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.

 

US 'considers' arming terrorist rebels

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I use the word consider in quotes because they have been arming them since the beginning of the conflict.

www.presstv.ir...




The United States is reportedly considering providing heavy weapons to Syrian armed groups after meetings between anti-Damascus rebels and senior US government officials. Syrian militants have held meetings with senior US officials in Washington and asked for heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, to escalate their fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad,The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday.


www.telegraph.co.uk...




A senior Free Syrian Army representative met in the past week at the US State Department with the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford and Frederick Hoff, special coordinator for the Middle East, sources have confirmed.

The rebel emissaries, armed with an iPad showing detailed plans on Google Earth identifying rebel positions and regime targets, have also met with senior members of the National Security Council, which advises President Obama on national security policy.


Well, now it is official that the US is going to be arming the terrorists and cause more death and destruction and killing of innocents. Exactly like they did in Libya.




Syrian rebels have held meetings with senior US government officials in Washington as pressure mounts on the US to authorise a shipment of heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles to combat the Assad regime, the Daily Telegraph has learned


Now obama wants to give terrorists SAM's, what an idiot. Hilary, stick your nose in your own country and stay out of their business! You are going to be arming even more terrorists and causing more interference and death and destruction which leads to 911 style blowback.
edit on 033030p://6America/ChicagoSat, 16 Jun 2012 03:15:14 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Your fist link shows a AK-47.

Your second link shows a Chinese weapon.

So how do you know the US has been supplying them all this time.

As usual it is your one sided view you try to push over on us.

Sorry you fail yet again despite what the links say.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Its no failure on your part Pro. Just the same bs by the west who arm the muslim terrorists to fight for democracy.
As occurred in the Afghan, Pakistan and Lybia and now Syria. Their big allies in Saudi Arabia, are holding auctions of suicide bombers to go to Syria, recall bush bowing and kissing the saudis asses. Bin ladin or Tim Osman as he was called when he was working for the CIA, was one of their greatest terrorists. Bushs main man in the Afghan who traded weapons for opium, so that they could beat the russians. The americans still owe him a medal for helping to defeat the evil reds. But instead of a medal he was blamed for 911.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This is just fantastic. Not only do the US supply the weapons to the rebels in a proxy war; The Russians provide combat troops to the Syrian government? Sounds like Afghanistan in 1970-1980?

Obviously my "this is just fantastic" line should not be taken seriously. War is horrible.
edit on 16-6-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Why do I know that this is going to get a whole lot worst before it starts to get better



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grayghost
 




Your fist link shows a AK-47. Your second link shows a Chinese weapon.


That picture is your basic stock picture and there is no caption under it claiming it to be the US supplied weapons.



So how do you know the US has been supplying them all this time.


The US has a history of supplying weapons to terrorists and if Hillary is wanting interference and weapons for terrorists, it is already being done already



As usual it is your one sided view you try to push over on us. Sorry you fail yet again despite what the links say.


Grow some eyeballs to see the truth.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
"Considers" ?

Whoever wrote that article is a couple months late.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I use the word consider in quotes because they have been arming them since the beginning of the conflict.



I consider the "source" to be, BS.


Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Well, now it is official that the US is going to be arming the terrorists and cause more death and destruction and killing of innocents. Exactly like they did in Libya.



I consider your opinion,just that.....Opinion.

Can you get a State Dept Official to sign off on your Opinion,please? Maybe the President?

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Looks like Russian and Iranian and Chinese "heavy weapons" meanwhile Russian ships and helicopters en route, and on boots the ground right along with their Iranian counterparts.

What is the point again?

Oh yeah evil Amerika oh the horror,the horror!.
edit on 24-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Oooooh no son. The US is arming rebels in Syria. Just like they paid off warlords in Afghanistan/Pakistan (with our tax dollars) and let those poppy fields run all full bloom. Just like they created Al Queda. Just like CIA moved their paid mercs to Libya. Funny how the run on the middle east didn't start until the economy started tankin back in west in 2001. T

People don't realize that our government is all about money. Their money. They use our money to make them.. hehe real money.

Crazy

edit on 24-6-2012 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Well, this has been going on for a long time now, but I am VERY surprised to see some of the responses here. I thought most people were already aware, but obviously not. I've been following this gruesome situation for quite a long time now (always like your posts, by the way, Professional- gave you lots of anonymous stars).

Here's a collection of Global Research articles that some people around here might want to read:

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Some how I don't think Syria has to worry too much about the US arming the rebels in Syria. They have to worry about Turkey after they shot down there jet fighter. Turkey is a wild card that has been friends with Syria in the past. Turkey has also played middle man for the US in the past for talks. But now Syria has burned there one friend who could play both sides and made them a enemy who is demanding NATO to do something. I see a Bush style invasion coming that will have little never heard of countries with no militaries as a NATO force of the willing to invade. But what country will be the force behind it with a military? I don't think Obama would play in that game. So you will see the UK, France or Germany taking the lead and demanding the US help. Andthen you will see Russia take over Georgia as a pawn in all the confusion. Turkey also just bombed Northern Iraq attacking the Kurds for attacks coming from the PKK in Turkey. Another strange situation. Turkey will be bombing Iraqi Kurds for the terrorist there from the PKK. Iran will love this because the Republican buddies MeK the Iranians who attack Iran and they are terrorist are in Northern Iraq also. Turkey is a wold card with enemies on both sides. But with friends only on one now? But who will be the ones who join a wild card as a team mates? UK, France and Germany all have shown they will play with terrorist if the enemy of the terrorist is also there enemy. UK made deals to release the Lybian terroist who blew up a plane load of people for oil. UK, France and Germany are friends with MeK only because they have a common foe Iran. The Republicans in the US tried to arm Lybia with weapons before Obama was in office and John McCain and Joe Liberman tried to set the deal up. Right now the Republicans are pushing Obama to be friends with MeK and take them off the terrorist list so they can be armed to attack Iran. But Obama has said no repeatedly.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Looks like Russian and Iranian and Chinese "heavy weapons" meanwhile Russian ships and helicopters en route, and on boots the ground right along with their Iranian counterparts.


Russia and Iran are local neighbors of syria and russia and Russia has its own military base there...

USA has a history of the most military interventions out of any other country and has 911 as a result of its meddling.



Oh yeah evil Amerika oh the horror,the horror!.


Spoken like the truth..



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
We haven't had a high level talk with anyone the spooks are still waiting to see how their turkish drone op worked.arming the rebels could muck up an invasion by them.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I don’t see how this can be a surprise to anyone – we (I have personally participated in training and arming insurgents around the world) have been doing this since before the inception of the OSS.

Of course some will argue this is not in our best interest but I have seen the benefit of enabling an oppressed people to fight for themselves. It is a wonderful thing to see. These rebels are risking their lives, liberty and personal fortunes no less than equal than the risk our forefathers took when they signed The Declaration of Independence.

One could draw a parallel between our arming and supporting these “rebel” groups to the support we got from the French during our own revolution. One could argue that without their loaning us funds for arms and ammunition and eventually as our cause grew naval and combat troops we would not have won our own independence.

Why should we not support them – in the end if they win it will ingratiate the new regime to be more open to US interests. If they lose there is enough plausible deniability for us to deny direct involvement.

Personally, I would fight for and with these people against their government.

Any Soldiers we have participating in working with the insurgents signed up to do that very thing mostly I am sure it is taking place under the CIA and black operations and if any combat operations are carried out it will be by the paramilitary wing of the CIA.

Not like we are commiting conventional forces.




top topics



 
5

log in

join