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

British Foreign Secretary floats possibility of military action in Syria

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

"It is right now that we should be looking again at the more kinetic options, the military options," he said.

"We can't do anything without a coalition, without doing it with the Americans.

"I think we're still a pretty long day's march from getting there. But that doesn't mean that discussions aren't going on, because they certainly are."

The comment sparked a quick reaction from the Kremlin, with a spokesman saying any action would be welcome provided it targeted "terrorists", not the forces of President Bashar al Assad.
SOURCE


As more and more nations take official and unofficial sides over the situation in Syria, who could believe that this is all about a gas pipeline? I don't believe that at all. I'm not saying that it couldn't be a small factor, but I can't imagine we're risking world annihilation over a gas pipeline in Syria.

As to those who are claiming a war between the U.S. and Russia doesn't mean WW3, the article linked above should be a wake-up call. It should be apparent that if the U.K. is going to side with the United States, they're going to team up against Russia/Syria. If anyone thinks those will be the only countries involved, I believe you're engaged in as much wishful thinking as the Kremlin is in hoping the U.K. would side with them in Syria.
edit on 13-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
There is no doubt that the US and UK will push ahead with some sort of military action in Syria. But with Russia breathing down the necks of the west this is a big and risky talk coming from Boris Johnson, especially knowing the probable consequences that could follow as a result of military action.

Again, I hope cooler heads prevail and peace talks resume.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: deviant300
Again, I hope cooler heads prevail and peace talks resume.


In order for cooler heads to prevail, there has to be cooler heads. I wrote the following in a recent thread:

My prediction is that the next U.S. election will determine [whether there is a U.S./Russian war]. Trump is a fan of Putin; Clinton seems very anti-Russian, anti-Assad. Could the next U.S. election determine the fate of the world?

I hate to be melodramatic, but the fact is that with a Clinton presidency, we may not be here in two years. Enjoy every moment is my advice.
edit on 13-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Considering the arms deals that the U.K. is involved in, and with the fact they shouldn't even be in Syria (the fact they are is representative of the cozy relationship with the U.S., who are of course there for financial gain, not to mention the opportunity of being able to plant more military bases around Russia), I find it absurd that this is even mentioned



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


As more and more nations take official and unofficial sides over the situation in Syria, who could believe that this is all about a gas pipeline? I don't believe that at all. I'm not saying that it couldn't be a small factor, but I can't imagine we're risking world annihilation over a gas pipeline in Syria.

It is. really its about the money from the pipeline. Thats a huge revenue stream. The corporations can't stand theres a revenue stream somewhere they haven't got a piece of. They also have the cost savings of taxpayers footing the bill to conquer the nations in the way. Mega corp oil conglomerates don't have to pay for that, don't care how much blood and treasure gets spilled in order to secure the revenue stream for themselves.

They know that the source (Russia) and the nations it runs through will not share that with them. So they want no fly zones (only we fly zones) and boots on ground (invasion) to topple another sovereign state.

You think we'd be in the region investing all that money and effort if the 'prize' was "Brussels Sprouts"?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I wish for once we just stayed out of it and just helped the humanitarian side the situation needs.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

There are a half dozen "but's" to what is going on if not more .US and Saudi's seem to say that they want ISIS to get out of Mosul and move them to Syria . That is a long flat desert trip that would put them in the open to attacks from either Syria/Russia or the Iraqis . Lots of choices and so few options it seems .



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
You think we'd be in the region investing all that money and effort if the 'prize' was "Brussels Sprouts"?


If it's just about the business of U.S. corporations and Russia...why did China side with Russia concerning Syria? Why is the U.K. about to side with the U.S. over Syria?

I wrote about a competing theory that makes more sense to me in the thread linked below.


originally posted by: Profusion
The following quote by Paul Craig Roberts explains why Syria is a red line in the sand for Russia as far as I know (quoting from the video below starting at about 18:30):

"And so Washington's policy is to remove secular leaders so that the whole Middle East goes into chaos of sectarian conflict, the Shia and the Sunnis. And if the whole Middle East is in sectarian conflict, there's nobody to get in Israel's way. And this conflict, this jihadism can be spread into Iran, and the same thing achieved there. And then it can be spread into the Muslim areas of the Russian Federation and into the Muslim province of China, the province that borders Kyrgyzstan. And so this is Washington's policy for destabilizing Iran, Russia, and China."


www.youtube.com...

In my humble opinion:

If the United States is victorious in Syria, Russia believes it will lead to a domino effect that will threaten it as a nation. The United States won't back down over Syria because it wants to, as Paul Craig Roberts said in the quote above, destabilize Iran, Russia, and China (and probably a lot more than that) using the jihadist movement it's using in Syria.

Under these circumstances, WW3 makes sense for both sides. Russia would be incredibly foolish to back down now. Our only hope is that the United States government backs down in Syria. Is it realistic to think the U.S. government will back down in Syria? I don't think so. Not when their long sought after goal of world domination is within sight.


The simple reasons WW3 over Syria makes sense



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: deviant300
There is no doubt that the US and UK will push ahead with some sort of military action in Syria.


The UK Parliament will not sanction action over and above the limited air action against ISIS that is already permitted. They may sanction if there is a UN mandate, which won't happen because of Russian vetoes. In other words there is a lot of doubt that anything will happen.

What will happen is that Aleppo will be levelled and thousands will die, and are dying. The West will sit and watch, not because they don't have the military ability to enforce e.g. a no fly zone, but because politicians don't care. Succinctly, why get involved in the mess and spoil Russia's fall.

I think this will be the stance of the US too.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
# off, Boris.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


If it's just about the business of U.S. corporations and Russia...why did China side with Russia concerning Syria?

Russia and China sided with the west before Iraq and Libya, allowed UN resolutions for Humanitarian interventions in these countries. Then witnessed NATO violate the UN mandate and turn it into regime change. That was never part of the bargain. China and Russia have since vetoed all UN resolutions introduced by the west to do the same thing to Syria. Can't get fooled again.

In fact they have decided this time to weigh in on Syrias side to prevent what NATO is attempting to do anyway, despite the clear denial of a mandate this time around.

Ergo the Russian airstrikes supporting the Syrian military. They are winning, too. Thats why all the recent media campaigning demonizing Russia and crying in the UN.
edit on 13-10-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
There may be some kind of military incident between Russia and the US soon.


Then the idea of a World War over this might bring people to reason.


Putin may know something we all don't know either through ordinary espionage or some hacking.


Then we'll find out whether the western globalists really want to start something big--for whatever reason.


The might be waiting for Obama to leave and Hillary Rotten Clinton to get in



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The way things are right now, there are certainly no cool heads here in our UK parliament, or at least, not in the government camp.

Right now, Theresa May is looking for any thing she can do, to legitimise herself before the people of this country, to show that she is the leader they need. Of course, she is anything but. The simple fact of the matter however, will not be enough to stop her trying. A war would be just what the doctor ordered, in that it would allow her to keep peoples minds on the "enemy" rather than on the fact that the "mandate" her party has to lead is non-existent, given that during the last general election, more people did not vote at all, than voted Conservative, which under a decent system would be a vote of no confidence in any party or candidate.

She desperately needs to look like a statesperson, rather than the awful Thatcherite hag that she appears to be every time she opens her mouth.

So do not expect the cooler heads to come from the usual source, because I am afraid that this time, there are no cool heads, just egos seeking to validate themselves.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Its not a stretch to think that Deir ez-Zor is where they might be heading " US, Saudi Arabia to grant ISIS terrorists free passage from Mosul to Syria: reports" www.almasdarnews.com... It was the UK plane or so it was claimed that attacked the Syrian Army a week or so back and it might e a attempt of the west to get their ISIS state .



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Its time to put all of the establishment who want this big war to be the front line so that they can all be wiped out.

They are all Luciferians who want the final Biblical war to manifest so that they can usher in their little pansy AntiChrist



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Rapha

like I said ,so many choices and so few options .

edit on 13-10-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
like I said ,so many choices and so few options.

True.

Now this is where all the negative karma needs to come back and manifest in the instigators of this war. They want war, give 'em hell.

The world has had enough of the elite who only seem able to rattle sabers all day long. The balls are in the British ball dogs because the politicians don't have real balls to be men.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thanks for bringing those south front video updates. They are most informative, everyone should review them.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Check this out ...www.youtube.com... www.judicialwatch.org...

moderate rebels eh .....sure , sure



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Hah, thanks. Yah they want to divide Syria if they can't win, so they can regroup the [moderations] and try again. Been playing the North South game since the gul darn US civil war.

I knew how deeply the west was covertly involved in [moderating] Syria when the Iraqis abandoned their weapons in the desert and TOW missile launchers began showing up, plus the missed drops of US weapons, fallen into the 'wrong hands'.

TalCIAsisbanwhatchmacallit, hired mercs effectively, armed and trained in coalition proxy gulf countries to regime change one more sovereign middle eastern country.

What a bunch of scoundrels they-- we are.

Edit: That laughing clowness Hillary at 4:57, cackling about "taking out" Iran.... priceless.

edit on 13-10-2016 by intrptr because: Edit:




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join