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.

 

Trump admin shot down an SAA jet near Raqqa

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: allsee4eye

They were warned earlier today. There was an initial incident and a coalition plane flew near them to push them away. This was likely accompanied by radio contact. They retreated. Then we contacted our Russian liaison about the incident, and you can be sure Syria was made aware of whatever was said in that call very quickly. Then this Syrian jet approached coalition forces again several hours later and that's when they were shot down. There are reports of injuries amongst the coalition forces from bombs dropped by the Syrian plane. This was done completely within the rules of engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict.


Lot of fear in a war zone I can understand why we would err on the side of caution. For all our pilots new that was a rouge syrian pilot going against orders.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Oh, so Congress passed a war declaration against the sovereign Nation of Syria. No? Huh. Funny that.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

You don't have to pass a formal declaration of war to act in defense of innocent lives. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor do you think they called Washington asking for a quick session of Congress to declare war before they fired back? The Syrian jet was bombing too close to coalition forces and coalition forces were injured. Assad knows our rules of engagement. This was either him brazenly testing us or that Syrian pilot made the biggest #in mistake of his life.
edit on 18 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Coalition forces shouldn't be inside a sovereign Nation without an invitation.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Calling that joint a soverign nation is a joke. Give this a read. We're there to trash ISIS because the Syrian government can't control their own territory. We've shown a tremendous amount of restraint with that clown Assad. He keeps his planes away from our people and doesn't use chemical weapons, he won't have any more problems.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

The US has always tried to help out the Kurds.

They're one of the few groups that haven't turned on them either, probably why they get continual support.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If you say so. I'll play along.


Anyone not dumb knows this is a war for resources and pipelines for said resources. If Assad towed the western position there never would have been an ISIS there to begin with.

All this was predicted 2000 years ago anyway. We will continue to back Russia and their alliance in the ME into a corner, thereby setting the stage for a retaliation attack on Israel. We will flatten Damascus and herald in The End of Days. So it is written, so shall it be.

Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Ok?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
"Coalition forces"

So when the USA firebombs Syrian villages with white phosphorus shells, they argue that it is not a war crime because the supposed ISIS targets are not formal soldiers, but rather "enemy combatants" that do not follow under Geneva Conventions.

But when Syria bombs Kurds, the USA argues "self defence" when attacking Syrian forces in Syria because the Kurds are now apparently some legitimate military force in yet another "coalition".

The Kurds have always been useful idiots; before the Syrian invasion, they were considered to be terrorists in NATO member Turkey (where the USA helped bomb them daily), innocent people with a responsibility to protect in Saddam's Iraq, and of course, righteous rebels fighting against the axis of evil Iran regime. And back then, they were considered bad guys in Syria, back when the USA had an informal alliance with Syria to carry out extraordinary rendition torture of people they capture all over the globe.

But now, the Kurds have magically become the good guys since the innocent protesters-turned-revolutionaries-turned-Islamist Jihadists fell from public grace. It also has to do with the fact that the Kurds present themselves as a more capable force to nationalize (Balkanize) the oil fields and strategic sectors in northeast Syria than the so-called rebels. The USA's double down on Kurds as their proxy force to try to avoid a complete failure in their overall Syria strategy was placed even at such a cost as alienating their NATO ally Turkey straight into Russian favour (of course the CIA-instigated coup attempt in Turkey didn't help much either, and was probably conducted with the goal of emplacing a pro-Kurd regime).

Oh, and did y'all know that the Kurds are the major supplier of oil to Israel?
edit on 6182017 by TheStalkingHorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Shh, we only embrace doublespeak and official storylines here at ATS.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Oh yeah I forgot the whole "we've been at war the last 15-20 years for some imaginary pipeline we want to build someday" theory. All these old white rich fossil fuel barons who supposedly pay off the "military-industrial complex" and politicians to engage in these wars are gonna be dead by the time it's finished, if it's ever built. They could've been getting richer all this time moving the product on ships. Bigtime fail. Don't be so gullible.
edit on 18 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


So when the USA firebombs Syrian villages with white phosphorus shells


This is news to me, do you have a source for that?

Last I saw or heard white phosphorous used was the last big skirmish between Israel and Palestine



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Oh yeah I forgot the whole "we've been at war the last 15-20 years for some imaginary pipeline we want to build someday" theory. All these old white rich fossil fuel barons who supposedly pay off the "military-industrial complex" and politicians to engage in these wars are gonna be dead by the time it's finished, if it's ever built. They could've been getting rich all this time moving the product on ships. Bigtime fail. Don't be so gullible.


More of that doublespeak. Cheers.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

There were some reports of it being used in the airstrike that may/may not have killed al Bagdhadi, but that was by the Russians I believe? I'm no expert so I'm not sure if the video on this article really shows WP being deployed.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Oh yeah I forgot the whole "we've been at war the last 15-20 years for some imaginary pipeline we want to build someday" theory. All these old white rich fossil fuel barons who supposedly pay off the "military-industrial complex" and politicians to engage in these wars are gonna be dead by the time it's finished, if it's ever built. They could've been getting rich all this time moving the product on ships. Bigtime fail. Don't be so gullible.


More of that doublespeak. Cheers.


Aww poor thing can't figure a way out of his bogus theory getting blown up by common sense?

So yeah, it was a legit action in defense, and Assad is an idiot if he ordered that plane to take that action. Obama isn't in office anymore.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


So when the USA firebombs Syrian villages with white phosphorus shells


This is news to me, do you have a source for that?

Last I saw or heard white phosphorous used was the last big skirmish between Israel and Palestine


Human Rights Watch (June 14 2017)

Article is from a credible UN NGO which details several recent accounts of USMC artillery deploying white phosphorus against ground targets throughout Iraq and Syria to assist offences conducted by American proxy forces.
edit on 6182017 by TheStalkingHorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Oh yeah I forgot the whole "we've been at war the last 15-20 years for some imaginary pipeline we want to build someday" theory. All these old white rich fossil fuel barons who supposedly pay off the "military-industrial complex" and politicians to engage in these wars are gonna be dead by the time it's finished, if it's ever built. They could've been getting rich all this time moving the product on ships. Bigtime fail. Don't be so gullible.


More of that doublespeak. Cheers.


Aww poor thing can't figure a way out of his bogus theory getting blown up by common sense?

So yeah, it was a legit action in defense, and Assad is an idiot if he ordered that plane to take that action. Obama isn't in office anymore.
And now Iran is lobbing in missiles as well, wonder what the reaction to that is?

Things are heating up in the ME.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
SAA has enough on its hands already. I'm sure SAA didn't mean to target SDF. If they did, it must have been a mistake. SAA was advancing against IS in that area. The plane must have been targeting IS. At most, it was firing warning shots at SDF not to advance there. 1 plane on 1 sortie doesn't have significant firepower. It sure didn't justify shooting it down. Let's see if the pilot can be found to give an account of what happened before jumping to any conclusions.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
SAA has enough on its hands already. I'm sure SAA didn't mean to target SDF. If they did, it must have been a mistake. SAA was advancing against IS in that area. The plane must have been targeting IS. At most, it was firing warning shots at SDF not to advance there. 1 plane on 1 sortie doesn't have significant firepower. It sure didn't justify shooting it down. Let's see if the pilot can be found to give an account of what happened before jumping to any conclusions.


Again, for the second time in a couple of hours, those positions were well known. Second, it's easy to argue "no significant firepower" from your computer. I wouldn't want to be on the bad end of any airstrike. I've seen a few from the safe side and I'm not a fan.

So you say they didn't mean to target SDF, then you say it was warning shots against them at most?

Also intrigued that self defense from an airstrike isn't justified.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye




Fingers crossed for cooler heads to prevail and for the US to apologize if this is the case.

You want the US to apologize???

For what???



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

The so-called "Syrian Defence Force" is a coalition of several different factions. Overall, the SDF has the goal of nationalizing a large geographical chunk of the Syrian nationstate, which contains significant strategic resources and logistical infrastructure, while also operating under military, financial and logistical aid and direct military support of the USA.

In other words, you better believe that the SDF is the enemy of the Syrian government. A part of the SDF is composed of "rebels", foreign insurgents and terrorists that have been fighting against the Syrian government the whole time. The other part is the Kurds, who were allied with the Syrian government as they served as a northern front against ISIS. But then the Kurds sold out to the USA after Turkey sent in their military and militias to wipe out Kurdish positions to protect their interests against the formation of a Kurdish state.

What most people don't seem to get about the Kurds is that the Kurds want their own nationstate, and this nationstate isn't just limited to some corner in Syria. What has transpired is interesting to us geopolitical types since one of the USA's top expert on Kurds, CIA official Graham Fuller, is also the American expert and top liaison on Turkey. And Graham Fuller was present on an island, watching the attempted Turkey coup in person. And for those who like deep state politics, Graham Fuller happens to be a good old friend of the Clinton dynasty.

In terms of tactical analysis, the Syrian military has advanced to, and met up with, allied PMU militias from Iraq, along the border. They have been clearing ISIS all along the way, and now they are moving northward to Raqqa.

However, the Americans want to control Raqqa with their own proxy forces, so they have recently stepped up their assault on the ISIS capital in order to try to capture it before the Syrian government arrives.

This incident involving the downing of a Syrian jet by an American jet is one of many recent incidents where the Americans have straight up attacked Syrian military units and allied militias. The Americans claim that this is "self-defence", because they have instituted their own buffer zone between Raqqa and Syrian government-controlled areas; they claim it is a neutral zone where hostilities are not allowed to occur, yet it was never recognized by the Russians or the Syrians (much like American incursion in general, which is all an illegal invasion by the way).

After these attacks by the Americans, the Russians have been posting their own personnel all along captured checkpoints, which forces the USA to refrain from conducting airstrikes. This presents a stalemate to which the Americans responded by doing the same with the outposts captured by their proxy SDF to avoid Russian air strikes.

And after this whole strategy was going on the favour of Syrian and Russian forces, suddenly the whole Gulf States/Qatar incident occurred. Trump had just left this region after giving Saudi Arabia the go ahead to do what they want, which was to further their campaign against Iran's regional influence. And then ISIS just happened to attack the Iranian parliament and the shrine to the Ayatollah, for which they had recently struck back at ISIS compounds in Syria with ballistic missiles.

Or to sum it up, the original American strategy to Balkanize Syria is failing into a stalemate with the Russian strategy, so the USA is trying to shift the foci of conflict more directly on to Iran. This time they want to sucker a Saudi-led Gulf State coalition into fighting the war instead of just militias and mercenaries, and Saudi Arabia is willing to do it considering how badly their economy has faltered due to low oil prices (Qatar shares the largest natural gas field in the world with Iran, located in the Persian Gulf between the two countries).

And keep in mind that global oil prices were artificially lowered by the Americans in the first place by opening up reserves to ramp up national production rates, thereby lowering global demand (and thus prices). This was done in order to try to strangle the Russian economy into submission, which failed for three reasons:

- The Russian economy is diversified and not completely reliant on oil exports as a staple economy.
- It played right into Russian signing huge resource export deals to China under SCO framework, which tied China and Russian closer together in an economic and military umbrella.
- And it hurt the USA's oil-exporting allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Canada.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join