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

Media Silent as House Passes Resolution for Syrian No-Fly Zone — Provoking War with Russia

page: 5
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scouse100

I would think their is a possibility the reason for the no fly is the continued use of gas attacks via barrel bombs being dropped from the air in addition to the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, like Hospitals, by Syrian and Russian forces.


Well that is what we are repeatedly told is the reason but I doubt that it's about the civilians at all going on what's gone by before.

The real story is Civilians are prevented from leaving Eastern Allepo by the insurgents occupying that part of the city, using them as human shields so Russian and Syrian air assets will have to kill them to take out the terrorists hiding there.

What the western main stream is reporting is the Russians and Syrians are intentionally targeting the civilians in Eastern Allepo.

You can draw your own conclusions about that oft used meme, "they are killing their people", then used to raise support "something must be done" to justify "intervening" (invading) Syria on "humanitarian" grounds, directly. The real goal is has always been Regime Change, subjugating Syria like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

"Assad must go".




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

NATO is not engaged in Syria. If you did any research you would know this. So go do some research and stop trying to link NATO into a situation they arent involved in. I know that will destroy your Kremlin talking point lie but thats on you for refusing to research / verify Russia propaganda before reporting it.

NATO is not involved in Syria as you claim.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Syrian / Russian forces have been intentionally targeting civilians long before Aleppo.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

there is video of 5000 that got out today with them thanking the Syrian Army real footage not arab hollywood psyops.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: intrptr

there is video of 5000 that got out today with them thanking the Syrian Army real footage not arab hollywood psyops.

Can you link that? It would be helpful for people to see how dangerous it is for Syrian civilians to cross from Eastern to western Allepo. They are subjected to sniper and mortar fire from Eastern Allepo, where the insurgents have repeatedly threatened to kill anyone caught trying to escape to the west.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

Syrian / Russian forces have been intentionally targeting civilians long before Aleppo.

NATO has intentionally targeted all of Syria since well before 2011.

Defending the country from that covert and overt "multiphase operation" is what Syria and recently the Russians have been doing.

They are defending their homeland like you me and anyone has the right to do against an invasion from outside.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

NATO is not engaged in Syria. If you did any research you would know this. So go do some research and stop trying to link NATO into a situation they arent involved in. I know that will destroy your Kremlin talking point lie but thats on you for refusing to research / verify Russia propaganda before reporting it.

NATO is not involved in Syria as you claim.


NATO members I think he means. On that assumption he is perfectly correct.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

our friends at you tube are censoring again bute the story is at the below link

http://



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

No he is not and when he uses the term NATO he is wrong.

NATO has nothing to do with Syria.

Using your logic one could say the UN is attacking civilians / civilian infrastructure because Russia and Syria / Iran are members of the UN.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'm busted, didn't read the bill to see if it will be nato or un resolution...saying kill for profit.
Unfavorable opinion of the way I see it?

Whose going to be wearing the mommy pants when US asks to do so- if they so desire?
edit on (11/27/1616 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

and once again you are wrong and once again you make claims you cannot support. Feel free to link your sources please.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle Of what?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
I'm busted, didn't read the bill to see if it will be nato or un resolution...saying kill for profit. Unfavorable opinion?

Whose going to be wearing the mommy pants when us asks to do so- if they so desire?


The bill bases part of possible action on UN resolutions. Also, since others are ignoring it, it also allows for the establishment of safe zones.

Certain members are latching onto 3 words in the bill and ignoring everything else.
edit on 27-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks.

Here's an oddity;
Russia lives alot closer and seems to have their own security threat from the same people...their neighbors?


edit on (11/27/1616 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sg1642

No he is not and when he uses the term NATO he is wrong.

NATO has nothing to do with Syria.

Using your logic one could say the UN is attacking civilians / civilian infrastructure because Russia and Syria / Iran are members of the UN.


Using the term NATO is wrong yes but describing NATO states being involved in Syria is perfectly correct. I don't think he literally means a NATO operation but there are NATO members with both aircraft and boots on the ground in Syria in the form of special forces and intelligence agencies of that I can assure you.

If that was my logic yes. But I am not saying NATO is attacking Syria I am saying members of NATO are involved there. I think you are taking what was said too literally.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I think there needs to be a protected safe-zone both on the ground and in the air, to resolve the refugee crisis.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Of course if the military would stop following immoral orders, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. The problem is with the "order takers". Useful idiots, if you obey an immoral order, guess where the karma lies?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Syria is not a neighbor any more than Iran is. The US shares a border with Russia where as Syria does not.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I understand what you are saying and had you made the post I would be more than willing to accept your explanation. However the other poster has it in for NATO and has done this same thing in other threads / debates. He will say NATO is involved when in reality they are not. Trying to split hairs in this case does not work.

Like I said trying to argue "NATO members" would be like me trying to argue the UN is attacking Syrian civilians and infrastructure because Russia / Syria / Iran are UN members. Something the UN would not agree with and the same holds for NATO.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Of course if the military would stop following immoral orders, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. The problem is with the "order takers". Useful idiots, if you obey an immoral order, guess where the karma lies?


The problem with that view, imo, is trying to define immoral. What one person says is immoral is considered moral by someone else. Even more so in that part of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join