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: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I'm talking about the refugees not the rebels.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra
I'm talking about the refugees not the rebels.


Really, Asaad has a history of determining the difference?

I am not sure he sees a difference. And you think one group should be killed?
edit on 30-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Don't want to answer my question?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:37 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?

The people who actually live in that neighborhood of the planet and whomever they trust the most to get it done.

In other words, absolutely NOT us. We blew this one years ago, and now Russia's helping handle it. Leave them to continue to.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra

Don't want to answer my question?


I think I did.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I would like that as well. I don't see it as the reality however nor do I see a cease in the meddling.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

A few months ago Trump was in one of the debates saying we needed to work with ME nations in establishing safe zones for Syria.

He was also constantly bashing Hill for her No Fly Zone policy.

Can you elaborate?

Dude, you're commentaries the past week seem to be increasingly cracking up.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Nyiah

I would like that as well. I don't see it as the reality however nor do I see a cease in the meddling.

Neither do I. We've got one hell of a knack for being an unapologetic destructive force where ever we go abroad.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
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 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.


Are you serious? Did you really search?

I was pretty sure she was always on record about it and it was no secret, so I just did a Google search for 'Hillary Clinton "no fly zone" Syria' and the first result was: Hillary Clinton Goes All-In On Syria No-Fly Zone at Huffpo.

You're probably confused because overall, her campaign strategy focused on attacking Trump as a boogeyman while hiding more difficult things like her Neocon foreign policy out of mass media as much as possible.

But as anyone can see from that basic Google search, there are lots of references to Hillary's support for no-fly zones in Syria going back years and years, in plenty of friendly press like The Guardian.

In 2013, she admitted in a speech at Goldman Sachs that it would cost a lot of Syrian lives but was still for it.

That easy google search demonstrates wide and major coverage of this issue:
dailycaller.com... /

www.salon.com...

www.aljazeera.com...

Quoting Al Jazeera's transcript of when it came up in the 3rd debate, you can see that Hillary herself claims she has always supported no-fly zones in Syria going back to her tenure at State:


Hillary at the 3rd debate:

Moderator: If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?

Hillary Clinton: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by [Syrian President Bashar] Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.

Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL]. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.


edit: it occurs to me that you are perhaps intending to hide behind the weasel word "all" as in say that she didn't want one over literally all of Syria? It is indeed harder to find anything that specifically maps out the particular no-fly zone she wanted, whether all or partial. Obviously, as a Neocon, she would only have needed one that protected US supported terrorists trying to overthrow Assad at the behest of their Saudi masters. Neocons primarily want one over urbanized western Syria to overthrow Assad, but preventing Russia from destroying ISIS oil smuggling in the East/North is fine too (as a means to overthrowing Assad, bribing regionals like Erdogan, etc). So I think it's most likely that she did mean the whole country.
edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   


Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL]. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.


I wonder if Hillary realised later that this was complete gibberish.

"Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS, they're interested n keeping Assad in power"

The two are not mutually exclusive.

" advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians"

Against the people fighting the Islamic State? Yeah that'll beat them that will.

Utter nonsense.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

It sounds as if you're arguing that Al Qaeda deserve to live and carry on keeping ObamaHillaryCo.'s war on Assad / Muslim's / the Middle East in motion.

It also sounds as if you've no clue that's who the bulk of the "moderate rebels" are by now. If that be the case then I think we both know that's being dishonest.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Over half the planet for that matter is ruled by harsh dictatorships / dystopia's / hegemonic imperialist's / phoney democracy's / corrupt regimes / etc. That includes essentially the entire Middle East and surrounding nations around the region and far beyond. And the United States. And many of "her" allies. Too many. That's the planet we live on (and its the US's fault so much of it is the way it is).

Who the hell are you are anybody in the United States to say we should blow up one regime, but not the rest of them (including ourselves)?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Profusion

A few months ago Trump was in one of the debates saying we needed to work with ME nations in establishing safe zones for Syria.

He was also constantly bashing Hill for her No Fly Zone policy.

Can you elaborate?

Dude, you're commentaries the past week seem to be increasingly cracking up.


"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?


This is the potential result of what Trump just agreed to.


Without an agreement with the Assad regime, Ferris and other analysts say that a safe zone could be a potential target for the so-called Islamic State, Russian airstrikes and pro-Assad forces. Defending such a haven would likely require significant security, and potentially create the conditions for the U.S. or other governments’ forces coming into conflict with Russia or Assad.

“If it’s not with the regime’s consent, then it’s basically a very hostile action – particularly if you’re going to provide any troops for security to the safe zone,” Ferris said. Defending a safe zone could therefore push the U.S. or other government forces deeper into Syria’s conflict.

Donald Trump Withdraws Proposal To Create Safe Zones In Syria


I stand by what I wrote in the original post of this thread. The emboldened part below is as clear as can be.


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



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

But it says that Syria and Russia will be responsible for the air space. Almost nothing changes in that regard.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Profusion

But it says that Syria and Russia will be responsible for the air space. Almost nothing changes in that regard.


The post that you're replying to links to three different articles. Please quote exactly what you're referring to.


originally posted by: 11andrew34
it occurs to me that you are perhaps intending to hide behind the weasel word "all" as in say that she didn't want one over literally all of Syria? It is indeed harder to find anything that specifically maps out the particular no-fly zone she wanted, whether all or partial. Obviously, as a Neocon, she would only have needed one that protected US supported terrorists trying to overthrow Assad at the behest of their Saudi masters. Neocons primarily want one over urbanized western Syria to overthrow Assad, but preventing Russia from destroying ISIS oil smuggling in the East/North is fine too (as a means to overthrowing Assad, bribing regionals like Erdogan, etc). So I think it's most likely that she did mean the whole country.


You claimed that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria. If you can't support that claim with anything, then you have no case.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Meh, all this means is that Trump has decided to work with Saudi Arabia. Like Obama and Bush. As long as we keep working with the guys who spread the ideology that breeds these terrorist groups. Nothing is really going to change over there.

ISIS will get destroyed and then a dozen more groups just like it will pop up. All with leadership who learned to proselytize the most twisted form of Islam, at training camps in Saudi Arabia.

The American people get tricked into believing the job is done. But the same game gets played by us in the Middle-East, just under a new name. The only difference seems to be the Russians will be joining the game this time.
edit on 30-1-2017 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The reality of course is that the Saudis and Gulf Arabs in general still control US policy in the region to a large extent. Think of them collectively as the British Empire Arabs. They have power over the US from oil/energy, but also hold an enormous amount of dollars. They in effect hold the US hostage with both energy and what they can do to the dollar as well as in the financial world in general. The British Empire Arabs take steps to hide their influence, but have veto power at basically every major US corporation and a major say as to the agenda.

So what you see here is that Trump can't change all that at once. On the other hand, he is a Knight of Malta who clearly intends to do what he can to put the US in a position to declare independence from Arab oil and finance.

Letting the Saudis do whatever they want in Yemen, and selling them the arms to do it is serious dirtbag stuff and it has been going on for years now. Now that he's President, what Trump seems to be focusing on here is that since the Saudis have us over an oil barrel and we are going to have to do their bidding, can we have some humanitarian concessions for the people of Yemen? And come on, are the Saudis really going to attack US troops?

The Syrian ones are riskier of course, but Russia has to agree to those, whereas the Saudis are the only ones we have to get to agree about Yemen. This all may be a moot point if the Saudis would only agree to them in Yemen if they get them in Syria, as Russia will probably not agree to those. The US would use them as a way to protect rebels fighting Assad, probably whether the Commander in Chief says so or not.

Whereas the only thing that would have been keeping Hillary from putting boots on the ground is the usual Clinton reluctance to risk their own power for others. The reality is that the Saudis can basically force the US to do their bidding in the Middle East, as the past decades have demonstrated, so if we're going to have boots on the ground in Yemen it was probably a Saudi decision anyway.


edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: clarification

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: typo

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: paragraph

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: splitting post because of multiple subjects



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Too bad the refugees don't have anywhere else to go... like their neighbors.




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



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
Meh, all this means is that Trump has decided to work with Saudi Arabia...The only difference seems to be the Russians will be joining the game this time.


Here are some alternative views on that.


We have NO RIGHT to enter a sovereign country and do anything without permission of that country! PERIOD! This is against international law and is unethical.
WHY risk going to war with Russia when this is absolutely NONE of our business anyway?! Russia will not stand by and allow our military to essentially take over Syria, which would have to happen if the USA decided to illegally enter a foreign country and declare "safe zones" which would in reality be war zones.

Right on: what if
Syria tried to create a safe zone in the US? What if Syrian,without permission, funded terrorists in the US and made a military invasion? Trump promotes the sovereignty of the US but denies it to Syria? He has also said he would nuke ISIS which is holed up in cities with hundreds of thousands of civilian shields. He also said he wouldn't take nuking Europe off the table. Wake up sheeple, you have been had by a master con man fronting for the Deep State.

Good points made Dale. It seems as though Trump is a warmonger as well as HIllary is/was.
This worries me, and it is starting to worry Russia too. Sooner or later Russia WILL have to respond in a more meaningful manner than it has thus far. (especially with our troops, nukes, and other ordnance on Russia's border.

LINK


I believe those are appropriate reactions to this situation.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
You claimed that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria. If you can't support that claim with anything, then you have no case.


It wasn't me who made the original claim here, but it is indeed a factual matter of record that is not at all in controversy, as I have already demonstrated with numerous sources in an above post. I mean are you blind or something? Are you going to pretend I didn't post a bunch of links, including sourcing her own statement at the 3rd debate?1?!?!

To repeat for emphasis, Hillary Clinton herself spoke directly on this point at the 3rd debate in front of tens of millions of people, and you are still going to deny it here?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: 11andrew34
To repeat for emphasis, Hillary Clinton herself spoke directly on this point at the 3rd debate in front of tens of millions of people, and you are still going to deny it here?


I'm denying it because all I can find references to are things like "no-fly zones" or "a no-fly zone." I haven't been able to find any mention of Hillary Clinton having a plan for a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Unless you can show me proof that you're right, I don't want to discuss it anymore.

That point is moot in my view anyway. Unless Syria and Russia agree to the "safe zones" that Trump wants, we may be in the exact same situation that Hillary Clinton would have put us in. That was the point I was trying to get across in the original post in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join