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.

 

UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin


its not, its just business, I mean in that case then Germany has been at war with everyone for years because of the amount of weapons the sell.



Semantics. GMBH, LLC, INC....all protect businesses from that kinda thing.
While i believe it is more about bloody oil money than helping the Syrian people, i like to think we have the best intentions and that's what the US is selling.




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


its not semantics, giving guns to people does not count as an act of war so your argument is invalid.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


OK, if Germany's government is selling the guns that's one thing. But i was talking about German businesses. Crossed train of thought i guess.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


So... To clarify. Your argument is no media can be trusted unless it is American based..CBS, CNN, Fox etc.? Despite the fact these media organizations are beholden to the very people they are supposed to be writing about. CNN is just an American version of PressTv. You are saying we can't trust them because they might be biased? That's hilarious argument considering the state of American media.

The PNAC report specifically calls for bases in the Middle East and besides from Iraq and Iran. Syria was central to the plan. None of this is coincidence. The US was planning conquest of the Middle East since mid 90's at least. Just search for PNAC (Project for the New American Century)report. Notice the signatures? I fully believe this was written as a way to think long term about how to challenge our biggest adversary in the 21st century. The Chinese. How better to control China then control the very thing they will soon be the top consumer of. Oil/Gas/Petrol.



The rebels are partially disaffected people who are genuinely sick of Assad. The rest are foreign fighters who are for lack of a better term "Soldiers of Fortune". They will fight for who pays them more. The fact is this is a proxy war. The similarities to the Spanish Civil War or the 30's cannot be overlooked. It was a warm up for WW2. The sides were picked. New weapons were tried out etc. It was practice for a much bigger conflict.

You mentioned a couple of Countries supplying arms but curiously you left off Russia and Iran as sending arms, personal and advanced weapons systems to Assad.

Your argument that PressTV should not be trusted is just outright laughable. I would bet they report things closer to the truth than almost any US news outlet. They are not beholden to people in the US. They do not have to worry about advertisers taking their business elsewhere.. Etc. Etc. Is PressTv biased? Sure. Are they as biased as say CNN or Fox? Not even close.

Otherside I usually like what you say but you are dead wrong about news media and who can and cannot be trusted.

I will add that the UK was most likely doing exactly what this guy claims. I have no doubt that after the UK's disastrous leadup to IRAQ part 2... it would have been very difficult for them to sway Public Opinion in support of an attack on Syria. They are what's called contingency plans. There is no way the UK would have attempted this alone. The US most likely has plans on attacking Romania or Canada. That would be the best way to approach this. Plan in advance so you are not caught unprepared or do not have a plan when one is needed.


edit on 18-6-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

edit on 18-6-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold
CNN is just an American version of PressTv.


Er, no it is not. CNN et al are not state owned. You may not agree with their opinion or leanings, or their frivolous celebrity focus, or pandering to the “typical” American, but they are not a mouthpiece of the US administration.

On the other hand, PressTV is part of the Iranian state media service and completely beholden to their political masters.

Just helping to ensure a modicum of accuracy.

Regards



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 





Who has been supplying the rebels arms thus far?


Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia

You mean the west. Turkey is Nato. Qatar is home of the biggest airbase in the Gulf. And the Sauds, well the Sauds. I don't see any attempt to stem the tide of weapons. In fact the US is going to directly arm the "rebels"now, right?

Its only in the humanitarian cause though. It seems that our solution to the terrible tragedy of a 100,000 syrian dead is to send in more guns.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


PressTv is more credible than all the major media outlets of the west. And exactly BECAUSE they are state-sponsored fighting the imperialism and secret societies all the time. Some western outlets like infowars and global research are also credible.

Its almost funny you got everything backwards.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
We can't trust any msm that is on tv or radio or in papers. The only way to find the actual news is from the public in that country. The time is now for all to stand as one and let our allies from other countries know what's going on instead of getting the news from a 3rd party.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Roland Dumas is nothing but a disgruntled fraud


Lol if anyone believes this propaganda BS,



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 





Who has been supplying the rebels arms thus far?


Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia

You mean the west. Turkey is Nato. Qatar is home of the biggest airbase in the Gulf. And the Sauds, well the Sauds. I don't see any attempt to stem the tide of weapons. In fact the US is going to directly arm the "rebels"now, right?

Its only in the humanitarian cause though. It seems that our solution to the terrible tragedy of a 100,000 syrian dead is to send in more guns.



No because Turkey, Qatar & Saudis are not "The West" there Western ME Allies pushing there own agenda in the Middle East there fully in control of there own future,

Why does the US/NATO need to arm the members? they can just keep selling billions per year in arms deals to there Sunni friends, there is absolutely no need for the West to get involved and have not so far, regardless of what the conspiracy nuts have said for 2yrs, its now more than Obvious we have a sunni shiite civil was throughout the ME



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by Wonderer2012


Where are the rebels from?

What gives the US and UK the right to give weapons to rebels to remove a sovereign nation's leader?



The rebels are the Syrian people who grew tired of the Assad regime. They seen the light after they elected him.
Sure there may be a few Taliban there in hiding but now that they are ready for peace talks.

The US is doing what they do best, World Policing.
The UK has not armed anyone yet that im aware of.




Educate yourself before you pull out with your mouth things that should have been pulled out from the bottom hole.

Read here. Is the best and the most informative thread about who's fighting whom in Syria. I had no idea Al Qaeda was part of the people who grew tired of Assad regime
Deny Ignorance dude. Deny it.

Your Guide to the Syrian Civil War: An Analysis of the Forces Fighting in Syria
edit on 18-6-2013 by Telos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


Supporting Sarin Gas using Dictators is "fashionable" on ATS I guess these days?


You people have a right to your opinion and what you believe, but don't try act like you're all righteous and such.

In Syria there are two piles of excrement to choose from, if you wish, doesn't make you morally superior to anyone who disagrees.



edit on 18-6-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


There's no doubt the western powers planned out the invasion of the Middle East decades ago and their plan doesn't stop in the Middle East. Their plans have gone full throttle these past 2 decades and things are only going faster. Is their reason for this purely based on profit and power, or is there more to their story? The exposure of these plans don't begin nor end with this ex-con French foreign minister.

Funny coincidence though, it was the French, French journalists, whom claimed to have seen first hand Assad's use of sarin gas against the rebels and this information is what most likely lead the US to "conclude" it was time to conquer Syria (one scandal after another helps propel this agenda as well). The British were also a big part of accusing Assad but the French take the cake so far.

Irony is that the UN/west hasn't penalized the rebels for using chemical weapons. In fact they rewarded the rebels with more money, arms, and soon military support after it was "concluded" Assad used chemical weapons.

Hilarious.

Are we living in bizarro world or what?
edit on 18-6-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Telos
 


Supporting Sarin Gas using Dictators is "fashionable" on ATS I guess these days?


You people have a right to your opinion and what you believe, but don't try act like you're all righteous and such.

In Syria there are two piles of excrement to choose from, if you wish, doesn't make you morally superior to anyone who disagrees.



edit on 18-6-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


Oh c'mon my fellow canadian. It's not about moral superiority or trying to look better than the other poster or even to act righteous. It is about what's really going on in Syria, who's fighting whom and what's going on behind the scenes. It's a conspiracy board. We always look for what is underneath, not what's clearly "visible".



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by Wonderer2012


Where are the rebels from?

What gives the US and UK the right to give weapons to rebels to remove a sovereign nation's leader?



The rebels are the Syrian people who grew tired of the Assad regime. They seen the light after they elected him.
Sure there may be a few Taliban there in hiding but now that they are ready for peace talks.

The US is doing what they do best, World Policing.
The UK has not armed anyone yet that im aware of.




When the "rebels" is mostly made of foreigners you can hardly say the Syrian people grew tired of Assad.

The US sucks when it comes to world policing it's not our job and it was never meant to be our job. And what have we gotten out of it? Nothing but dead people and debt.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 




The US sucks when it comes to world policing.......


Sure, the US has made some truly awful policy decisions......but who else could realistically do it?



..... it's not our job and it was never meant to be our job......


No it was certainly never meant to be but it sort of came with the position of world superpower No1 - rightly or wrongly that's the way it is.



And what have we gotten out of it? Nothing but dead people and debt.


True......and a remarkable amount of power and influence.

And it's worth considering how the world would be if the USA hadn't taken up this role, for whatever reasons.

Despite the many mistakes the US has made I can honestly say that I for one have a certain amount of admiration and appreciation for the role the US has taken on the world stage, it is a thankless and unenviable task - and look at the alternative candidates for the role?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Telos
 


Supporting Sarin Gas using Dictators is "fashionable" on ATS I guess these days?



edit on 18-6-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


You rather support heart eating cannibal rebels eh?

I dont know. I rather gas the cannibals.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Telos
 


Supporting Sarin Gas using Dictators is "fashionable" on ATS I guess these days?



edit on 18-6-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


You rather support heart eating cannibal rebels eh?

I dont know. I rather gas the cannibals.

make sure you take out the queen ( and her silly hat) or they will just keep eating everyone else's lunches
edit on 19-6-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by roguedesigner
Two years ago our government began a cull of the armed forces that has pretty much ensured that the only thing the UK can plan outside our own back yard is a barbecue, provided guest numbers are kept to a manageable level and they bring their own drinks. I'm calling BS.


We have to make cuts to our own armed forces yet we have just opened the door to arming an other nations rebel forces?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join