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.

 

Saudi king agrees in call with Trump to support Syria, Yemen safe zones: White House

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Saudi Arabia's King Salman, in a telephone call on Sunday with U.S. President Donald Trump, agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, a White House statement said.

Trump, during his presidential campaign last year, had called for Gulf states to pay for establishing safe zones to protect Syrian refugees.

A statement after the phone call said the two leaders agreed on the importance of strengthening joint efforts to fight the spread of Islamic State militants.

"The president requested, and the King agreed, to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts," the statement said.

Saudi king agrees in call with Trump to support Syria, Yemen safe zones: White House


Anyone remember the following?


The former strategists spoke to the Guardian as Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump warned that Clinton’s proposal to establish “safe zones” to protect beleaguered Syrian civilians would “lead to world war three”.

Why Clinton's plans for no-fly zones in Syria could provoke US-Russia conflict


Trump believed having "safe zones" in Syria would lead to WW3 just a few months ago. What has happened?

Why did Trump discuss the issue with Saudi Arabia rather than with Syria or Russia?

It looks like the "it doesn't matter who the POTUS is" crowd may have been right all along. Were we destined to end up in a WW3 scenario either way?

Trump supporters are in a bad spot on this issue. Trump was as clear as could be...

"Safe zones" in Syria = WW3. Period.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Big difference my friend! Look at what happened to Libya when no fly zones were implemented.

There a difference if your willing to stop being judgmental, Hilldog wanted a no fly zone for the entire country!

To put it into context, Wallace to Clinton:


“If you impose a no-fly zone, how do you respond to their concerns?” Wallace asked. “Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”


Now the no fly zone by Trump would also be Russian supported and hopefully Turkey.


How will the zones work logistically? The size and location of such zones are critical; so is the "buy-in" (or lack of it) from the Syrian government, Russia and Turkey. If such a zone was established in northern Syria, for example, Turkish forces could be involved in protecting and supplying it. They and the Syrian groups they support have already carved out an area free of both ISIS and the Kurdish YPG militia. But many refugees would be very wary of returning to any part of Syria while the situation remains so unpredictable. It would be extraordinarily difficult and morally questionable to force them to do so.


Your argument is invalid move along.

edit on 30-1-2017 by muSSang because: Sorry for not putting in sources, I accidentally closed google, but its allover google.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Safe zones and no fly zones aren't the same thing. Providing safe zones supported by the US and SA will ease the humanitarian effort for these refugees. Whether Trump meant to use the the terms interchangeably or not, IDK but still a difference.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Hey Trump! Get me a no fly zone in my street! I'm tired of these damn policehelicopters circling my roof!!!

OT Putin is not gonna like this. And i don't blame him



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton = no fly zones.
Trunp = safe zones.

Read again your own thread. Stand corrected. Say "oops".



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Safe zones and no fly zones are different. Plus, It's good when you have the support, financially and diplomatically, of the other countries in the area. Trump has supported safe zones and called for the countries of the Gulf region to help pay for it. Looks like they are now agreeing to do so.



Trump, during his presidential campaign last year, had called for Gulf states to pay for establishing safe zones to protect Syrian refugees.



It said the two also discussed what it called an invitation from the king for Trump "to lead a Middle East effort to defeat terrorism and to help build a new future, economically and socially," for Saudi Arabia and the region. 


finance.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Safe zones and no fly zones aren't the same thing. Providing safe zones supported by the US and SA will ease the humanitarian effort for these refugees. Whether Trump meant to use the the terms interchangeably or not, IDK but still a difference.


"Safe zones" include no fly zones.


A NFZ is something that would be accomplished mostly through the air, setting up territory where civilians could take shelter from aircraft. “On the whole, it doesn’t necessarily entail a major ground-based deployment in this area itself,” said Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security program and a former country director for Syria at the Department of Defense.

By contrast, safe zones or humanitarian corridors, which have a more extensive objective of protecting civilians in a territory from all types of violence — whether it be attacks from the air, artillery and small arms fire, require much more than just an end to aerial bombardments.

Did Tim Kaine and Mike Pence Realize That “Safe Zones” in Syria Would Require U.S. Troops?



originally posted by: muSSang
Hilldog wanted a no fly zone for the entire country!


Do you have a source for that claim?


originally posted by: muSSang
Now the no fly zone by Trump would also be Russian supported and hopefully Turkey.


It's funny because you're claiming that my argument is invalid when you're assuming that Russia will support the American/Saudi Arabian plan. Do you have a source to support that claim?


originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton = no fly zones.
Trunp = safe zones.

Read again your own thread. Stand corrected. Say "oops".


"Safe zones" include no fly zones.


The former strategists spoke to the Guardian as Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump warned that Clinton’s proposal to establish “safe zones” to protect beleaguered Syrian civilians would “lead to world war three”.

Why Clinton's plans for no-fly zones in Syria could provoke US-Russia conflict


I trusted that The Guardian reported the emboldened part above correctly. They apparently didn't report it correctly, but I trust them a lot more than I trust anyone on this forum. At least I can document my view from a credible source. Can you?


originally posted by: Annunak1
OT Putin is not gonna like this. And i don't blame him


Based on the information we have, this is a major affront to Russia. My guess is that Trump discussed all of this with Putin before he spoke to the king of Saudi Arabia, but I have no reason to believe that other than my intuition.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Safe zones that include no fly zones are not the same as no fly zones over the country.

You can mince the terms they are still not the same in application from HRC to the POTUS.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Profusion

Safe zones that include no fly zones are not the same as no fly zones over the country.

You can mince the terms they are still not the same in application from HRC to the POTUS.


Do you have a source for the claim that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria? I believed that was what Hillary Clinton supported too until someone on this forum told me I was wrong, and I recall researching it further and discovering they were right.

I just found the following.


A no-fly zone is a coercive appropriation of the partial airspace of a sovereign country. It is the arbitrary creation of a demilitarized zone in the sky to prevent belligerent powers from flying in that air space. In Syria, the “belligerent power,” ironically, would be the internationally recognized legitimate Syrian government and its legitimate ally, Russia.

The Lethal Lie of Hillary Clinton: Saving Lives with a No-Fly Zone in Syria


I just searched through a bunch of articles, and I couldn't find any claims that Hillary Clinton wanted a no-fly zone over all of Syria. If you're claiming that's the case, you need to support it with evidence.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I don't and perhaps you are correct. I'm finding the same sources indicating no fly zone(s). Found this however which is interesting. observer.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Profusion

I don't and perhaps you are correct. I'm finding the same sources indicating no fly zone(s). Found this however which is interesting. observer.com...


Russia are there with the Assads governments blessing so how can that be a not fly zone?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

According to that article, the Russians are in charge of the air space.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Whereismypassword

It's Syria's air space. It's open to anyone with their permission. They are well within their rights as a sovereign nation to shoot down any aircraft that violates it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whereismypassword

According to that article, the Russians are in charge of the air space.


Yes and they were invited by Assads government and have far better equipment to keep our sorties away

If it wasn't for Russia stopping our plans there Syria would have been toppled by now and Iran would be next on the list



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

IF these 'safe zones' even cause WWIII. I think Clinton would have structured it so it didn't cause WWIII.

It's funny that so many called her a warhawk, but I think she would have stepped very carefully in this. Trump will NOT.
He doesn't step carefully anywhere. This area could cause WWIII and he will just sign a paper and then hold up his binder for a pic and off it goes.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

No, she was literally just going invade Syria's air space and engage Russian and Syrian aircraft a like if they violated her illegal and aggressive non-fly zones.

Hillary is a warhawk. She was the biggest interventionist in Obama's cabinet.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton = no fly zones.
Trunp = safe zones.

Read again your own thread. Stand corrected. Say "oops".


Alternative Labels.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: reldra

No, she was literally just going invade Syria's air space and engage Russian and Syrian aircraft a like if they violated her illegal and aggressive non-fly zones.

Hillary is a warhawk. She was the biggest interventionist in Obama's cabinet.


No, she wasn't. Just like Obama wasn't. Because she is sane.

As in ..everything is intact in the head. And that is a person who fell on her head.

Trump....that is really debateable.
edit on 30-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Simple question, If Asaad and Russia control the Syrian airspace, whom is better equipped to work out a treaty allowing safe zones for the refugees?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra

Simple question, If Asaad and Russia control the Syrian airspace, whom is better equipped to work out a treaty allowing safe zones for the refugees?


That is a leading question. Asaad and Putin will both kill any remaining resistance.

So I would say neither.
edit on 30-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join