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.

 

Saudis just bombed the Minsitry of Defense in Yemen...WAR

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Come on, man, I'm a Muslim. You think I don't know about Mecca and Medina? lol

However, that doesn't nullify anything I said. If Saudi Arabia can't defeat economically destitute Yemen, then how are they going to defeat a bigger, more populous, better equipped country like Iran? Like I said, they had to get the West to fight Saddam for them. And Saddam's Iraq was smaller, worse equipped, less populous, and less united than Iran is (don't forget that Saddam was at war with Iraqi Kurds during all of that).

Also, Mecca and Medina are specific cities. Neither city is the capital of the nation of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh is) and neither one has to be targeted in order to beat the Saudi military. In fact, Riyadh alone has about twice as many people as Mecca and Medina combined & it's the country's financial hub.

Also, Mecca and Medina are located by the far western coast of Saudi Arabia near the Red Sea. So let's assume that Iran invaded Saudi Arabia by crossing the Persian Gulf. Even if they they conquered everything while heading west, they would reach Riyadh without coming anywhere close to Mecca or Medina. In fact, they could conquer a good 80-85% of Saudi territory before getting close to either Mecca or Medina.




posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



Sick #s, how anyone can stand behind these murdering pricks is beyond me.

During the War on Terror, the US has also done double tap drone strikes (HERE), drone strikes against funerals (HERE & HERE), and drone strikes against weddings (HERE & HERE). We even do drone strikes against profiles of people without knowing who we're specifically attacking (called "signature strikes").

In other words, the US has been using the same repulsive tactics. Now you see why I'm anti-war, right? This is just one reason I keep saying that both "sides" in this war are full of bloodthirsty savages who just want excuses to kill civilians. In my mind, there's no difference between a terrorist bombing a funeral and a national military bombing one. They're 2 sides of the same evil coin, one killing civilians over their leaders' interpretations of religious law and the other killing civilians over their leaders' interpretations of national and/or international law.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You claiming to be a muslim you know next to nothing about its history. Muslim nations wont join them because they are afraid they will be damaged thats stupid. They will join them because Saudi kings are “The Custodian of The Two Holy Mosques.” This control means they can ban who can go to the holly cities. They have used this politically i the past banning people from the holly site.

Which means saudi doesnt fight alone and for Iran would be willing to use ground troops something they dont do in proxy wars. Iran would get attacked from all sides they would be attacked by pakistan afganistan turkistan azerbaijon some from armenia Tturkey Kuwait and probably many other suni countries as well especially in africa. This will be a huge match stick and Iran knows it! If the saudi king decides to go for broke Iran wont make it because the only 2 countries that could save them wont. The US would like to see them lose and Russia wont back them against the entire middle east it would be political suicide for the Russians.

And if you think a country that has been under sanctions can defeat saudi arabis who just bought the best military money can buy your crazy. Just their airforce alone would do alot of damage. And im betting they would reach out to Israelis as well and they wont pass up the chance to deal Iran a death blow. Iran needs to play this smart and get Saudis to calm down. They bettrr head to the negotiating table fast.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Obama did love his drones easier to kill terrorist leaders then commit troops. Trump is trying a different route hes embedding troops to assist the countries military.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I'd say bombing the Minsitry of Defense is a bit of a step up.

But it's not. Going by Peeple's post above, it's in Houthi controlled territory. And they've been at war with the Houthi alliance for the last 2 years.

To put this in perspective, at least 10,000 civilians had already been killed (as of August of 2016). The war has also caused a famine in Yemen and a massive cholera outbreak that was set to have reached the milestone of 1 million infected by this month.


War - Famine - Disease - Death

Hmmmm Sounds familiar. Where did I see that mentioned...?


In every awesome metal song ever. Duh.








posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: intrptr

'Just bombed Yemen, this means war'.

Where you guys been, heres a double tap airstrike on a funeral gathering.

Sick #s, how anyone can stand behind these murdering pricks is beyond me.


We promote the 'sickness' by Proxy, sell the arms, aircraft and train the pilots to carry out the "Coalition" efforts in Yemen.

They are doing our dirty work, because the US, EU (NATO) can't be seen to be directly involved in the reduction and subjugation of the entire ME.

So far, so 'good'. Everyone is blaming the Saudis.

When they begin in Lebanon (because Syria remains defiant) they will still call it a "Coalition", to hide the real antagonists.
edit on 11-11-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why did Saudi Arabia remove all of its citizens from Lebanon?


The efforts to reduce the "Regime" in Syria have failed. The "Collation" needs a port and harbor to enter the Eastern Mediterranean Seaboard and begin mounting operations directed at the Heart of Tehran.

Since Syria isn't willing to succumb, lets try Lebanon.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I'd say bombing the Minsitry of Defense is a bit of a step up.

But it's not. Going by Peeple's post above, it's in Houthi controlled territory. And they've been at war with the Houthi alliance for the last 2 years.

To put this in perspective, at least 10,000 civilians had already been killed (as of August of 2016). The war has also caused a famine in Yemen and a massive cholera outbreak that was set to have reached the milestone of 1 million infected by this month.


War - Famine - Disease - Death

Hmmmm Sounds familiar. Where did I see that mentioned...?

Since nobody else said it yet,

The Four Horsemen and conquering of nations. The reference to that is from Revelations:

Bible Hub



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
(Yawn) You ignored virtually everything I said, so why should I care about what you're saying? I included facts including Saudi Arabia's recent military failures, country populations, distances from Mecca & Media to Riyahd, etc while you're spouting some fantasy talk.

If it were as simple for Saudi Arabia to take down Iran as you seem to think, it would've been done long ago. The entire GCC (which includes Saudi Arabia) as well as several Western nations were backing Saddam's Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. And they still couldn't beat them. And now Saudi Arabia and several of its allies have been at war with the poorest country in the region (Yemen) and they can't beat them either. And that's with all of their high tech gear and coordination with the US & UK.

Also, the Saudis have only controlled Mecca for less than 100 years. And they won that through their conquests while forming their nation (they conquered the Kingdom of Hejaz, which was previously the "custodian"). In other words, Muslim nations have defeated &/or overthrown the "custodians" of the holy cities before. Saudi Arabians have no religious mandate to control either site.

Also, since you want to talk crap, I'm sure you know about the conversations among the Ummah over the Saudi's incompetence because of their constant disasters & political games regarding Hajj, right? Why don't you tell everyone about the proposals to have a multinational Muslim committee be the new custodian for Mecca? Of course, that's assuming you even know what I'm talking about. For everyone else who may be reading this, I'm pointing this out because there are many Muslims who disagree with the Saudi kingdom's stranglehold over our 2 most holy sites.

ETA: And one more thing. Remember Operation Desert Storm? You know, when Saddam's Iraq had occupied Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia, the "custodian of Mecca and Medina"? If your theory was correct, then why did the Saudis have to get the US to contribute the bulk of the forces to push back Saddam? Going by your logic, all of the other Muslim countries should've sent 10s of millions of people to obliterate Iraq. Instead, the largest Muslim army sent to fight Saddam after the Saudis' 60,000 to 100,000 troops was a mere 20,000 troops from Egypt. And no other Muslim country contributed more than 15,000 troops.
edit on 11-11-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I couldn't click through all the links, far too depressing for my psyche.

Law is needed for society, where does one draw the line though when it comes to using law to trample people rights and keep them subjugated.

Im not a fan of war either, however warmongers run the show so I guess nothing will change anytime soon.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes it seems that Is just enough to keep the masses fooled , classic misdirection that works a treat .



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: intrptr

Yes it seems that Is just enough to keep the masses fooled , classic misdirection that works a treat .

Keep reading between the lines...



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

"Trump" only allowed,.. "to be sold" what was already, "sold", a couple "administrators" ago... Poor "business management" is always pinned to the"next guy". Trump didn't cause any "problems", he didn't create. The guy (Trump), has to unf*ck, the failure of previous "management". Then create a workable system.. It is very hard, to Un-F, what has been F'd up. He's doing a great job so far,.. revealing the traitors... He's doing everything, the "Democracy/Republic",.. Could hope for. An excellent job! By an excellent President, at this time, for "history".



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Sadaam wasn't going to invade saudi arabia he told them to stay out of it. His dispute with Kuwait was they were slant drilling stealing Iraq's oil. But you just make stuff up along with the details you claim. The reason Yemen hasn't been defeated is simple they are only providing air support for loyalists. Which in Yemen just means blowing up supply depots because until now they didn't attack cities.

Your babe on Medina and mecca was irrelevant and made little sense. But let's get to throw real discussion do you really think saudi arabia won't bring a coalition of countries with them to attack Iran? They got one together just to bomb Yemen and several countries even provided support like Turkey.

Now let's visit the custodianship of mecca and Medina of course there was people supporting a multi national group. Big supporter shockingly Iran who would have thought that huh? But it doesn't change the fact the saudi king is in control and the only way to change that is to remove the saudi govt.

And doing that incurs the wrath of about 700 million Muslims world wide.
edit on 11/11/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Sadaam wasn't going to invade saudi arabia he told them to stay out of it. His dispute with Kuwait was they were slant drilling stealing Iraq's oil. But you just make stuff up along with the details you claim. The reason Yemen hasn't been defeated is simple they are only providing air support for loyalists. Which in Yemen just means blowing up supply depots because until now they didn't attack cities.

So you're not even going to peddle the rest of Saddam's official reasoning, like Kuwait historically being Iraqi territory? Or the absolute fact that Kuwait loaned Iraq at least $14 billion to fight Iran and then demanded repayment after the failed war was over?

And yes, even the Saudis themselves knew that Saddam was going to invade them next. In fact, there's a little battle you should read about called "the Battle of Khafji". It's the very first battle in the Gulf War/"Operation Desert Storm". Now guess where Khafji is located? Do you know, do you know, do you know? Time's up: it's in Saudi Arabia itself! LOL Kinda refutes your whole argument, doesn't it?

And here's a second question just for kicks and giggles. Which country had the 2nd most amount of troops fighting in the Gulf War/"Operation Desert Storm"? Here's a hint: It's name rhymes with "naughtier savior". And depending on the sources, "naughtier savior" had up to twice as many troops fighting against Iraq as the next largest troop deployment (the UK). So did you guess the country yet?



Your babe on Medina and mecca was irrelevant and made little sense. But let's get to throw real discussion do you really think saudi arabia won't bring a coalition of countries with them to attack Iran? They got one together just to bomb Yemen and several countries even provided support like Turkey.

Did you already forget the context for my words about Mecca and Medina? You're the one who brought them into our discussion in the first place. I pointed out that they would be completely safe in an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia because of their locations. Yet somehow that's irrelevant?

It would be like Mexico invading the US mainland through our southern border, then outsiders complaining that Maine will get destroyed by the invading forces. Because of its location, Maine would be one of the last places in the lower 48 that would be touched in a ground invasion. You should probably look at a map to see where Iran, Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina are



Now let's visit the custodianship of mecca and Medina of course there was people supporting a multi national group. Big supporter shockingly Iran who would have thought that huh? But it doesn't change the fact the saudi king is in control and the only way to change that is to remove the saudi govt.

Don't play dumb. Muslims in Iran aren't the only ones by a long shot. And after the Saudis' destruction of historic places in Mecca and the numerous disasters during Hajj in recent years, it's almost reached a deafening tone.



And doing that incurs the wrath of about 700 million Muslims world wide.

Yet they couldn't even get 700,000 Muslims worldwide to drive out Saddam. And their coalition is struggling with poverty stricken Yemen who's openly fighting against them right now.

Your theory simply doesn't add up. If they could instantly build an alliance of Muslim countries to take down Iran, they would've done it by now. And if attacking Saudi Arabia is guaranteed to "incur the wrath of 700 million Muslims worldwide", then why aren't those 700 million Muslims helping Saudi Arabia against the Houthis in Yemen right now? Yemen's Houthis are mostly Shiites and they've openly attacked and killed Saudi troops. So what's stopping the full scale wrath of these hypothetical 700 million Muslims worldwide?

From what I can find, Saudi Arabia has more than 100,000 troops fighting Yemen. The next largest amount of troops in the Saudi coalition is the 6,000 from Sudan. And the next largest amount of troops in the Saudi coalition is a measly 2,100 troops from Senegal. So where are the hundreds of millions of my fellow Muslims who are supposedly willing to defend Saudi Arabia against the Shiites? They aren't helping against Shiite-led Yemen and they barely helped against Shiite-majority Iraq when Saddam invaded. So where they at? LOL

In fairness, I do expect Pakistan to jump in to an extent if a full scale war with Saudi Arabia & Iran took place, though their participation would be limited because of their situation with India. And there's always the chance that Egypt will send 50,000 troops or so. But that's a far cry from the numbers you're claiming.

I'd only expect a massive number of Muslims to defend Saudi Arabia if a Western country attacked it, and even then, only if Mecca and Medina are in danger. But that won't happen because the West has proven we're wiling to fight the Saudis' battles for them if we feel that their kingdom is in jeopardy. Hence why Saudi Arabia is trying to get us back into the mix against Iran.

edit on 12-11-2017 by enlightenedservant because: just realized Senegal has more troops in the Saudi coalition than Morocco, so I corrected that part



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Plans for Middle East - U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark

People forget this

The plan to ruin 7 mideast countries.

Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan

Out of those 7 only Iran hasn't yet been ruined.

They ruined Iraq, Libya, helped break up the Sudan, Yemen is a basket case, they destroyed Syria, and now their working to f up Lebanon. All that's left intact is Iran.


So we #ed up Iran by 2006? Because in this video he learned of this "plan" in 2001 and the plan was to do all this in the next 5 years. That was over 15 years ago.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Because plans don't get delayed?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Why would they delay? Was Bush unaware he didn't have to worry about getting re-elected in 2008?

11 years is one hell of a delay.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Please tell me you haven't forgotten about the complications that happened during the Iraq War? Or how the public started temporarily rejecting the continuation of the Afghan and Iraq wars, especially as the number of dead US troops continued to increase? And then the little fact that a Democrat who campaigned on ending the wars won the presidency in 2008? And then the long series of attempted escalations against Iran and how both the Israelis & Saudis were trying to get us to go to war with Iran over the nuclear issue?

Like I said, plan's can get delayed.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join