the word "leader," not I. These details can be important here.
edit on 13-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: 2012newstart

The Russian people will vote for whoever they are told to. They have been condition by 900 years of absolute monarchy, 80 years of Communism and 20 years of Fascism Russian Federalism.
edit on 13-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




I see you are new here. Here are two random examples:


Yes, extremely random.

So a little recap. You concede the fact that this thread's title is BS and that Russia made no such threat, but you twist this into "Putinistas" making "similar" BS statements against the US, refering to a 5 year old thread and some other unrelated comment.

Why would you even do this if it is not your agenda to use whatever you can in order to make some kind of argument against Russia or anyone you feel is supporting them?




Edit to add: You used the word "leader," not I. These details can be important here.


You are the one drawing a comparison to the remarks that were made by a Russian leader.





edit on 13-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

How exactly was Wesley Clark taken out of context?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief


So a little recap. You concede the fact that this thread's title is BS and that Russia made no such threat, but you twist this into "Putinistas" making "similar" BS statements against the US, refering to a 5 year old thread and some other unrelated comment.


Yes. Do you concede the fact that pro-Russian propagandists do the same thing that pro-American propagandists do? (I could probably find a more recent example but these two stuck in my mind as being egregious.)


Why would you even do this if it is not your agenda to use whatever you can in order to make some kind of argument against Russia or anyone you feel is supporting them?


I am doing this to point out the irony of both sides self righteously using the same deceptive tactics. You do concede that they use the same deceptive tactics, don't you?


You are the one drawing a comparison to the remarks that were made by a Russian leader.


Why is the word "leader" important you? Why isn't "government official" satisfying?


edit on 13-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: DJW001

How exactly was Wesley Clark taken out of context?


He was being critical of what he perceived to be an opposing party's agenda. His opinion was presented as a confession of wrong doing.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join