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.

 

Outrage at Syrian rebel shown 'eating soldier's heart'

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Do you even know which countries got the big oil contracts?

So you admit it was about the oil then, thanks.

By the way, "countries" don't get oil contracts, International Corporations do.




posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
So shooting someone to death, not a war crime.

Eating, war crime.





Thank you!

Actually it's ok to kill Assad and his troops but not to eat them because it degrades their image in the eyes of the west!
I believe the Anglo American empire is mad cause it makes them look like they are supporting animals!
I can only just sit here shaking my head as I read through the ATS site!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I love how they put these petty little rules on war like its some freaking weekend sports game. War is ugly plain and simple. People get blown to bits with tanks, bombs and such but this appalls people? lol oh brother Live coverage it all day long for everyone to see.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by seabag
 


To blame US aggression or oil aspirations is a bit naïve

I would put that in my signature, but its full.


Go for it!

It is naive. People who keep saying that sound like kool aid drinking parrots. How great did that theory stand up in Iraq? Do you even know which countries got the big oil contracts? It wasn't US!


Actually It had more to do with the petro dollar then oil itself!
Though there are a bunch of other reasons like establishing US bases for invasion into other countries trying to
reject the petro dollar! Also establishing central banks and creating some pipelines! I am not sure what else
it had to do with but I am damn sure it isn't about freeing the peoples of the Middle East!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I find the BBC's reporting a bit strange. Normally they are complicit, but lately they have reported that the rebels are responsible for the use of chemical weapons, connected to Al Qaeda, and now reporting this.

That's 3 bad things about the rebels they have reported, yet we (the UK) are still sending the rebels all the things they need to fight the Syrian government!

Does David Cameron the snake not actually take note of all these bad things?

I do not want my tax money going to Syrian rebels thank you.

Something needs to be done to stop this blatant support of terrorism by the UK government.

I'm ashamed to be British right now!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by seabag
 


Do you even know which countries got the big oil contracts?

So you admit it was about the oil then, thanks.

By the way, "countries" don't get oil contracts, International Corporations do.


Obviously not for US.

Nice try at deflecting my response.


To the victor goes the spoils....though that certainly wasn't the case for US in Iraq, was it? If you disagree then tell me how US benefited.

I'll wait...



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
its frigging cute that we give terrorist cannibals weapons and arms

we also have BBC reporters running around with them

what do they expect to achieve with these people....they will haunt us for eternity


trying to create zion is a divine feat....taking gambles and wild guesses...like arming these people
..will have an adverse effect and ultimatly lead to our detriment

assad quite clearly hands out land to ethnic groups...why not work on that??

because we cant get involved ...we support a civil war


what we are doing is too much..and short sighted....the status quo could quiet easily become our catch 22
we could get stuck between a rock and a hard place


if the point is moving isreali tanks to north iraq to fight iran....then there are other ways...ie through turkey

peace










edit on 14-5-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom
 



Actually It had more to do with the petro dollar then oil itself!

Keeping the world economy stable? That’s bad?



Though there are a bunch of other reasons like establishing US bases for invasion into other countries trying to reject the petro dollar!

Like who? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Who has US invaded?



Also establishing central banks and creating some pipelines! I am not sure what else
it had to do with but I am damn sure it isn't about freeing the peoples of the Middle East!

What pipelines????

Come back with facts then we’ll continue. Otherwise you’re just rehashing talking points.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 



its frigging cute that we give terrorist cannibals weapons and arms


I can't even get past your FIRST LINE because the rest is based on false premise.

When did US provide cannibals with arms??

Source please!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I find the BBC's reporting a bit strange. Normally they are complicit, but lately they have reported that the rebels are responsible for the use of chemical weapons, connected to Al Qaeda, and now reporting this.

That's 3 bad things about the rebels they have reported, yet we (the UK) are still sending the rebels all the things they need to fight the Syrian government!


hahah

they create propaganda to support the rebels
but when the UN and the rest of the worlds community have hard evidence of the "rebel" wrongdoing

they will report it in a sea of negative assad press...and then whisper the truth...then blame the government for killing its own people

they supply confusion and they saturate the truth....they sometimes clealy lie...

all their investigative journalsim..post leversson enquiry...is pure edited propaganda

assad used chemical weapons..oh no it was rebels...

they also rpg tanks..mortar army positons...use anti aircraft weapons on dudes walking down the street
then hide in civilian areas...
then
the news reports "oh look, tanks are moving in the street..omg!! how can assad do this"

i have clearly seen...guys n civilians areas...with anti aircraft guns...shooting heilcoptersi

anyone trying this...would get tomahawked
edit on 14-5-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by thePharaoh
 



its frigging cute that we give terrorist cannibals weapons and arms


I can't even get past your FIRST LINE because the rest is based on false premise.

When did US provide cannibals with arms??

Source please!


i meant the UK

and dont get it twisted...we are all singing the zionst song..we are in this together

personally... i dont want us to be coasted into anything of this caliber
its a small world nowadays

edit on 14-5-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kuroodo
I just finnished watching the actual video,

The man barely puts it in his mouth when the video ends.

Not sure if they ended the filming right there because he didnt really eat it because it was just for attention/to start things or if he actually did eat the heart....


Does it really matter at that point its more the act i think.Just the fact that hes willing to cut out someones heart and stick it in his mouth.I really don't believe chewing becomes necessary at that point. Yeah I guess he could have spit it out because we don't know how long that person was dead and just imagine what he could catch if he didn't. Wow people amaze me sometimes how far theyll go to try to relationalize sick behavior.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Nice try at deflecting my response.

You are the master at that, not me. Right? Never answer a question directly... debate 101.


To the victor goes the spoils....though that certainly wasn't the case for US in Iraq, was it?

Hog wash. US led the charge.

If you disagree then tell me how US benefited.
We didn't. Neither did the Middle East. The entire region is more unstable than ever. But, there is all the money garnered from defense contracts, munitions, socks, jet fuel, bombs. C'mon really? IMF loans to "rebuild", Mickey D's sprouting everywhere. Royalties for oil sales.

I know you know this. You playin'...

ETA:

If you disagree then tell me how US benefited.

You mean the people or the American Military Industrial Complex? Tell me how Iraq "benefitted"?
edit on 14-5-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





To the victor goes the spoils....though that certainly wasn't the case for US in Iraq, was it? If you disagree then tell me how US benefited.


Don't see how the Us 'benefited' that 16 trillion dollar deficit shows the only thing we gain was debt while European countries, and Asia countries, 'benefited' with business in the ME, and some sweet oil, and natural resource, and rebuilding contracts.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
that has little to do with keeping the economy stable, it does have to do with stomping all over a nations sovereignty...something the US is not supposed to do, or aid anyone else in doing...

the US govt no longer has the people's interests at heart, it has the elite globalists interests at heart...and is being played as well


they want to help the rebels in syria, because the rebels obviously cant do the job and have lost the hearts and minds war...and the only reason people support them in occupied areas is out of fear...and because they control the food...food that is directly from US stockpiles in the form of flour and other "nonlethal aid" tons of video proof of that...

the reason the US is funding these people through proxy govts, is to get rid of the last secular nation in the middle east...(turkey doesnt count its in eurasia)

syria before the war was a mix of ethinic groups with religious freedom, a self sustaining economy, a modern army and air force, a central bank that was NOT under the control of TPTB like our own "federal" reserve, and was also supposed to be setting up a pipeline to the cost of the mediterranean like israel to complete with them and drive down oil costs...so how was that bad for the economy? that would have made the oil companies price gouging here transparent...and would keep americans from paying through the nose for gas...but that is a bad thing just cause it is in syria?

the protests for reform were obviously used by outside forces to hide behind and create chaos...they hijacked the movement, and even killed some of the protestors in the process...

and the purse strings lead directly to washington by way of saudia rabia, qutar, turkey, and lybia...we also paid for shipments of used AK47s (underfolder and other variants) from the former yugoslavia that were originally slated for US consumption as kits (demilled and resold here to reassemble legally) and the company exporting them to US consumers would have gotten way more money in the hands of US citizens, but the US President specifically banned those imports and paid less for them ...only to put them on planes to turkey where they went through the northern border directly to the foreign terrorist rebels in syria...bet you didnt know that...


edit on 14-5-2013 by studythem1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2013 by studythem1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
So shooting someone to death, not a war crime.

Eating, war crime.





And Child Soldiers arent a war crime?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by judus
 



In the end they will all flee and come and live in our neighborhoods, sponsored by our various devious and corrupt governments.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag[/i
What pipelines????. . .

Here a start . . but you should really do your own research
EU set to buy oil from anti-Assad rebels

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

US oil giant ExxonMobil illegally signed Iraqi oil contracts

Syrian rebels capture oilfield near Iraq

_________________
edit on 14/5/13 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by seabag
 


Do you even know which countries got the big oil contracts?

So you admit it was about the oil then, thanks.

By the way, "countries" don't get oil contracts, International Corporations do.



You don't believe that do you every oil company in the world is somehow controlled by the country they reside in. Oil companies are just extensions of governments. All countries use oil companies to supply energy and it’s in their national interest to make sure the one they use keeps supplying oil. Now as far as Iraq the United States companies were shut out of there oil field auctions. So not a single US company reaped benefits from all the blood and money we spent to clean up that mess. The people who did benefit the two countries are who were against the war China and Russia. Now to be fair Exxon mobile could have won the contract for the Rumaila field but was unwilling to pay the 2 dollar a barrel fee the Iraqis wanted Russia's Lukoil stepped in and bought the rights but they don’t even have to pretend to make money for all intensive purposes they are state owned. The war wasn’t about oil never was it was about location. The western countries needed a country friendly to there interests in the middle east because like it or not they know whose truly fighting in the middle east. The true war is between Iran and Saudi Arabia the trick for western countries is to make sure this continues. I know sounds strange doesn’t it but if Sunni or the Shia was to gain total control of the Middle East this would be a disaster for the west.

PS thought id add this the war in Syria it is nothing more then a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran Both sides are trying to pretend there not aiding the fighters but they are. In fact take it a step further Benghazi the CIA was trying to set up arms deals for the Saudis I just have a feeling there was a double cross in there some where andthings went bad mind you speculative especially if the IRS is reading this dont want to get audited.

edit on 5/14/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Just take a look at this:

Jihadist forum: "If we are forced to eat Americans, let's make them into a gunpowder-flavored kabsa with some hors d'oeuvres made of apostates"

"Is It Permitted To Eat The Flesh of American Soldiers?"

www.jihadwatch.org...


and people want to get involved in the Syria civil war? Couldn't pay me enough to go over there.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join