It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What are we missing here? (Syria)

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:28 PM
I really wonder what lies behind this madness, what are the reasons for this war.

Russia and China will block any attempt for intervention in the UN, that is why the UN is swept aside.
This chemical attack gives them the perfect opportunity to engage in this war and nothing is going to stop them.
Knowing that rebels were caught with sarin gas, it is easy for them to have used it instead of Assad, but the US says they have evidence that Assad did it, but that of course is classified information.
That would mean Assad has found a way to elevate stupidity to a whole new level, but i doubt that there is any truth about Assad using chemicals against his own people.

Rand Paul made a very good point, what is the use of this congress if Obama will go on anyway despite a no vote?
In his view it is unconstitutional to do so, moreover, as i understood, 92 percent of Americans are opposed to this war.

They keep telling that it will be a limited intervention, only to degrade Assad and his army, but this cannot be just limited.
The goal is to oust Assad and to help the rebels, people are even trained to go and fight alongside the rebels.
hundreds of millions are already spend on Syria to support and supply the rebels.
There is much more to this than the chemical attack which is most likely used to force a good reason to intervene.
And let's assume the US goes to war, shoot missiles at targets in Syria for 1 or 2 days, and than what?
Let's say they do a really good job and the rebels win, that will mean that the terrorist groups have access to the chemical weapons of Syria.
I don't think we want that.

Let's not forget the meeting between Putin and Bandar, the promises made to Putin, but also the threats if he did not back away from Syria.
There is a lot more at stake here than we know about.

To say this intervention will only be limited is a lie, they really must think we are dumb, or the terrorists groups are indeed controlled and not just by the Saudis.

If not, there will absolutely be boots on the ground to secure those chemical weapons from falling in the wrong hands, because when the common enemy is ousted they will fight each other to fill the power vacuum.

Also Syria is not just a target, it lives and fights back, and if the interests that lies behind all this for the west, Israel and Saudi Arabia is of great disadvantage to Russia and China, i do not think they will just stand and watch.

What are we missing here?

The oil pipeline from Iran through Iraq and Syria al the way to Greece (Europe) is one explanation, but that does not benefit Russia.
And why would Europe governments back the US governments with saying they have evidence against Assad.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:32 PM
Here is a article saying Turkey is being dragged into this war.

But let us look at the very end of that article.

Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, a think tank in Istanbul, said the development was not unexpected. "Erdogan made his choice long ago, placing Turkey in the vanguard of countries calling for regime change in Syria," Mr Ulgen said yesterday. "That choice comes with a number of risks."

You see who is quoted there? "Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies"

Now lets take a look at that. Here is the advisory Board.

I know there are a lot of names that have links to Brookings Institute and other type places. But this one should be pointed out for you.

Loukas Tsoukalis
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) President

Now off to the Bilderberg Steering Committee.

GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, ELIAMEP

So I guess it has been decided. Syria will be attacked. The Bilderbergs said so.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:33 PM
the nwo war on dictators?

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:51 PM
I think we are missing something involving Russia that goes deeper than Syria and way back to Snowden. It could have been a P.R. op by Russia or some other faction for that matter to make the U.S. lose moral high ground in order to soften it up for a legitimate counter-attack.

I think the U.K. is backing down because they don't want to be involved in a war against Russia. I think this is actually going to be a war with Russia, which is why Obama wanted the vote from congress, look at World War II, if that happened without congressional approval it would have been a problem.

If we directly engage Syria with our forces on our own initiative, Syria already has modern weapons, and anyway, Russia might as well show up at this point.

Syria said that it would counter-attack on Israel if the U.S. attacked it, and Iran would probably jump on that bandwagon.

I expect to be doing some war reporting.
edit on 3-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by earthling42

It is madness. They aren't even waiting for confirmation from the UN Security Team, which is what the proper protocol should be.

Why the hurry? Why the rush?

Something stinks here, and I haven't figured it out yet.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by earthling42

It is madness. They aren't even waiting for confirmation from the UN Security Team, which is what the proper protocol should be.

Why the hurry? Why the rush?

Something stinks here, and I haven't figured it out yet.

Channeling Nancy Pelosi...

"We have to go to war before we know why we're doing it."

That's about the sum of it all. Makes perfect sense... if you're insane. Or looking to make a profit on some good 'ole fashioned killing.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Dreine because: Bazinga

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:43 AM
This is one explanation, for years now the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have been trying to destabilize Syria by setting up the people against their government.
This to weaken the position of Iran, the US has said that Iran is currently working on nucear fuel to produce nuclear weapons.
In their attempt they spend a few billions already to train and supply mercenaries with the equipment they need to fight alongside a group of Syrians opposed to assad's regime.
But it got out of control, many syrian freedom fighters have joined Al Nusra, a branche of Al Qaida.
And the syrian army seemed to be winning, so something needed to be done.
That is were the chemical weapons attack comes in to force an intervention because Obama's red line is crossed.
They have to because both outcomes of this war is not to the benefit of the US, Israel, EU and Saudi Arabia.
Assad is not allowed to win this war, and the Al Nusra must not be allowed to get their hands on the WMD's Syria has.

Assad has close ties with Iran, that is why he has to go, and the US greatly underestimated the syrian army with the backing of Russia and Iran who has clearly been capable to withstand and even defeating the western and Saudi funded mercenaries.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by Druid42

Although the UN inspection team can determine if a chemical was used it inside Syria,it cannot determine a 100% who did it, apparently they don't have the tech.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Druid42

Yes it is, but they know that Russia and China will block every attempt to intervene military, the UN must be unanimous in their vote for action.
Russia wants a diplomatic route to solve this problem.
The UN has been unanimous in the decision in the beginning of July that every lebanese fighter that has been fighing alongside Assad must leave Syria immediately.
Also in April they were unanimous in their decision that the violence has to stop, i think the whole world will be unanimous in agreeing with that.
Sofar it has not stopped and little attempts to a diplomatic route has been taken.
Or i have missed that.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:23 AM
The largest oil field is in Iran, but they are sanctioned because of their nuclear programme and thus limited in their oil sales, that is contrary to the agreement on an oil pipe to Europe which was agreed on in 2011.

edit on 4-9-2013 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:27 AM
It's not so much what we're missing as it is what is going to be missed if Mr. Obama should choose to sidestep congress and attack Syria without their approval.

There is a clear and vast majority of Americans that are solidly against this kind of action. This majority crosses all previously successful divisions, which is in itself, very inspiring. America has not spoken so loudly and so much as a single voice in a long, long, long time. The problem is that we have an administration that sees itself as being above both congress and the will of the nation that elected him.

The missing item will soon be realized should there be an attack; the fall of the Democratic Party in the next two elections. This is a tough lesson and one that the GOP learned very painfully by way of the legacy left by Dubya Bush. Moreover, the outcome may not benefit the Republicans but could give rise to a grassroots move towards independent candidates and those of third parties.

It's been quite a while since something like that has rolled into view... with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party being one example. These so-called 'progressives' were not anything like what that term means today but they did cross a lot of lines in both directions that, at the time, had never been crossed before.

Who knows what Obama's arrogance and foolishness might someday produce?

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by redoubt

Ten Senators have authorized a military strike against Syria, 7 voted against it.

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:50 AM

top topics


log in