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.

 

Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria *VIDEO*

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Did you really post this argument?

As if your argument is that simple?

SLAYER69, you are better than that, in thepast 24h, especially in Kuwait thread too you posted bizarrely.
edit on 11-6-2012 by uesvaje because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Obama needs to get out of the White House.

End of Story.


----------

Yes, this is Wag The Dog.

Distract Americans from the economic mess in the USA !



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


please
The Canadian government has its head so far up dildoeberger butt its beyond redemption, and can't be trusted to do a single thing the Canadian voter wants.....Our PM harper is a berger boy, and was clearly busted lying about it too...

so in this regard or any regard re builderberg agenda
if the CANADIAN government is for it
ITS WRONG!

this is a banking system war to install debt based banking slavery EVERYWHERE



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I wish we were wrong,but you are also correct.
The Head honcho of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was quoted on sky news earlier today asking for "MORE" weapons from its outside helpers.
More means he has had some already...
We have been supplying them through Saudi and other routes,the US,UK,NATO are providing non lethal assistance to the rebels,and also communication help.
that was reported in the Guardian newspaper a few days back,but I have lost the link at the moment.

Its a sick game,where people die horribly for the wider political agenda.
Disgusting.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
DebkaFile? Come on already! Oh yeah, the martians have landed on the White House lawn as well. If this was in the works? It would be all over the news, and we would hear about Russia, China, and Iran frothing at the bit. This is just plain nonsense, and I would relegate it to the world of fiction. I do not foresee the United States taking any form of unilateral military maneuvers against Syria.

The President is getting pounded by domestic policy issues like the staggering economy, poor job numbers, allegations of leaks coming out of his administration, and other potential bomb shells. He is not going to make his re-election campaign any worse by throwing US forces into the middle of what looks a heck of a lot like a civil war in Syria. The US will fire-up condemnation at the White House podium, at the UN, and from Ms. Clinton., but that is as far as it is going to go. I am hard pressed to see any iota of strategic necessity for the US or even NATO to get involved in Syria. I do not see it happening. This is mere fiction like another thread about the USS Enterprise being under attack in the Gulf. I trust the news coming from DebkaFile as much as I trust the news coming from the National Inquirer.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


You'll not like this source either...

US accelerates preparations for 'no-fly zone' in Syria

It actually back-sources to Debkafiles....

As does this "Free Republic" article....

Obama Speeds Up Limited Air Strike, No-Fly Zones Preparations For Syria

And how about this "Global Geopolitics" (which is a blog, but somehow manages to come off as an authoritative news source.)

Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria

Check this one out....

From "Investment Watch" ... the title is epic!

BREAKING!! RED ALERT: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria, No-Fly Zones Preparations for Syria!! Entire Syrian Missile-Base Defects!! Assad Deploying SCUDS!!

In fact, dozens of sites have "picked" up this Debkafile report and ran with it.... yet Debka offers no source vetting and no back sourcing for the report.....

I question *NOT THE STORY* but instead the reason and manner in which it is being disseminated....

That's more valuable to us that the "no duh" posturing in which these so-called "world leaders" engage...



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
This is stupid if they actually do this, the Russians, iranians will get involved


Let them....

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States

Supported by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Algerian and Pakistani nationals etc etc etc and not to mention a large percentage of the Syrian population themselves.

All wrong...


Russia, Iran, & a tiny ruling Elite in Damascus are right...





edit on 11-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
:


Well in a situation like this when the Russians say NO then it does not matter how big their army, navy is. They still have nukes from the Cold War and you can bet your dollar bottom that they will use them, even if they are tactical nukes. Once one goes off then the chain reaction starts. IMO the warhawks need to THINK the long term before wading into Syria. Best thing to do right now is get round the table or on the horn to Putin and work out a deal. I dont want to get nuked over a depost in the desert thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Taking them too long, Obama dragged his feet on this, they should have been in there last year to stop the genocide. Assad has killed too many civillians, there are rebelious factions that will go on posse hunts murdering all those that were under Assad's protections. The situation is far more volatile now because of the wait. This won't be like Libya where we bombed from afar and let the scattered tribal rebels have free reign, the West will have to pony up and police it into a new govt following the Iraq model imo. Probably use an all Arab UN police force when it is all over led by Saudi's or something.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 


The conventional Russian army and Navy are pale shadows of their Soviet predecessors and are completely outclassed by the west.

Russia maintains a substantial force of strategic nuclear weapons but so does the U.S. which negates the Russian arsenal in a mutually assured destruction kind of way.

If the west decides to act in Syria, Russia may complain but military action wont be a viable solution for them.

Regardless, the source in the OP is likely incorrect.
edit on 11-6-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse

Originally posted by Common Good
Obama needs to get out of the White House.

End of Story.


i am not sure that would help at this point-I bet Mitt would carry on the agenda and some.

Nothing will stop intervention now-it has been going on since day 1 a year back,and too much has been invested to stop now.

this is a bad situation,getting worse by design IMO.


I dont care for Mitt either. I wont vote for either if they are both on the ballot.

But the past 4 years have been enough for me to know that I dont want this guy in the White House any longer.

Everything he does ends up in disaster.

No Thanks.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks for the additional sources. However, most of them are what I would consider being part of the fringe. Aside from that, I would like to know why the information is being disseminated as news when it appears to be mere speculation? I am not saying the Department of Defense or the White House does not have something planned for Syria, because they have military operations planned for just about everything. There are a lot of bean counters, analysts, and military planners kicking things around all the time.

Something as big as a unilateral strike on Syria would most certainly be announced in an official capacity. Especially, with the political fallout being leveled against the President at this very moment for reasons mentioned in my first post. This is a campaign year, and it would be suicide for any politician seeking re-election to spearhead such an unpopular issue like another military operation in the Middle East. We are still in the processing of getting over Iraq. I can see the President and his people condemning and criticizing what is taking place in Syria, but I do not see the US going to war over it. It would be political suicide. Again, thanks for the extra material on the subject. However, I am going to designate this material as standard fear-mongering and good old fashioned fiction by so-called armchair generals with way to much time on their hands.
edit on 11-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
On the otherhand


NATO Allies Deny Plans for Syrian No-Fly Zone to Aid Rebels

From Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov, Bloomberg: NATO and three alliance members said there are no plans for military intervention in Syria after Russia said it has information about preparations for a no-fly zone over the country.

Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are considering a repeat of the campaign in Libya, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Russian Security Council, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role and is working with the U.S. on a no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, he said.

There is “no discussion of a NATO role with respect to Syria,” NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said by phone from Brussels today. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unaldismissed the Russian comments as “speculation” that has appeared before in the international media. The U.K. and France also denied any such plans… .

There is “no question” of military intervention in Syria, the U.K. Foreign Office in London said in an e-mailed comment today. “The situation in Syria is very different to the situation in Libya. We do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy.”
natosource.tumblr.com...

Debka seems to be the only source quoted so far as Maxmars has posted
of course the usuall suspects lied about troops on the ground in Lybia...etc



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 
got to love how the can say one thing , and mean something else check it out

Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are considering a repeat of the campaign in Libya, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Russian Security Council, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role and is working with the U.S. on a no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, he said.
then the next paragraph

There is “no discussion of a NATO role with respect to Syria,” NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said by phone from Brussels today. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unaldismissed the Russian comments as “speculation” that has appeared before in the international media. The U.K. and France also denied any such plans… .
no discussion?? so why state the first? just say no no discussion of a NATO role with respect to Syria, and leave it at that, silly NATO some can see the writing on the wall



edit on 11-6-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
With Russia and Iran in Syria and other Arab states it would be political suicide to take any action there whatsoever.

Other Nato interventionism was quite different as we saw in Libya, and if by some stupidity the US gets involved in Syria that will have the potential to blow up in everyone's face.

As much as i don't like Assad,Russia,and Iran best to leave that theatre to implode on it's own.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The news on NATO denial from Bloomberg in above 2 posts(Danbones, bekod, skipping neo96's) was from January 16, 2012, almost 5 months.

Accusation of Turkish support got progressively supported since that period. It's now spoken as reality by news, not speculation.

reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I question the understanding capability of all those who starred such a post.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
This is stupid if they actually do this, the Russians, iranians will get involved


Let them....

Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States

Supported by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Algerian and Pakistani nationals etc etc etc and not to mention a large percentage of the Syrian population themselves.

All wrong...


Russia, Iran, & a tiny ruling Elite in Damascus are right...



edit on 11-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


WOW what a rediculous post. First of all Czech Republic was against last years No Fly Zone, as President Klaus publically declared he was against it. Estonia also didn't provide any military assistance, as well as slovakia and slovenia. Germany voted to block the attempts of making the no fly zone, and with their EU economy problems I don't see them taking up arms. Greece is broke and won't commit a dime, unless it wants another reason to piss off it's citizens. Same goes for Italy and Spain. Iceland? Lol they just removed their corrupt leaders so why would they wage war with another country alongside the same snakes they just successfully removed. Not going to happen. Poland was also completely against the no fly zone in Libya, and theres no chance they risk war with Russia this time around when last year they didn't participate without such threat. Yemen is almost at civil war so they won't commit anything, odd of you to mention them. Algeria is the most odd in your list. They supported Gaddafi, have allowed Aisha Gaddafi and other family members to seek refuge there, the rebels themselves said Algeria was siding with Gaddafi. So no chance they will be your ally. Pakistan? lol That's funny, there are Anti- Nato protests quite frequently, not to mention they still have not allowed Nato supplies to move through their country, so no way they are on your side.

The Syrian people are with Bashir Al Assad. Period. You clearly haven't listened to any actual Syrians speak. Here, I will provide some videos of real Syrians speaking:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
There is 4 different Syrians telling you how it really is.

So the remaining countries in your list are, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, UK and US.
Harper is already guilty of treason and I don't know if he is ready to risk it again. But if he is, plenty of Canadians are ready to remove him. UK and US are broke but we both know that won't stop them. Turkey and France will be involved. The Rest? Who cares. Iran, Russia, China, Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Serbia, Sudan, Venezuala, North Korea, Cuba, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Burma, Zimbabwe and Eritea would more than certainly take care of business.

India and Brazil are questionable..both were against last years no fly zone. I know India's relation with Pakistan and China but they may side with the Russians. Not to mention Poland, Algeria and Pakistan could quite well take the Russian side.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Danbones
 
got to love how the can say one thing , and mean something else check it out

Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are considering a repeat of the campaign in Libya, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Russian Security Council, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role and is working with the U.S. on a no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, he said.
then the next paragraph

There is “no discussion of a NATO role with respect to Syria,” NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said by phone from Brussels today. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unaldismissed the Russian comments as “speculation” that has appeared before in the international media. The U.K. and France also denied any such plans… .
no discussion?? so why state the first? just say no no discussion of a NATO role with respect to Syria, and leave it at that, silly NATO some can see the writing on the wall

edit on 11-6-2012 by bekod because: editting


I think we have the Russian version echoed by the Debka report in the OS saying NATO will do what NATO did in Lybia to Syria...

and ALSO the NATO version saying NATO won't do what NATO did in Lybia to Syria...
(which they said they weren't doing in Lybia...)
LOL
some choice

edit on 11-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by uesvaje
 



From Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov, Bloomberg: NATO and three alliance members said there are no plans for military intervention in Syria after Russia said it has information about preparations for a no-fly zone over the country.
natosource.tumblr.com...

from my Link above
good point about the date, but it seems to one of the few ontopic stories that was NOT Debka
and as I said
I don't trust the NATO bunch after all the disinfo in Lybia



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter



Well in a situation like this when the Russians say NO then it does not matter how big their army, navy is. They still have nukes from the Cold War and you can bet your dollar bottom that they will use them, even if they are tactical nukes. Once one goes off then the chain reaction starts. IMO the warhawks need to THINK the long term before wading into Syria. Best thing to do right now is get round the table or on the horn to Putin and work out a deal. I dont want to get nuked over a depost in the desert thank you very much.



edit on 11-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Russians are smart enough to NOT get involved in terms of men and machines. They know Russian military is not that of the USSR of mid 1980s. But where they will get involved is via proxy like Iran, Hizbullah etc.

Try to figure out how much or many weapons can Russia buy domestically at cost for $100M and send it to Syria. Russia might not have 100 top grade planes but it sure does have $100M. If all is lost and west is bent on attacking Syria then Russia will invest $100M into Syrian CIVIL WAR and sit and enjoy the higher fuel prices.

Danger point is Iran-Syria nexus and defense treaty. Attacking Syria would get Iran sending in all sorts of open help and then we are talking global depression scenario.

If Russia is caught by both hands and dragged unwillingly into this regional war, then nukes are the only tool it has to deal with the west. Hope it does not come to that.
edit on 11-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join