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.

 

Iran's IRGC attacks anti-Assad protesters in Syria

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Iran's IRGC attacks anti-Assad protesters in Syria


www.worldtribune.com

LONDON — Iran's elite military units have been deployed to attack protesters of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Opposition sources said Iran has sent units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack thousands of anti-Assad protesters in the city of Dera.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
This is breaking, I could find no corroborating stories in other news outlets, however, the website this is on is usually pretty dependable, although biased somewhat like the rest.


Five protesters were killed by Syrian troops in Dera on March 18. The protesters flooded the streets of the southern city after Friday mosque prayers and were met by anti-riot and security forces armed with firearms and water cannons and supported by helicopters.

The Assad regime has acknowledged the killing of protesters in Dera. The Interior Ministry has pledged to investigate.


Oh great. So how many protesters does it take to get a UN resolution to attack a regime? Does Syria qualify for a NFJ now? Or Iran? Tis a slippery slope people.

1.) They did this to provoke the West.

or

2.) This is a set up by the West as a precursor to Western "involvement" in Syria and, perhaps, Iran.

or

3.) None of the above, just normal regime killing protesters at an incredibly coincidental time.

www.worldtribune.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 21/3/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Star and flag! Just posting to bookmark.

Although if true I suspect this story will be on front page tomorrow. Things are getting worse by the day.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
could turn nasty if it turns out to be true however Iran just have to sit back on this one and condemn ours and saudis actions so i don't think this is true. we'll see though. i can see this turning into a massive regional conflict



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
They(iran) have a military alliance with syria that works the same way the Saudi-bahrain CCASG gulf states union.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
It could all be happening now, they will easily by pass any legal consent given the current military situation in Libya. I hope Russia and China step up and do something thought I don't know what


4 Star general back in 2007 supposedly overheard (well was told) the entire plan for the middle east.

edit on 21-3-2011 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Intriguing.. something we should follow closely... i'll be on the watch about more coverage



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I'll go with


3.) None of the above, just normal regime killing protesters at an incredibly coincidental time.

Now tell the nice people reading this what I've won Bob...

edit on 21-3-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Choice 3

Nothing new for Iran.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
So nobody wants to save the poor protestors of Syria dieing in the streets? Everyone wants to save the Bahrainis and condemn the Saudi's and the West but it's time to turn the good ole blind eye to Iran and Syria.
Everyone who compared Libya to Bahrain now don't have a leg to stand on.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


AFAIK lots of people don't want to save anyone.

But even the US has limited capabilities, and as a matter of pragmatism you do what you think you can.

Even in Libya, with plenty of support from nearby NATO bases and no Israeli involvement, "intervention" carries considerable political risk.

Why do you think "we" would be able to intervene in Syria or Bahrain??



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well, the Iranians are backing the minority in Bahrain, the street protesters. We should back the street in Syria just as covertly.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well, the Iranians are backing the minority in Bahrain, the street protesters. We should back the street in Syria just as covertly.


The street protestors are the majority population. The population is comprised of roughly 70% #e and 30% Sunni. Make sure you do not post any misleading facts.

If this new is true, it recieves my condemnation. It also breeds concern as to what the international community's response will be. I won't be suprised if the West and Obama are far more vocal in condeming the regime then they have been with Bahrain.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Why should "We", by which I mean the West, get involved at all in the internal struggle that is going on inside the Muslim World? If we do we are on a hiding to nothing and will be subject to even more "asymettrical warfare" than at present.
This is a struggle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims for supremacy, nothing to do with us.

Libya is a different matter. In Libya it is a war between rival tribes. One lot of tribes has 90% of the weaponry so we impose a No-fly Zone to prevent them from slaughtering civilians from the other tribes. But they are all North African Muslims so we should tread carefully.

Essentially what is happening in the Middle East is the "ruled" majority demanding equal rights from the "ruling" minority. What is going on in Libya is a Civil War between factions. This will probably result in the splitting of Libya into two separate entities, Gaddafi and the Magrahis and about another 4 tribes/Clans to the West and the rest of them to the East. Both of them will have oil but it is the water that is more important here.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Now we need to go in and kick Irans Ass? I feel my conspirator coming out because it was implied we need to go to war with Iran now to. We're not there.. we don't know if that was Iran or US making it seem like Iran. The CIA will sink to all sorts of levels for the interest of the big Wall St. - Corp. Players.

Reminds me of a video I seen. I think it was G. W. Clarke. He was speaking to another General I believe and the guy handed him a piece of paper that stated Bush&Friends wanted to take out 5 Middle Eastern Countries. Guess what 5? (lol)

Threads like these really bother me because what we are doing in the Middle East now is illegal, immoral and NONE of our business! I feel getting snipets from here and there without official proof is irresponsible.

As I went to review how others felt here... (seems like most believe what I believe..) and the Clarke video is posted above me... ^^^^^ lol
edit on 22-3-2011 by tracehd1 because: cuz



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
4) its just a reason for Iran to depoy more IRGC troops and than leave them there...for next round of arab-israeli war.







 
16

log in

join