Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

15,000 elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

15,000 elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria


rt.com

The regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria is expecting up to 15,000 Iranian troops to help maintain order in the country’s provinces, a Chinese newspaper reports. Iran has yet to confirm or deny the news.

According to the central Chinese daily Renmin Ribao, the Iranian special task troops are due to be deployed in Syria’s key provinces.


The Syrian opposition announced earlier that commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, advises the Syrian authorities on quashing the country’s opposition movement, the Telegraph newspaper reports.


According to the Israeli dai
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Well, it's like this: Iran now has forces deployed in Syria.

What that means is that Iranian forces are now directly engaged in the overall war that is going down throughout the entire region, extending from Libya to Pakistan.

This also stands out as a buffer against an invasion, or outright attacks by the west, on Syria. All the west has to do, be it American/British/Canadian/Italian/French, is bomb some Iranian soldiers and the situation escalates big time.

This is probably also about supporting Hezballah in Lebannon too. Asymmetrical war is really the only way to confront Israel without attacking the Palestinians in the process. Of course I mean this in defensive terms, in the sense that Hezballah will probably stage a second front if Israel attacks Iran first.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
bait...

Israel is involved in Syria.

Iran is now forcing Israel to fire on Iranians..

and the Iranians will prove Israel is in syria.. just before they hit,.

Nato now cannot get involved with Syria unless it wants to hit Iranian troops..

Bold move by the Iranians..



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

So rt.com reports that


... a Chinese newspaper reports.

Hmm... I don't believe it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I have to question RT as well. Not the most reliable source out there. However, this is certainly a move that would come straight from the Iranian playbook. 15,000 seems a little much though. 5,000 is a more realistic number.

One thing is certain. The rhetoric and the tension is ratcheting up fast as hundreds of civilians continue to die everyday. Not sure if this is a pissing match or a game of chess. Russia, China, Iran vs UN, NATO and the Arab League.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Yes, I question this report as well. Here is what I could find but I'll keep an eye out for more sources for the OP.

If the original report is true, it's an interesting tactic from Iran. However, right now I dont think they can afford to lose 15,000 elite Iranian special-ops from home turf.

www.smh.com.au...


THE head of Iran's elite Quds Force is reportedly visiting Syria to advise the regime on repressing protests and the armed resistance, as consternation grows in Western capitals about Iranian involvement in the crisis.
edit on 10-2-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This from the same page of yur source.......ASSAD READY FOR TALKS>>>>>

rt.com...

very conflicting signals dont you think?
cheers ......s



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
RT is not a reliable source? It is the most reliable mainstream media source that I pay attention to. Just because they post news that Western MSM won't, does not somehow make them less reliable as a source.

Notice how I don't post stories from CNN, Fox, or MSN. I do this because 1) I don't waste my time watching and reading their garbage, 2) they only report what is within their agenda to report, 3) even reading or watching their actual reports is pure mental torture. I mention these three because they are the most globally prevalent that I have immedate access to.

If you have some far greater mainstream source, then by all means please refer it to me. Until you produce a non-biased source that reports news without one-sided agendas, I will continue to believe in what I've seen from RT and possibly Al Jazeera. (I don't post Financial Times because it requires an expensive membership, despite its important reporting).

So please, restrain from the tear-jerking opinions on RT if you can't provide better.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Syria’s top Muslim cleric has thanked Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his unwavering support of Syria’s government as it deals with widespread unrest, the presidency website reported Thursday.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Badreddin Hassoun conveyed the “thanks of the Syrian people and president for the stance of Ahmadinejad and our nation,” the website said after a meeting between the two late Wednesday in Tehran.



Ahmadinejad told the Sunni cleric, who was attending an Islamic conference, that “the main aim of the dominating and bullying powers (the United States and its allies) is to preserve the Zionist regime (Israel).” He added: “The U.S. and its allies are seeking to launch a new war in the region and to break the line of Islamic resistance. But we believe that with wisdom and unity we can stand against them.”


english.alarabiya.net...

Yeah, I'm sure Ahmadinejad's definition of "Islamic Resistance" consists of "wisdom and unity".

So, what is this "Islamic Resistance Movement"?


This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.


www.standwithus.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
What? The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria blames Iran too? (along with Russia and China.)


On its part, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria on Monday accused Russia, China and Iran of being "accomplices of the massacres" committed in the country, providing the regime of Bashar al-Assad "supportive" policy and "weapons".

"We see Russia, China and Iran as directly complicit in the horrible massacres committed against our people, not only by supporting the regime but also by providing weapons and equipment directly to murder our defenseless people", they said in a statement.


www.albawaba.com...

Well, since the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni and Assad's government is Shia, so much for that Islamic "unity" that Ahmadinejad is still trying to promote.

I'm guessing since 2/3 of Syria is Sunni Muslim, that Assad's Shia government doesn't stand much of a chance without the intervention of Iran, Russia and China.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Yeah and Iran knows that the fall of the current Syrian regime means that hizbollahs days are over , which I personally support , those shiea will not hesitate to kill any sunny where ever they find , sunnies are oppressed in Iran .



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
"In the last days I shall gather all nations , to a land called "Har-Megiddo" biblewalks.com... Is this the last days??? could very well be all so far has come to pass, what is left no one should see nor have to live through , the leaders of the world are the ones to blame, not the people.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This is probably also about supporting Hezballah in Lebannon too. Asymmetrical war is really the only way to confront Israel without attacking the Palestinians in the process. Of course I mean this in defensive terms, in the sense that Hezballah will probably stage a second front if Israel attacks Iran first.


Im sure thats exactly what this is.

If Iran is attacked, Iran will mobilize its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. Hezbollah will attack from Lebanon, Hamas from Gaza, while Syria opens up the second northern front alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hell, it even looks like Eqypt might renege on its peace agreement and join in. Israel surely has its work cut out for it. The sheer amount of missiles fired upon it from Lebanon and Syria will be unseen in modern warfare.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This is probably also about supporting Hezballah in Lebannon too. Asymmetrical war is really the only way to confront Israel without attacking the Palestinians in the process. Of course I mean this in defensive terms, in the sense that Hezballah will probably stage a second front if Israel attacks Iran first.


Im sure thats exactly what this is.

If Iran is attacked, Iran will mobilize its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. Hezbollah will attack from Lebanon, Hamas from Gaza, while Syria opens up the second northern front alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hell, it even looks like Eqypt might renege on its peace agreement and join in. Israel surely has its work cut out for it. The sheer amount of missiles fired upon it from Lebanon and Syria will be unseen in modern warfare.


I completely disagree with your assessment.

First off, I see Syria falling before Iran. This is already in the works and will be a serious strategic set back for Iran when it happens, hence this deployment. If action was taken on Iran now, then Syria would be the second front where intensity against Israeli and Western forces would break out in an organized and effective manner. Such a war involving at least Israel+US+"coalition of the willing" vs Iran+Syria would be immense on its own, yet it would most certainly suck in more countries into the fray, probably leading to WWIII.

Second is that Hamas isn't the same as Hezballah. Hamas is the democractically elected government of the Palestinian Authority. Just because Iran happens to be one of the few nations that tries to help them, doesn't make Hamas a proxy of Iran. If Hamas acts up during such circumstances, they would most certainly be doing it for Palestine's interest and not for Iran.

Third is that Syria would definitely be on the defensive. In fact, it is already on the defensive. If serious hostilities broke out, the only group capable of sustaining an attack on Israel would be Hezballah. Syria may be able to launch missiles at Israel but I don't see them sending in the army when they would need it at home. And in all seriousness, Syrian missiles are short-range ballistic missiles while Hezballah is armed with rockets- a big difference in tactics. Hezballah's best bet would be to hammer Israel with rockets in order to scare the Israeli population into discouraging the greater war effort, simply because those rockets aren't exactly good for anything else.

As for Egypt? The only thing that has changed in Egypt is the removal of Mubarak. The Egyptian military is still in charge and they still bend for the US.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
What? The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria blames Iran too? (along with Russia and China.)


On its part, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria on Monday accused Russia, China and Iran of being "accomplices of the massacres" committed in the country, providing the regime of Bashar al-Assad "supportive" policy and "weapons".

"We see Russia, China and Iran as directly complicit in the horrible massacres committed against our people, not only by supporting the regime but also by providing weapons and equipment directly to murder our defenseless people", they said in a statement.


www.albawaba.com...

Well, since the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni and Assad's government is Shia, so much for that Islamic "unity" that Ahmadinejad is still trying to promote.

I'm guessing since 2/3 of Syria is Sunni Muslim, that Assad's Shia government doesn't stand much of a chance without the intervention of Iran, Russia and China.





The MB wants to rise to power just like they have successfully done in Egypt. It won't be long before they take Libya either. If the US intervenes in Syria like we did in Libya and Egypt, I am convinced that we deliberately paved the way for the MB to rise to power once again. The MB has quite the history and has had interesting relationships throughout history.

Just waiting for the other shoe to drop....



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
We can never be sure what we're told here i the west is 'true'. However, if the Syrian rebels truly respresent the wishes of the Syrian people then I hope they remember who their friends are. Seems like there's a desire to present a united Islamic front to the world but if this is any indication they are clearly eating their own.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Of course it is false. First, Assad has to be an idiot to allow foreign,non-Arab, armed forces shooting at Syrians. Iranian killing Syrian citizen will get Syrian opposition hundreds of thousands of Syrians in a matter of hours.
Second - RT factor. It very often publishes yellow press material just to promote its agenda. Like in "US-bringing-Russian-spacecraft-down-with-evil-radar" thingy.
Third, you would here about it from numerous sources anyway, you cannot hide 15000 armed Farsi-speaking Iranians in Syria , and Syrian opposition will swarm the news with pictures of how dictator Assad fights its own people with Iranian imperialists who want to conquer Syria and all Arab nations. Since the source is not Syrian opposition but Chinese news site via RT - my verdict is pretty clear. Not true.
edit on 10-2-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho


The MB wants to rise to power just like they have successfully done in Egypt. It won't be long before they take Libya either. If the US intervenes in Syria like we did in Libya and Egypt, I am convinced that we deliberately paved the way for the MB to rise to power once again. The MB has quite the history and has had interesting relationships throughout history.

Just waiting for the other shoe to drop....


I agree. Notice how today's story revolves around the violence in Aleppo. My understanding is that the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria is headquartered there.

The problem with the Middle East is, no matter which side you take, whether with Sunnis or Shiites, it's all a lose-lose situation. You only replace one tyrannical government with another.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I completely disagree with your assessment.

Of course you do.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
First off, I see Syria falling before Iran. This is already in the works and will be a serious strategic set back for Iran when it happens, hence this deployment.

Perhaps, but if this happens, it will be Turkey invading, with limited support from the US. Russia is serious about Syria, and they have their own boots on the ground in Syria, most importantly to help/train the Syrians in the use of the excelent Russian S-300 anti-air missiles. So while you make the case of not being able to attack Syria without angering Iran due to Iranian special ops, Russia too will be angered for much the same reason. I believe the Americans realize this and take it seriously. I dont see an attack on Syria happening before Iran.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
If action was taken on Iran now, then Syria would be the second front where intensity against Israeli and Western forces would break out in an organized and effective manner. Such a war involving at least Israel+US+"coalition of the willing" vs Iran+Syria would be immense on its own, yet it would most certainly suck in more countries into the fray, probably leading to WWIII.

Agreed, but again Turkey will be the strategic reserve here, opening a front on Syrias west just as they attack Israel to the south. Syria cannot fight both these wars at the same time, and will most likely move to defend the west, using missile strikes to deal with Israel.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Second is that Hamas isn't the same as Hezballah. Hamas is the democractically elected government of the Palestinian Authority. Just because Iran happens to be one of the few nations that tries to help them, doesn't make Hamas a proxy of Iran. If Hamas acts up during such circumstances, they would most certainly be doing it for Palestine's interest and not for Iran.

Wrong. Hamas was elected in Gaza, not West Bank. And do not mix up Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, who is the ruler of the West Bank. I do however agree that Hamas will be acting with the Palestinian cause in mind.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Third is that Syria would definitely be on the defensive. In fact, it is already on the defensive. If serious hostilities broke out, the only group capable of sustaining an attack on Israel would be Hezballah. Syria may be able to launch missiles at Israel but I don't see them sending in the army when they would need it at home. And in all seriousness, Syrian missiles are short-range ballistic missiles while Hezballah is armed with rockets- a big difference in tactics. Hezballah's best bet would be to hammer Israel with rockets in order to scare the Israeli population into discouraging the greater war effort, simply because those rockets aren't exactly good for anything else.

I agree with this for the most part, and never said otherwise. Dont kid yourself however, Syria, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon do have a very large amount of rockets that can be launched at Israel. They are weapons of terror, since they are so inaccurate, but some estimates claim that between Syria and Hezbollah alone, they have upwards of 100,000 rockets aimed at Israel. This is way beyond the amounts Hezbollah had during the last Lebanon war, and could cause Israel to take desperate action if used. I fear a "strike of resolve" coming from Israel under these circumstances. Im sure you can figure out what that means.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
As for Egypt? The only thing that has changed in Egypt is the removal of Mubarak. The Egyptian military is still in charge and they still bend for the US.

This is changing. Watch and see.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I can maybe agree with you on RT, but Aljazeera? come on, they are just as bad as the three you mentioned or worse, just as one sided as any of them out there in their reporting no doubt about it.






top topics



 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join