It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sources Report American Military Action in Syria

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:16 PM

Do you guys ever pay attention?

Yes, Lab believe it or not most of us do or at least some of us. We want our guys out and want them out now. Most of us never supported this war in the first place and although the responsibility does fall to those that elected our gov officials also does not mean that we condon the decisions that they are making now.
After Sept 11th the war which was already planned was a rouse to get the American people to support the gov. They needed our cooperation.

The American people are beginning to wake up to this and now we are stuck with this administration. I for one am angry as hell. We may have freedoms other countries do not enjoy but we do not have choices.

I however appreciate your views and believe it or not agree with many of them.

On the note of US/Syria. Infowars is also reporting as well. Here is the link:

Following the violent combat that raged on Thursday night between Iraqi and other Arab Resistance fighters on the one hand and US occupation troops on the other, the Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent in the al-Qa’im area learned that US troops penetrated about five kilometers into Syrian territory in an attempt to chase down Resistance fighters.

The correspondent reported that the battles that went on for about three hours left 20 American troops dead or wounded. A number of Arab Resistance fighters were also killed.

The Syrian army was observed deployed in very large numbers along the border, separated by only a few kilometers from the American occupation troops who retreated back into occupied Iraq after their penetration into Syrian territory.

Has any of this been reported on CNN or the like?

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
It really is amazing how a story is followed, commented on and disected when the sources are the "unnamed source", "a high official", "a White House insider", "a White House outsider", and all the other places where these stories seem to be generated from.
Why can't we start from the story came from "name", "news organization", "named authority", or anything that gives the new information real credibility from the beginning?

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:55 PM
Because this is a conspiracy site. Information relevant to a conspiracy is not likely to emanate from a named source. Just my guess.

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:24 AM
I feel I have to appologize for breaching decorum, and calling all posters, who were posting before my last post here, and who applauded the US insurgent move into Syria territory, Bloodthirsty Rednecks.

I do in fact not know these people, and they could turn out to be quite nice people in real life. I hope so, in fact.

We all, whatever site of the deviding political lines, get more and more upset lately, by the events in the Middle East.
I got carried away by reading the story about those (supposed)-mercenairies, who (supposedly)-randomly shoot (supposedly)-innocent Iraqi's on the roads.
And then I arrived here, and got the impression that those posters had forgotten what the value of human life meant.

But we were talking here about a different subject, occupying army fighting liberation army. Which is ofcourse not your point of view. Sadly so.

Let's hope everybody can come closer soon, to a more moderate middle field, where it isn't felt necessairy to let some degenerates slaughter totally innocent people. Whoever they were, whatever side they "fight" for, these shooters are degenerated beyond humanity.

Let the fighting be done by those who are trained to do that.
Even better, let all these wars end, and lets get rid of greed.
And then, at last, get the time and opportunity to evolve into the inherent good people we all are, when we are born.
And not get brainwashed anymore.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in