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.

 

Evidence: Syria Gas Attack Work of U.S. Allies

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


Israel and America had plans for Syria over 10 years ago, when Assad told them they couldn't rebuild the Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline, but the final straw was in 2011, when Assad not only publicly denounced Israel as a state, but also put a stop to the 2009 agreement to repair the Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline, that was mistakenly destroyed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Not long after that the armed rebel uprising started, and the western media whet into overdrive on demonising Assad.

Don't get me wrong, i don't support Assad, or the so called rebels, as i believe Syria business is Syria's business, and i especially don't support corporate wars, which if you look past the media bullcrap, Syria clearly is.


The US is not even In Iraq anymore and the oil coming from Iraq now is mostly China's.

Iraqi oil: Once seen as U.S. boon, now it’s mostly China’s

Don't buy that sorry.

edit on 27-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


With all dew respect, all those crimes you have listed by Syria, could be push on America aswel in the last 10 years.

And of course Obama never had plans, his a post turtle.

Obama like Cameron are just a manager's in the same sense as a McDonald's franchise manager, they don't have the power to implement change or make company decision's, he is only there to sell them what the CEO's tells him too, and be the guy the common man can moan at, and take the hit.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by MrSpad
 


My point is it would make a easy way in for him. Frame Assad then he gets the entry into the war, he can drop a few bombs on Assad, he goes the way of Ghaddfi and Saddam and BAM, in Assad's place is another Obama puppet.

Of course that is just my own speculation, but givin' the course of events over the past 10 years or so. I would say it's a pretty safe speculation. History tends to repeat itself.

-SAP-
edit on 27-8-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)


Except Obama has avoided doing anything in Syria at all. Only now when his direct threat to act if chemical weapons were used has his hand been forced. And I expect the US will do the absolute minimum in retaliation and hope Assad is smart enough to avoid doing it again. We agreed to arm the rebels some time ago and we have even avoided doing that so far. Obama does not want a war under his watch. Of the Arabs and Europeans want to do most of lifting like in Libya he will support them but, the US is not going on any foriegn adventures unless an ally is attacked.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





The US is not even In Iraq anymore

But big American oil companies are.
Exxon Mobil
Halliburton
Baker Hughes
Weatherford International
Schlumberger.



Don't buy that sorry.


And I'm not selling it, it's a fact.


The International Energy Agency expects China to become the main customer for Iraq’s vast oil reserves.


China are the main customer's, and the reason is, they are happy paying top dollars in their lust for energy.
And here's another fact, The U.S. is set to be the largest exporter of oil by the year 2020. Being the largest exporter of oil when China is the largest importer has strategic significance.




President Obama's press secretary said that foreign policy isn't driven by what the people want, but by what is best for "American interests."



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


It is a FACT that China is the LARGEST recipient of Iraqi oil,

Can't spin that.

American companies pulled out.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


American companies pulled out.


Even if you pull out, it's still rape...

The news is so manipulated and controlled these days that nothing really surprises me anymore.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


That is not even the argument.

The reason for Syria was because of American companies want to use it for oil ?

What part of the US pulling out of Iraq are some people missing ?

Syria really has no American business there, but mostly Russian,Chinese,and Iranian.

They are the biggest beneficiaries there not US.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





American companies pulled out.


No they haven't, unless you mean when Halliburton sold off one of the slow fields to Lukoil, who got a risky fixed contract, and America then made a big song and dance saying "Look we didn't go to war with Iraq for oil, we sold a bit to a Russian company"

But make no mistake American companies still dominate and control Iraqi oil.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
not matter who manufactured the nerve gas or how it got moved out of Iraq to Syria ... what upsets me is the cause and affect. Now our dumb president believes he needs to spread more war in the middle east to give the those Islamic extremist more power.

As far as I'm concern let those fools bash it out in Syria.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


What the hell does this say ?

WHAT ?


WASHINGTON — Ten years after the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, the country’s oil industry is poised to boom and make the troubled nation the No.2 oil exporter in the world. But the nation that’s moving to take advantage of Iraq’s riches isn’t the United States. It’s China.




America, with its own homegrown energy bonanza, isn’t going after the petroleum that lies beneath Iraq’s sands nearly as aggressively as is China, a country hungry to fuel its rise as an economic powe



American oil companies, in the meantime, are “barely active” in Iraq, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting. There’s Exxon Mobil, which is locked in a dispute with the Iraqi government and is looking to sell at least some of its stake in the giant West Qurna-1 oil field, with the state-owned PetroChina discussed as likely buyer. The other U.S. firm operating in Iraq is Occidental Petroleum Corp., Mills said, a company that has just a minority, non-operating stake in the Zubair oil field.


Pay attention there PetroChina is the worlds ONLY trillion dollar oil company.


China’s biggest oil and gas company — the publicly listed unit of state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. — became the world’s first company with a $1 trillion market capitalization after its shares debuted Monday in its homeland.


Petro China

I love it when some people act like the only business that exist in this world are only American companies.

As Eastern, and Middle Eastern business's are raking in billions.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Syria really has no American business there, but mostly Russian,Chinese,and Iranian.

They are the biggest beneficiaries there not US.

Exactly and when Assad falls, they can open and rebuild all the vital pipeline routes to the med, and get back to business, unhindered by Assad and his dam Syria getting in the way.

And Halliburton and BP have already said they are looking to expand there oil fields in Iraq when the Syrian conflict is resolved, in other words, those dam Syrian are in the way.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 





xactly and when Assad falls, they can open and rebuild all the vital pipeline routes to the med, and get back to business, unhindered by Assad and his dam Syria getting in the way.


Iran and China are best buds with BOTH Syria, and Iraq.

They win either way.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Not quite.....

in Iraq oil deal...



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

You should read your source more carefully, it clearly states Exxon is a much larger company and even though down 10% from last year, still out did Petro china, and the artical also states how the Bear Stearns siad it was time to cash in.

They also said


However, Bear Stearns noted, based on Wall Street consensus forecasts, PetroChina was trading at a 72 percent premium to Exxon Mobil based on a 2008 price-to-earnings valuation.

So it's a hyper inflated share price.

I know you are trying to prove me wrong, but come on neo, it's so obvious this whole Syrian crisis will only benefit big oil.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Not quite what ?


Hayward and Rothschild are likely salivating at the opportunity of partnering with Sinopec. The Chinese giant is among the biggest oil companies in the world, with revenues of $200 billion. Successful development with Sinopec of these Iraqi fields could potentially serve as an entry point for Hayward and Vallares to partner with Sinopec elsewhere in the world. That is, if the Chinese are interested in cooperating; rumor is that they have offered to buy out all of Genel’s portion in the Taq Taq and Kiwa Chirmila fields.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


And ?


They also need to answer to their shareholders, and they see the world differently from the way state-owned Chinese companies do, he said.“The Chinese oil companies are more in tune with the geopolitical agenda of their government and respond less to shareholders,” Luft said. “If Exxon operates somewhere and has to close down operations for a month, that would have an impact on investors. When the Chinese go into one of those places and something bad happens, there is not the consequence in terms of stock.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


For whatever it may be worth, I am with you on this one.

I must say though, the CIA have had their fingers in some nasty pie over the past few decades.

Sometimes it seems they want to become the rulers of the U S instead of leaving a civilian leadership in place.

One example is the little noticed fact, the NSA came out from the CIA and look how they have turned out.

They should have been done away with years ago.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Assad did not use chemical weapons. I know that some of you are President Obama's true believers or John McCain-ish Republican hawks, but none of the propaganda being launched by the Obama administration passes muster. BBC World Radio broadcast today several reports from Syria underlining the fact that the Assad regime had not employed chemical weapons but that the Christians caught in between the Assad forces and the Rebels all stated that it is the American-backed al-Qaeda 'Rebels' who have been using chemical weapons on top of slaughtering entire villages of Syrian Christians.

I feel sorry for those in the USA who buy into the pro-war party's propaganda put forward with a progressive slant on MSNBC and CNN and with a right wing slant on FOXNews. All of you are being played by the same "team" that brought you "weapons of mass destruction" before the illegal invasion of Iraq. That 'team' is composed of roughly half of the Democrats and half of the Republicans ... revisit Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to defund the NSA spying program and one can see clearly who the White Hats are who voted for his amendment and who the bloody red hats are who voted against it. The situation is identical in the USA's Senate where the White Hats include both Republicans and Democrats.

President Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East has been to continue the general outline of Bush's foreign policy which was to be the lap dog of the Saudis as well as their attack dog in the region. I know that President Obama's sympathies lie with the Wahhabis and Salafists as did the sympathies of both Presidents Bush. What a truly tragic mistake to equate the Saudi Wahhabists and their ilk with "the good guys" when the opposite is the truth. The Wahhabists and Salafists are maniacs, flatteners of shrines and tombs, who believe in killing everyone who is not Wahhabist ... killing even fellow Sunnis who do not adhere to the Saudi royal family's brand of religion.

Any military action taken by President Obama will blow back into the USA's face whether at home or somewhere in the USA's overseas interests. Surely USAmericans realise this basic truth of the cost to be paid when a nation meddles in the affairs of another nation.
edit on 27-8-2013 by Melekim because: adding a necessary "not"



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
The point is, US GOV has gone rouge, and is doing whatever it wants to take all attention,off benghazi, nsa, fast n furious, lies and various bullshnip.

9% approval rating, this is all out of desperation


I love it when people willfully ignore or omit information simply to continue hating something they don't understand.

In case you guys missed it, and apparently you did, the US is not the one calling for attacks. France and the UK went down that road. Obama said they would release all evidence to support the charge against Assad, so how about we wait and see what is presented and then form an opinion.
edit on 27-8-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 

What's scary, is the Russia and China is saying that if U.S. intervenes, that so will they. If you put on RT, they're showing Russian troops now entering Syria, and Russian Navel destroyers are off the shores of Syria as well. Bet you those destroyers have Nukes in them.

People literally have NO IDEA just how close we are to WW III.

Probably the closest we have ever been!!!!!!!


Russia and China are not saying that at all. Is RT showing Russian troops in Syria or simply running stock footage from earlier port visits to Tartus? Russia is not going to war over Assad.


Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow had no plans to be drawn into a military conflict over the civil war in Syria


www.reuters.com...




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join