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.

 

Erdogan: Turkish forces are in Syria to end Assad's rule

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Right now no one is backing Turkey. Also the UK is still a part of the EU so the refugee issue still affects them.


No one is offically backing turkey.. The truthvery different thing. Turkey has been buying oil from ISIS for years now. That all stoped when Russian bombed their oil tankers.. Something the US failed to do in all the time they were operating in Sryia.

Its a covert war and that is simple to see if in any doubts read the Pentagon papers

sorry about spellin dylexic and speel check not working





posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Nato is in fact a defensive alliance.

It has nothing to do with the petro dollar. Also contrary to popular belief the US dollar is not the sole one in existence. Any nation that exports oil is a petrodollar.

Many nations patrol the seas off the coast of Somalia, including Iran, China, India and other nations. The ability to engage in patrols in the area was a unanimous UN mandate and not a NATO one.

Libya was also a UN mandate and not a NATO one.

The second Gulf war was not a NATO function.

As for Yugoslavia many nations tried to get a UN resolution to help end the ethnic cleansing however Russia and China kept vetoing it. Only after the failure of the UN did Nato get involved.

Nato is a military organization however its a defensive alliance.

The issue people seem to get confused with is official Nato actions and individual nations who are nato members taking action. The flaw in that logic would be like saying the UN attack / invaded / occupied / illegally annexed Ukrainian territory because Russia is a member of the UN.

I have no idea what you are referring to when you say it keeps the status quo so if you can explain that one I would appreciate it.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
SPAM removed by admin
edit on Dec 4th 2016 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ucfknight335
a reply to: worldstarcountry



why is Russian not beating these people up and getting rid of the bad people?


They are to busy intentionally killing civilians.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

The BBC once had a game where you could be a dinosaur, feed yourself and try not to die. Doesn't mean they are pushing an agenda.

The video is a fake, the BBC for all intent and purpose do well in providing information in a relatively unbiased way. They are not perfect but I'll go out on a whim and say they have little to no interest of fanning the flames of conflict.

It's an angle being pushed not by the BBC.

Like people who say where is the reporting of Yemen in the BBC, insinuating that they only cover the ills of Russia, it's utter bollocks. Although not as mainstream as the Syria conflict the BBC has covered Yemen, not as much as I'd like but still. It's covered.

That video was a fake, the BBC wouldn't pay for such shoddy work.

You are basically pushing an agenda that doesn't have any basis in reality.

Russia is the bad guy, indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations is a war crime. Whether it's Houthi rebels, Russian or Americans dropping the bombs.

No spin can stop the fact that bodies are still on the floor and parts of Russian bombs are the culprit.

I support the war against terrorism, I don't support the approach. Heck the technological prowess of the west still ended up laying more than 100,000 in the dirt in Iraq, there was not that many terrorists.

It isn't an agenda to say Russia's bombing campaign is and will kill innocents, the case is do they give a crap.... Evidence suggests they don't.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 4-12-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

edit on 4-12-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

edit on 4-12-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Bad phone, naughty phone.
edit on 4-12-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
bad



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

I am just curious what evidence suggests they are sitting in the command centers going "how many innocent civilians can we intentionally target and kill today?!" To believe that is to believe the Americans are also targeting and killing innocent civilians in and around Mosul. Are you saying both the USA and Russia intentionally o out of their way to target and kill innocent civilians?

The reactions of the civilians liberated in terrorist occupied East Aleppo were that of gratitude and thanks. Similar to the reactions of the civilians liberated in terrorist occupied Mosul. My question then is, what is the evidence that the Russians give less of a crap then USA when it comes to the collateral damage of war??

The Houthis don't drop bombs on innocent civilians, that is the Saudis. They do a good job of wiping the floor with Saudis ground forces though
. Boy those Saudis fight one hell of a terrible ground game, and their air campaign is just as # seeing as they mostly targets civilian residence and infrastructure.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I meant Houthi rebels being targeted, Saudi's have bombed civilian populations to target them, a few airstrikes with civilian casualties is known.

I'm not saying people are sitting in any command room from any official fighting force, sitting pondering how they can directly or indirectly kill civilians. No, that would be silly. On their part.

Good question though, does Russia give a crap?

I'd/you would need documentation of conflict to find out just what happened, from what I've seen so far I'd say examples of war crimes have been committed, key is whether it's intentional or not. I highly doubt Russians are intentionally bombing civilian structures such as hospitals.

That being said, I've seen plenty of footage, well documented evidence of US forces commiting war crimes, targeting locations with realtime footage of children in the immediate area.

It happens, by that I mean a decision is made somewhere in the chain of command that is "unlawful" because they had intelligence of civilians in the vicinity and the use of force is condemning them to death.

I can imagine Russian counterparts have came across the same conundrum.

To me it doesn't matter who cares more or less, RoE are universal. America breaks them (systematically at times) and so does the Russians... Sometimes it's bad cogs others it's bad decisions. Sometimes not a # was given.

At the end of the day though the dead don't speak, it doesn't matter if it's Saudi,Russian, US or British bombs or even a rebel's blade. People have been wronged when they shouldn't have been and now they are dead.

The answer is simple really, follow the rules of engagement. Not doing so equals injustice, bad blood leads to bad blood.

It's probably why NOBODY wants to stick active ground forces in Syria. It would turn nasty fast. Not that it isn't already a # show.
edit on 13-12-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

no matter how many times a fellow ember who is very concise on trying to draw distinction between special fores and ground forces, the facts are that Turkey, USA, Britain, France and either Germany or Italy all have soldiers with their boots on the ground in Syria.

It was funny to see how suddenly this push to Raqqa was rescheduled for March, giving daesh the opportunity to regroup and counter at Palmyria after the liberation of Aleppo. I shall be updating my WW3 thread soon, Raqqa is clearly taking a break, and I feel Mosul is nearly drawing to a close.

On the plus side, the Russians have delivered many tons of aid to the 100,000 civilians they recently liberated from terrorist occupied Aleppo.




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah... Special forces are a lot different. They've been on the ground since the early days.

Built to be bad, unlike regulars who tend to have a bit more... Humanity?

Got a link to your thread, I love reading a bit WWIII porn.

At the end of the day man, it's the little people going through hell. I've seen humanity from all sides of this conflict minus ISIS.

Good on the Russians for helping push that siege, a golden propaganda piece or not I don't care, those in Allepo really needed that aid.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990
My documenting WW3 thread is linked in my sig. I have not added too many updates as of the past two weeks due to life circumstances. But I will be adding Aleppo liberation and the Palmyra counter offensive videos by tomorrow. I have not checked in on Mosul in over a week, so I will do that as well.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tman2135

Yep Erdogan is insane like a few others in world power. When the Corrupt turn on each other this is the result.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join