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.

 

Syrian Tanks Moving on the Israeli-Syrian Border!

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Yes you can't judge the outcome of any current conflict between Syria (or Iran) and Israel against previous ones where the IDF were far superior as Syria and Iran have much better equipment now than then. Specifically this translates into a greater capacity for air attack and more importantly perhaps: air defense. Plus man portable missiles for anti-vehicle and anti-air in addition to a substantial gain in artillery. Tank for Tank the Israeli Merkava remains superior but the myth of its invincibility has already been shown in recent days.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Exactly what I wanted to point out. Now Russia wants to install naval base in Syria since June, have a military contracts with Iran, China have a big contract in oil with Iran and they are all part of the SCO, the new NATO...

Russia will surely want, if not already have, supplied Iran/Syria with anti-tank weapon M-31 that are killing Israëli tanks and advanced portable anti-air weapons. If the arabs armies are able to destroy with missiles military airports of Israël, they win until Israël nuke them back, because they will do it. It's called Samson plan and they were near to use it in the Yum Kipour war because they nearly lose in the early days of the war.

We'll see how it unfolds, but the european peace-keeping forces will not be there for nothing, Israël and the US want them to be part of the New Middle-East war that will cost thousands if not millions of lives.

The New Middle-East will lead to many little countries, seperate by ``races`` that will be much easier to manipulate by the west and the only winner of this balkanisation will be the USA/Israël. Also the balkanisation will potentially lead to wars between sects like Shiite against Sunnites and it will be more likely that new Hitlers rise in those countries to proclame that their religion or sect is above the other and then wage wars...

So they MUST fail their plan. Those globalists...



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
[edit on 14-8-2006 by Xfile]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Did you wish to post somthing Xfile???



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Interesting theory Vitchilo, In this balkanisation senerio would the separation be for the purposes of separating the shiite from the sunni ???? This might actually stabalize the region somewhat but to what end???

All the while Russia and China are getting valuable information on how their weapons are standing up against the U.S. made equipment used by the Israelis
[edit on 14-8-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 14-8-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
am new and having problems posting.sorry.am getting fed up.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Figures in the know in Iraq have said it is highly likely to split up down ethnic / relgious lines whether the powers that be want it or not. This would be Sunni, Shiite and Kurd for Iraq. I don't imagine the same would happen in Syria, Iran or Lebanon or Israel for that matter and it sure as heck won't be happening in Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

The general perception is with Iraq that the former Yugoslavia experience will take hold that divided it into Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, Montenegro. It wasn't part of any plan but after the effective civil war it happened anyway.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
am new and having problems posting.sorry.am getting fed up.


It's OK Xfile, did you have a pic of the syrian tanks or something??? U2U me if you need help I know how frustrating it can be to post on a new site just take your time and try not to get angry.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
Interesting theory Vitchilo, In this balkanisation senerio would the separation be for the purposes of separating the shiite from the sunni ???? This might actually stabalize the region somewhat but to what end???

Here's a map of what it will look likes

So I didn't study all the possibilities of the globalists, yet, but I'm pretty sure this will be easier for them to bribe them, control them, create wars between them because of their sensibility to religion, because of their competition for dominance in this sector of the world and the most important, it will be much easier to invade them if necessary.

Notice that the Arab shia state include the little iranian land where 90% of the iranian oil is. Also that there is a free kurdistan. The ultimate mean is to divide them to conquer them.


All the while Russia and China are getting valuable information on how their weapons are standing up against the U.S. made equipment used by the Israelis


Exactly!

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I find it hard 2 believe the syrians would wish 2 take on the i.d.f. on.More than likely just posturing in a face saving measure.Trying 2 convince the region that they are still a force 2 be reckoned with in their former satellite lebanon.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I think it's standard, as they are 'within' their own borders then it's pretty much a non-issue. It may be to do with the fact IDF has announced a plan of encircling Hizbollah which would bring them much closer to the borders. Unlike the Lebanon I can't see Syria allowing any kind of incursion across the border.

Russia and China's concern isn't just weapon testing, Russia has seen it's borders furthers East get closed up and occupied by US led forces (Afghanistan for example) in addition to former satellite states opening up to US air bases (Uzbekistan, Kazakstan) and are probably getting fed up with this. In addition both China and Russia are becoming increasingly oil hungry and certainly Iran has both their interests for this reason. Historically the middle east has been a clearing house for 'old military kit' from both the West and the East. It's just that the old kit these days is actually pretty good! At least compared to the WW2 surplus in use in the 70s and 80s.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Vitchilo, Good posting on this subject I had not heard of this plan before, but their "playing with fire " with a plan like this, so many things could go wrong, such as Israel being pushed too far. Israel has thumbed their noses at the world before and acted outside the wishes of the U.S. many times.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Sorry double post!!!

[edit on 14-8-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Let's not forget that the Syrian army is normally based close to the border, anyway. It wouldn't take them long at all to go from barracks to battlegrounds. Those tanks are in position just to give the IDF something to look at. Olmert is backed in to a corner at the moment. His government could fall. Syria is just playing the game.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Let's not forget that the Syrian army is normally based close to the border, anyway. It wouldn't take them long at all to go from barracks to battlegrounds. Those tanks are in position just to give the IDF something to look at. Olmert is backed in to a corner at the moment. His government could fall. Syria is just playing the game.


What has eveybody nervous about the syrian movement is that the stretch of border in question has been quite for decades according to the report handed out by the fox sources this comes as a provolking action in the faces of the Israeli military.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Frankly I don't believe Israel can claim provocation if Syria are moving their forces within their own border. Israel have crossed a sovereign border into Lebanon which is far more provocative isn't it?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
I think it's standard, as they are 'within' their own borders then it's pretty much a non-issue. It may be to do with the fact IDF has announced a plan of encircling Hizbollah which would bring them much closer to the borders. Unlike the Lebanon I can't see Syria allowing any kind of incursion across the border.

Russia and China's concern isn't just weapon testing, Russia has seen it's borders furthers East get closed up and occupied by US led forces (Afghanistan for example) in addition to former satellite states opening up to US air bases (Uzbekistan, Kazakstan) and are probably getting fed up with this. In addition both China and Russia are becoming increasingly oil hungry and certainly Iran has both their interests for this reason. Historically the middle east has been a clearing house for 'old military kit' from both the West and the East. It's just that the old kit these days is actually pretty good! At least compared to the WW2 surplus in use in the 70s and 80s.



yep we have stirred up a hornets nest by going into Iraq & Afghanistan I'm sure the Russians view what we have done as a threat to their borders as well, so why not supply the opponents of the change with weapons (nukes at that) so that we can stop them without actually fighting them directly.

thanks for the info kickoutthejams



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
The biggest losers in this most recent conflict is of course the innocent civilians on both sides.sitting ducks in the middle of the war game.And who really knows how far this latest game will go!Every type of action in this region risks involvement by other countries.i.e.iranian"volunteers",syrian armor movements,etc.escalation.BTW,Thanx SENTINAL but i cant u2u till i have 20 posts im told



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
Frankly I don't believe Israel can claim provocation if Syria are moving their forces within their own border. Israel have crossed a sovereign border into Lebanon which is far more provocative isn't it?


Israel has acted pre-emptively before, no reason to think that they wont do it again, from a military standpoint this move could be seen as a open threat so they may think "why wait to be fired upon" well just go ahead and fire first.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Certainly with Afghanistan Russia will feel 'put out' after all they spent 10 years there! Plus we haven't pacified it whatsover. The UK commander on the ground there has quoted the fighting forces to be engaged in as serious a conflict as it was in Korea. This is not good. Korea saw some horrendous defeats for the UK, USA and allied powers and we didn't win it either. Rather like the Green Zone in Iraq, Afghanistan is largely lawless apart from islands of occupation. Opium crops have ballooned since we invaded also.

There is no movement left in ground forces for the UK / USA for any kind of new ground war. Forces are stretched already in Afghanistan and Iraq and other postings.

Another overlooked issue is the fact UK / USA / Coalition forces have been combat trained in recent years and Russia only has Chechnya as a place to do the same.

If we're talking about countries feeling uncomfortable because they are effectively surrounded then that must also apply to Syria and moreso Iran which has had neighboring countries invaded by coalition forces (Iraq and Afghanistan)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join