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.

 

Putin should be a world hero for saving Syria and defeating ISIS

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You do realise that the tactics and methods used in Syria has never changed between Obama and Trump?

You do realize that is an absolute load of baloney? Obama took active measures to give funds and weaponry to the rebel forces fighting against Assad, insisting they were "moderate" freedom fighters. The White House officially announced it would give military aid to the rebels in 2012 even though they had already been smuggling weaponry into Syria across the Turkish border before that: Understanding the situation with Syria, ISIS, and Turkey.

The US and Russian efforts in Syria were completely at odds until Trump got into office and made the decision he would try to work with Russia in order to take out ISIS, and within a year it looks like we're already getting very close to that goal. The reason Russia still isn't given any credit is because the MSM wont allow it, the only thing they will talk about is how Russian and Syrian strikes are killing civilians, when in reality the civilians are not being allowed to leave and being used as human shields by the rebels, it's utterly disgusting, yet for so long people like you in the western world insisted we should support them in order to take down Assad.
edit on 30/3/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Where did I say it wasn’t fine? All I said was you needed to take your own advice.

No need for calling myself out.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Does that mean they didnt start targeting Al Qaeda + ISIS on Trump's watch?

Actually give us a nice breakdown, instead of a little popshot blurb comment to drag out the thread.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

All countries first act out of self-interest, that’s generally understood.

Sometimes one's self-interest on an issue does cut across a moral issue.

We allied with Stalin in WWII out of self-interest which cut across a moral issue—defeating Hitler



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Putin is simply doing what is in the best interest for Russia, nothing more nothing less.

Anyone that thinks Putin is acting outside of Russian interests for the humanitarian factor is delusional. Same goes for western countries.



Pretty much, power hungry psychopaths running the world under the guise of national interests and in our case, "freedom and democracy"



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ok cool, I guess that’s why Trump hadn’t changed any part of Obama’s strategy for Syria for over a year huh?

How about thinking before you speak?


Obama = losing strategy
Trump = winning strategy

The men and material didn't change, the man in charge did and the military loves it.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Vector99

All countries first act out of self-interest, that’s generally understood.

Sometimes one's self-interest on an issue does cut across a moral issue.

We allied with Stalin in WWII out of self-interest which cut across a moral issue—defeating Hitler

Russia wouldn't be in Syria if they didn't have a naval base there.

It's purely for self interest.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ok cool, I guess that’s why Trump hadn’t changed any part of Obama’s strategy for Syria for over a year huh?

How about thinking before you speak?


Obama = losing strategy
Trump = winning strategy

The men and material didn't change, the man in charge did and the military loves it.


Thats a powerfully in depth analysis, what were we thinking. (rhetorical)



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Go through the defence news archives.

There’s daily reports on what missions the coalition carried out in Syria.

Such a top of the line researcher like yourself should be able to handle it



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP
OH snap. I guessed I missed that on the tube. Must have been awesome to see a “man” with bone spurs go out and defeat ISIS.
Oh and your new profile pic is cute.....yes kids are sheeple



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Well in all honestly I hope America doesn’t have a civil war, because there will be a lot of innocent lives lost. Part of the anti government side? You’re a terrorist.

Syria started out as a civil war, where rebels who had enough of Assad did what so many of you Americans reckoned you wanted to do against Obama...

Problem was ISIS took advantage of all that, they’re the actual terrorists, yet according to Assad and Putin, if you stand against Assad, you’re a terrorist.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Better call yourself out then.

According to you an American loving Russia is fine, but an Australian commenting on it is not.








That's about the only thing I'll prolly ever agree with you on. People need to stop calling out members outside the U.S. for commenting on U.S. policies etc. This stuff affects everyone.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The US has bases in 178 countries and have toppled more countries democratically elected governments than any other nation in modern history. The CIA game of destabilizing anyone who doesn't help support our "national interests" (see big oil, natural resources, central banking) goes on the list and this has gone on under every president since 1947, regardless of the political party in charge.

How any self respecting person interested in conspiracies can still defend one side while attacking the other when it comes to foreign policy is beyond me. They take turns picking on which "enemy" needs to be dealt with, but its the same MO, they let us in or we take them out.

Its a protection racket on steroids and will get us in to the deepest of trouble unless we magically take everyone out and rule the world, which seems unlikely given Chinese and Russian history.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yeah, I’m sure the military were just phoning it in while Obama was in charge because Obama, that makes perfect sense.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yeah, I’m sure the military were just phoning it in while Obama was in charge because Obama, that makes perfect sense.



Obama mainly used kids in closets playing video games with drones. He drone bombed 10X more than Bush did.

"According to new figures, the US dropped nearly three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day in 2016"

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Syria started out as a civil war, where rebels who had enough of Assad did what so many of you Americans reckoned you wanted to do against Obama...

Problem was ISIS took advantage of all that, they’re the actual terrorists, yet according to Assad and Putin, if you stand against Assad, you’re a terrorist.

The thing is a civil war is never that simple, especially when the war in Libya just ended and all those fighters were flowing into Syria along with a bunch of ISIS fighters right along side them. I am not American, and that is no excuse, if a group of people had of armed themselves and tried to take down Obama they would have been quickly labeled terrorists without a second thought, so why should Assad not view the rebels in the same fashion, especially considering that we now know almost guaranteed they were responsible for the initial chemical attacks which made the western world intervene. Would simple freedom fighters use chemical weapons against civilians in order to bolster western support, would they use civilians as humans shields? There is no excuse for aiding and abetting the overthrow of a sovereign government in another nation, at least not without any solid proof that the leadership really deserves to be dismantled. And I'm still very angry people were brainwashed by the MSM for so long, that is the main reason I have zero trust in the MSM these days.
edit on 30/3/2018 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

MSM = intel agencies



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I don’t know how true it is, and it has been a long time so nice I read about it, but if I’m right there is a fairly well sourced conspiracy theory that putin faked a terrorist attack to win his first election as PM.


He was the hard liner on Eastern European anti Russian terrorists. Then on the eve of the election. There is a big one the goes south big time..

Lots of dead bodies and then the whole country faces a wave of nationalism and putin wins..


I don’t just instantly believe stuff like this , so idk, but ALOT of people have been pinning it on him for years.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Harpua

alternative media = compilation sites with no journalists who just copy paste msm stories after twisting them to their own political bend...



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ok cool, I guess that’s why Trump hadn’t changed any part of Obama’s strategy for Syria for over a year huh?

How about thinking before you speak?


Obama = losing strategy
Trump = winning strategy

The men and material didn't change, the man in charge did and the military loves it.



Thats a powerfully in depth analysis, what were we thinking. (rhetorical)



Your were obviously clinging to false propaganda that proved to not coincide with the results. Kind of like how Hillary was going to win in a landslide.






new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join