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.

 

Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval

page: 23
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

There is certainly more to it than the number of people killed. No one in the West batted an eye when a million innocents died in Africa when the Hutu tribe massacred the Tutsi tribespeople using machetes.

This certainly smells of some globalist agenda, IMO.



Even now in Darfur a civil war is going on and it does not even gets a mention in the news. 250K people have already perished and more than 2 million displaced.

However, for Assad to use chemical on people is criminal and there has to be punishment for it. Also punishment for those who are instigating civil war in Syria for last two years. It is a MESS of selfish interests........ NWO agenda and many other objectives.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

There is certainly more to it than the number of people killed. No one in the West batted an eye when a million innocents died in Africa when the Hutu tribe massacred the Tutsi tribespeople using machetes.

This certainly smells of some globalist agenda, IMO.



The UN led forces present in country did make an attempt to take action, only to be told by the UN the actions they wanted went beyond their mandate.

So if the US/ West had intervened there it would have been ok? Even without UN approval / mandate?
edit on 29-8-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I wish I knew the answer to that.
I am the kind of person that is okay with watching all of this kind of crap happen from a distance, provided that it stays within the area of the warring factions.
I would agree if there were action by us against another country if there were unprovoked military actions by that country against one of our allies that we have a treaty with to provide mutual support.
edit on 29-8-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Ed Miliband rules out support for Syria intervention without UN backing

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval


Natasha Mozgovaya twitter feed

According to an Reporter Natasha Mozgovaya Obama is preparing immanent strikes agaisnt Syria without any evidence nor an Congress vote expect for consulting with few members of the congress such as the outspoken interventionist Eliot Engel.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com
edit on 26-8-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Aug 27 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: changed source title for accuracy
There was no "evidence" when they bombed the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan, on national tv, nonetheless. They don't care. They do as they please, and no one is going to stop them. So, might as well, sit back and enjoy the show.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
Ed Miliband rules out support for Syria intervention without UN backing

www.theguardian.com...


What's this? Somebody trying to make sense. That's new.

He's right about any approach to the use of chemical weapons. How's a missile strike supposed to eliminate that threat... even if it were true? If someone doesn't go in and actually secure them then what's the point. If someone goes in after a strike, same situation with Iraq and practically an invasion. It would be best to let the UN go in under a non violent premise and try to help sort the situation out diplomatically.

The UN has to try to start being an unbiased body and needs to make it clear they are going to get involved in this without western interests ruling their decisions and that's a hard thing to trust in... but from what I can see, Assad has been trying. The regime is cooperating now and has asked for them to look into it and has appealed to the UN on multiple occasions to consider the regimes side of the story.

People on this forum will point to the UN any way they can and call them the ones attempting the NWO with western backed interests...and it's right to be cautious but with how Israel has been basically giving them the finger all these decades and everything that is happening now, we really need to focus on trying to allow the UN to be what it is supposed to be and do it's job. Outside of the UNs granting of statehood to Israel, It is the EU that is more guilty of the global conspiracy plot to control world economics and although the US is not officially a part of the EU, it is so tied to those interests... it's all connected to the western block. I don't think all countries in the EU are on the same path, but we really need to be watching who has a lot of clout in the EU. Whoever winds up with the most influence will be the ones to lead Europe almost as a whole into their personal preferences if the rest is not diligent in recognizing this potential. If you look at the list of people who have been officials, there are some notoriously dirty people on the list. The EU has the potential to be a huge world trouble makers.... almost as bad as the US. People really need to pay close attention to the ties between who is the EU and who is in office in the states....while we need to make sure that who is in the UN does not have their judgment clouded by having to take a back seat to other political bodies, because that is likely what resulted in the vote for israels statehood by a new organization of judgmentally compromised individuals. Now that a wider aray across the globe is able to participate, there is a chance it can be more unbiased...whereas the EU members will be biased to European trade and their own countries banks and economic leverage. The individual members of the EU cannot really be unbiased in a world of competing global politics... not until we have established a non biased global political body that gives everyone the chance to participate.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


West uses UN when it suits them and ignores UN when it does not.

UN has no purpose left as wars and civil wars raze in the world everywhere.

It is foolish to talk about UN when Saudi, Qatar and Turkey are actively fomenting civil war in Syria. Did they take UN's permission.

The so called Chechen rebels is nothing but a private army of Saudi king. Did he take UN's permission before fighting in Chechnya against Russia?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
A few words that I will not borrow , from a well respected advocate regarding the Syrian debacle:
www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-8-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


UN has lots of purpose left and one main is to stop any belligerent acts like attack on Iraq in 2003. In Libya, Medvedev got tricked out of his panties, stupid idiot Medvedev !!

UN needs 4 more members: Germany and Japan on right side and India and Brazil on Left side.

UN needs to become more powerful and stop nations from using WMDs at the drop of hat or stop them from using WMDs alltogether.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


West uses UN when it suits them and ignores UN when it does not.

UN has no purpose left as wars and civil wars raze in the world everywhere.

It is foolish to talk about UN when Saudi, Qatar and Turkey are actively fomenting civil war in Syria. Did they take UN's permission.

The so called Chechen rebels is nothing but a private army of Saudi king. Did he take UN's permission before fighting in Chechnya against Russia?



no, because leaders often ignore the UN... my point is that they shouldn't despite many members of ATS accusing the UN of being negative as part of the one world system. If it appears they are trying to do right (and they have on multiple occasions plus the power of veto has come in handy on more than one occasion) then maybe they are due more support... not less.

If the UN became more influential, I'm sure that nations and conglomerations such as the western block would try even harder to ignore them and make the UN seem obsolete... like Israel has done as well and saudi arabia as you mention. What I'm saying is that maybe we shouldn't be so eager to let that thought creep in... and let that thought become our thoughts too and just sit back and watch as it becomes more and more obsolete.

What I'm saying is that it is kind of odd for people to be blaming the UN for the global war conspiracy, despite mistakes of the past (Israel)... when it is usually through the UN that people attempt to conduct investigations and unwise measures get vetoed.

Like one of the last posts mentioned... it got used to serve a purpose when it was convenient, but that likely had a lot of ignorance involved due to the fact that the spread of information was slower when the UN was set up, which is an unfortunate problem of the past but does not necessarily void the concept in more modern times.

Now it's like other countries in the world have learned that it CAN be useful... it CAN serve a more even global purpose...and they use it. At first some didn't seem to want to bother with it and boycotted it as biased (because it was) but they learned that was a mistake. Countries can take advantage of what the west was basically trying to dangle in front of them and that is that idea of fairness.... just like the guise of our pseudo-democracy. Now is not the time to let them ignore what they helped to create when it served their purpose. Take full advantage of it as a working system of fairness that it was supposed to be intended for. Hold them to this.

The conspirators always mistakenly pave a path to their undoing and this is a potential avenue to exploit as it is something they have used as a decree of fairness in taking an entire country and got away with it. Now they have the gall to ignore it? Why of course, the West does not want to see Israel back at it's original borders.

DO NOT make that an easy task of hypocrisy for them.

I am very weary of those who try to blame the UN for the current state of affairs.

I do not put it past people to shill...and I believe someone may be trying to dissolve it as it is becoming a problem for them. We can't let them throw the game board to their own game... especially when they made the damn rules trying to look like they had good intentions. If that is not the final straw, what is?

Even though the UN gave power to Zionism, Zionism is getting an ongoing aggravation from the UN right now.
There are many examples of this. Do not just let anyone come in here and try to distort that into something else.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I do hope we strike Syria and I do hope China and Russia strikes us. ....or should i say U.S.



Genesis 3 verse 22
Skull n Bones Chapter 322


Behold.........the man has become as one of "us"



to know what is good and what is evil.
edit on 29-8-2013 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


USA has been able to arm-twist other nations on many occasions.

What Russia did in Libya is besides the point. Libya was not too important to Russia. It is logical for leaders to give away some to get some elsewhere. It is called diplomacy.

Despite what you people think, Russia or China or India are against anarchy and against nuclear war.

It is USA that is fighting a constant war against other countries.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by victor7
 


USA has been able to arm-twist other nations on many occasions.

What Russia did in Libya is besides the point. Libya was not too important to Russia. It is logical for leaders to give away some to get some elsewhere. It is called diplomacy.

Despite what you people think, Russia or China or India are against anarchy and against nuclear war.

It is USA that is fighting a constant war against other countries.


China does have interest in Libya. I have trouble seeing why they let this happen. It bothers me that they did, but I don't pretend to understand it just yet. I don't know how much of a stake Russia had but if China has large energy deals, this could very well involve Russia in some way. Hell, it's Libyan oil. Lot's of high quality oil. Why would they have not gotten involved?

It bothers me... I'd like to hear more sides on that.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Russia lost $4B worth of weapons orders right up front. Worst, the new government initially refused to pay for any debts Libya had with Russia. Although that is a matter of WTO but losing $4B arms orders was a $12B hit to the Russian economy. $4B of foreign capital would result in 12B as money multiplier is average 3 for growing markets. This does not even include the future prospects in other economic areas. Russia lost big time in Libya and that's why they are adamant of Syria, although Syria is 5 times more important to Russia being the centre of middle east and last known ally in the region.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
Even now in Darfur a civil war is going on and it does not even gets a mention in the news. 250K people have already perished and more than 2 million displaced.

However, for Assad to use chemical on people is criminal and there has to be punishment for it. Also punishment for those who are instigating civil war in Syria for last two years. It is a MESS of selfish interests........ NWO agenda and many other objectives.


This is the part of the argument that drives me nuts...

Had the US gone into Darfur we would have been accused of meddling in another countries affairs. When we don't get involved we are accused of not caring about the plight of a certain group of people.

The internal issues in Syria have been going on for 29 months now, and the west stayed out of it until the report of chemical weapon use. Even then our reaction was to supply aid / support.

If people are going to argue its an internal issue, then why are they not calling on Iran and Russia to but out?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by victor7
Even now in Darfur a civil war is going on and it does not even gets a mention in the news. 250K people have already perished and more than 2 million displaced.

However, for Assad to use chemical on people is criminal and there has to be punishment for it. Also punishment for those who are instigating civil war in Syria for last two years. It is a MESS of selfish interests........ NWO agenda and many other objectives.


This is the part of the argument that drives me nuts...

Had the US gone into Darfur we would have been accused of meddling in another countries affairs. When we don't get involved we are accused of not caring about the plight of a certain group of people.

The internal issues in Syria have been going on for 29 months now, and the west stayed out of it until the report of chemical weapon use. Even then our reaction was to supply aid / support.

If people are going to argue its an internal issue, then why are they not calling on Iran and Russia to but out?


That is part of argument that I call as sly but idiotic !! I am serious !!

US is a rascist country be it under Bush or Clinton or Obama. Black Africa with poverty in depth does not hold strategic value to the US. Hence what happened in Rwanda and what is happening in Darfur does not matter.

In Syria, US is very much involved via the proxy bastards like Saudi, Turkey and Kuwait etc.

Iran and Russia will be out when arms and finances from pimps stop arriving in Syria and stop creating a civil war.

Man you logic is pathetic at the least !!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And I would further add that Assad has learned alot from the fate that Saddam, Gaddahfi met. So any 'intervention' type US involvement will see Assad using any and all, short and long distance means to answer back. Somewhere I read that Assad family which is ruling Syria since 1970 has amassed wealth of more than $122 Billion. Even if this figure is cut by 80%, at 20B Assad can pack a serious nonsense punch on entities that he chooses.

So better US does some pinprick and call it quits to both overt and covert acts at destablizing other countries.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
That is part of argument that I call as sly but idiotic !! I am serious !!

uhm... riiight...


Originally posted by victor7
US is a rascist country be it under Bush or Clinton or Obama.

I didn't see Syria or Arab countries calling for immediate action in Darfur to stop the genocide there. So I guess they are just as racists as the US? Or maybe they kept quiet because the government in Sudan was Islamic centered and the people in Darfur were not Muslim.

I keep forgetting that Islam is a religion of peace...
I keep forgetting the countries in the Middle East are all tolerant

Not racist at all right?



Originally posted by victor7
Black Africa with poverty in depth does not hold strategic value to the US. Hence what happened in Rwanda and what is happening in Darfur does not matter.

Black Africa? really? You do understand that Africa is:

A - A continent and not one big country
B - Contain humans whose skin tone is other than black.

As for no strategic value, you really need to research the continent and the role it played throughout modern history, including the cold war.

With that being said, I don't see Middle East countries lining up to resolve the very issues you accuse the US of ignoring... Or is that racist comment just a one way road? I ask because I don't see you chastising China for violating the UN weapon sanctions on the Sudan, which extended the fighting and increased the death count.




Originally posted by victor7
In Syria, US is very much involved via the proxy bastards like Saudi, Turkey and Kuwait etc.

Proxy Bastards? LOL...

As opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah as being proxy bastards for the cowards in Syria and Iran? Or Syria and Iran being proxy bastards of Russia and China...
Your view that only one side can be in the wrong while ignoring the exact same actions on the other side of the coin is hilarious. I guess when you live in a country where you cannot exercise an independent thought, like Syria and Iran, Russia and China, it would appear as if only one side is in the wrong.

Syria and Iran support Hezbollah and Hamas, so why cant the west support their counterparts in Syria?



Originally posted by victor7
Iran and Russia will be out when arms and finances from pimps stop arriving in Syria and stop creating a civil war.
The sooner Russia and Iran stop sending the supplies is when the civil war will end. Absent that, so long as Russia and Iran are involved in Syria's internal mess, then that door is open to everyone else.



Originally posted by victor7

Man you logic is pathetic at the least !!


My logic is based on facts from ALL sides, and not blinded by religious / ideological hatred.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
And I would further add that Assad has learned alot from the fate that Saddam, Gaddahfi met.

Death from the very citizens they slaughtered over the years - check



Originally posted by victor7
So any 'intervention' type US involvement will see Assad using any and all, short and long distance means to answer back.

Syria cant answer back being they don't have the ability.. Hence the reason they went all coward with Iran by saying if airstrikes occur Israel will be attacked. Apparently Iran and Syria are bound and determined to start yet another war with Israel without proper regard to history and the number of times Israel has handed Arab countries their butts.

Syria and Iran talk a good game, however the flaw in that game is they assume the countries they are dealing with are as naïve as the Iranian and Syrian citizens in their own country, to believe only what they are told while punished for trying to educate themselves on topics outside of the ethnocentric Syrian and Iranian government structures.



Originally posted by victor7
Somewhere I read that Assad family which is ruling Syria since 1970 has amassed wealth of more than $122 Billion. Even if this figure is cut by 80%, at 20B Assad can pack a serious nonsense punch on entities that he chooses.

LOL - so far history to date does not support your analysis. If it were true then Syria would not need aid from Russia, China and Iran as they would be able to use that massed wealth to easily fight off the rebels.

Your logic here is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to not grasping / understanding both sides of the situation. You are letting your personal opinion cloud your judgment in terms of a countries capability and force projection.



Originally posted by victor7
So better US does some pinprick and call it quits to both overt and covert acts at destablizing other countries.

The same standard can be applied to Syria and Iran when it comes to Israel...

Or in your mind are the actions of Syria and Iran messing around in the internal affairs of Israel by supplying armed terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons and support somehow different than what you accuse the US / West of in Syria?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Would agree on your point on proxy game played by Hamas and Hizbulloh for Syria.

In Darfur it is the rascist Sudani Arabs that are creating problems. The oppressed are the blacks who are also not Islamic. US is quiet because of Saudi and other Islamic nations in ME want to ignore the oppression by Sudani Arabs and also Darfur does not have strategic value to them.

The instigation started from US and allies in Syria. As soon as rebels stop getting support from outside, Assad's regime will also stop getting Iranian and Russian help.

Regarding figure of $122B, for a family that has been in power for 43 years now, even stealing $1B a year would alone count for $43B plus investment returns etc. Remember it is a dictatorial regime and many of the top officers of Syrian 4th Armored Division get direct payments from oil fields. Such payments help keep Assad in power via loyalty. Even if Assad family has $20B, that would pack some major punch. $1B of this given to Taliban in Afghanistan would cost US $100B extra and it will not be able to close the theater in 2014 as planned.
While Libyan Investment Company had and still has $150B in funds, LIbya still had external debts to Russia, China and others. Guess when debt is given at 2% and your investments are making 5% return, then it makes sense to keep the debt and come out 3% ahead of the game. Same can also apply for Syria, although Syria is much poor nations in comparison to Libya.

No one is going to stop poking their noses into the affairs of other countries. That is the human history so can't argue on it.

edit on 29-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Russia lost $4B worth of weapons orders right up front. Worst, the new government initially refused to pay for any debts Libya had with Russia. Although that is a matter of WTO but losing $4B arms orders was a $12B hit to the Russian economy. $4B of foreign capital would result in 12B as money multiplier is average 3 for growing markets. This does not even include the future prospects in other economic areas. Russia lost big time in Libya and that's why they are adamant of Syria, although Syria is 5 times more important to Russia being the centre of middle east and last known ally in the region.


yeah...and China had a pause in it's oil purchases but picked some back up after the transition of Libya's main oil company. Who knows if that amount was equal to the agreements before hand...??? I'd like to think they at least stood nothing to gain by the transition to the opposition. I just read (found it very interesting) that the betraying Oil Minister Shukri Ghanem declared he was going to the opposition side and fled. While in Austria in 2012 he was found dead in the new danube. I guess the causes are still unknown and were not in obvious signs on the body.

I was not really paying attention very much in the work up to Gaddafi's death. I do not know how the west campaigned for it's intervention or if anyone really saw his murder and complete overthrow coming. Maybe that is where the bottom line to my curiosity can be found. I really couldn't believe they killed him. After all that time of going back and forth with him, then learning to play nice after all that... they killed him.

It has become very obvious to me that they are desperate to shift the balance back into their hands.

Some of the destruction they seed they can just sit back and let it unfold over time and it is hard to establish a semblance of reason in places we hardly ever hear of, but in a case like Libya and Syria, it's very critical they paint it to their favor in the media as it get's under the scope and magnified, then they must focus on it... as many can easily see the plot. Things will transpire out of those situations much faster that will hasten their economic undoing. Not only was China buying a lot of Libyan oil, but there were deals to develop oil fields. There was also gaddafi's gold that he intended to put to use against western interests. In Syria there is a pipeline and the situation with Iran as their eventual target. It's not so hard to see how they prioritize, is it?...and never humanitarian.

People don't understand why some of us have become focused on this.

It is playing out as a series and they are not going to stop.

Iran will become involved.

If Russia and China do not engage in order to avoid a world war, only their economists know if that is going to tip the economic balance back into the hands of the west ... and who knows if they will stop there.

If China and Russia does nothing to avoid a catastrophic engagement, will that be enough for the west... or will they just keep going? Where do they draw the line?



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join