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.

 

Syria, Russia, and Iran to provide alternative for war.

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
From Jan 6, 2013;



BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday outlined his vision for a road map to end nearly 22 months of violence in Syria but also struck a defiant tone, calling on his countrymen to unite against "murderous criminals" whom he said are carrying out a foreign plot seeking to tear the nation apart.

In a one-hour speech to the nation in which he appeared confident and relaxed, Assad ignored international demands for him to step down and said he is ready to hold a dialogue but only with those "who have not betrayed Syria." He offered a national reconciliation conference, elections and a new constitution but demanded regional and Western countries stop funding and arming rebels trying to overthrow him first.

The proposal, however, is unlikely to win acceptance from Syria's opposition forces, including rebels on the ground, who have repeatedly said they will accept nothing less than the president's departure, dismissing any kind of settlement that leaves him in the picture. On top of that, Assad's new initiative is reminiscent of symbolic changes and concessions that his government made earlier in the uprising, which were rejected at the time as too little too late.

Assad outlines new Syria peace plan [ Jan 2013 ]



Has Assad commented on the brand new 'plan' yet ?




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

xuenchen
From Jan 6, 2013;



BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday outlined his vision for a road map to end nearly 22 months of violence in Syria but also struck a defiant tone, calling on his countrymen to unite against "murderous criminals" whom he said are carrying out a foreign plot seeking to tear the nation apart.

In a one-hour speech to the nation in which he appeared confident and relaxed, Assad ignored international demands for him to step down and said he is ready to hold a dialogue but only with those "who have not betrayed Syria." He offered a national reconciliation conference, elections and a new constitution but demanded regional and Western countries stop funding and arming rebels trying to overthrow him first.

The proposal, however, is unlikely to win acceptance from Syria's opposition forces, including rebels on the ground, who have repeatedly said they will accept nothing less than the president's departure, dismissing any kind of settlement that leaves him in the picture. On top of that, Assad's new initiative is reminiscent of symbolic changes and concessions that his government made earlier in the uprising, which were rejected at the time as too little too late.

Assad outlines new Syria peace plan [ Jan 2013 ]



Has Assad commented on the brand new 'plan' yet ?



That was way way back in January, it has no bearing on todays realities, or this thread.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

xuenchen
From Jan 6, 2013;



BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday outlined his vision for a road map to end nearly 22 months of violence in Syria but also struck a defiant tone, calling on his countrymen to unite against "murderous criminals" whom he said are carrying out a foreign plot seeking to tear the nation apart.

In a one-hour speech to the nation in which he appeared confident and relaxed, Assad ignored international demands for him to step down and said he is ready to hold a dialogue but only with those "who have not betrayed Syria." He offered a national reconciliation conference, elections and a new constitution but demanded regional and Western countries stop funding and arming rebels trying to overthrow him first.

The proposal, however, is unlikely to win acceptance from Syria's opposition forces, including rebels on the ground, who have repeatedly said they will accept nothing less than the president's departure, dismissing any kind of settlement that leaves him in the picture. On top of that, Assad's new initiative is reminiscent of symbolic changes and concessions that his government made earlier in the uprising, which were rejected at the time as too little too late.

Assad outlines new Syria peace plan [ Jan 2013 ]



Has Assad commented on the brand new 'plan' yet ?



The link I posted on the previous page says this....



“We, for the sake of protecting our people and children and country and due to our trust in the Russian efforts, will cooperate fully with Russia in this regard so as to take away the excuses of this aggression,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said in a statement.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Has the Syrian government attached any 'if's and's or but's' ?

They always have in the past.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
What I'm hearing now is a talking head telling us this may be a ploy (offering to get rid of weapons) as it could take years to do so (quickest a month). Kerry is saying "get rid of by end of the week" which sounds like an impossible task so tells me they won't even consider the proposal.

Because I now firmly understand this has nothing to do with truly getting rid of the weapons, which would make citizens safer, it makes it even harder to listen to the news (was hard enough before).

People are out there demonstrating because they think a strike will put citizens at greater risk. From listening to people talk on the live feed yesterday it didn't make sense to them. It's my hope to see people turn off the BS and tune into alternative news sources - but need a few of these for tv since some actually still don't have Internet (I know a few who don't).

Anyway - It sounds to me that the US is going in. It appears no proposal will change minds on this.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It doesn't matter if it was the first time he said they have them. We knew because the UK and US sold him the ingredients, he agreed in front of the world to let Russia secure them at the wars start, and he has never once, during these last few months, said no we don't have them. He has simply stated they didn't use them.

Everyone knew he had them, that has never been a question.

Oh, if he agrees to give them up to Russia, I don't doubt he'd be willing. I am saying the mud will be on your face no matter what because even if he gives the chemical weapons up the US is still going to strike because only fools believe this is about chemical weapons and humanitarian aid.

If it was about chemical weapons and humanitarian aid then A.) we would be issuing threats to the rebels and B.) we would have stepped in long before the chemical weapons were used and C.) we wouldn't have chosen a side before chemical weapons were used (which we had).



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It doesn't matter if it was the first time he said they have them. We knew because the UK and US sold him the ingredients, he agreed in front of the world to let Russia secure them at the wars start, and he has never once, during these last few months, said no we don't have them. He has simply stated they didn't use them.

Everyone knew he had them, that has never been a question.

Oh, if he agrees to give them up to Russia, I don't doubt he'd be willing. I am saying the mud will be on your face no matter what because even if he gives the chemical weapons up the US is still going to strike because only fools believe this is about chemical weapons and humanitarian aid.

If it was about chemical weapons and humanitarian aid then A.) we would be issuing threats to the rebels and B.) we would have stepped in long before the chemical weapons were used and C.) we wouldn't have chosen a side before chemical weapons were used (which we had).



We chose a side because it was Assad's regime who shot the defenseless protestors which started this whole ordeal in Syria. When Mubarak shot at the protestors we did not back him, and when Kaddafi shot at the protestors we again consistently sided with the defenseless protestors who were shot at by their governments.
Convenient for you to leave that part out.
His giving up the chemical weapons in exchange for removal of the imminent attack is what we may be witnessing here. The civil war he started will still rage on.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


a thing hotly debated on this site has been the idea that the regime started that chaos.

those from the international community have supported this evidence.

that debate can certainly be rehashed.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Russia is probably going to receive casualties on the ground and get sucked into the war, most likely deliberately
Or Assad will be discovered with a bullet through his head Or some nut job(Al-Qaeda) is going to lob a chem. at Israel. I see two out comes, the latter being the most probable.
edit on 9-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

xuenchen
Has the Syrian government attached any 'if's and's or but's' ?

They always have in the past.



The bottom of this article may begin to answer your question. I'm not familiar with this source but it appears to reiterate much of what's said in the media while also adding that Assad has not agreed to allow chemical weapons to be moved out of the country - but because he is no position to negotiate has little choice.

Now Russia and Syria are allies so I must wonder what will take the place of these weapons. Certainly there will be other means of force to compensate. Assad is being awfully quiet on it all - letting Putin do all the talking. First had a trip to Iran and likely covet meetings with Russia. I am happy this route is being taken but after opening my eyes even more the last couple of weeks I don't trust that anything is altruistic when it comes to government.

app.debka.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

all2human
Russia is probably going to receive casualties on the ground and get sucked into the war, most likely deliberately
Or Assad will be discovered with a bullet through his head Or some nut job(Al-Qaeda) is going to lob a chem. at Israel. I see two out comes, the latter being the most probable.
edit on 9-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)


If Russia is going to try and calm this down they can expect attacks but I have a feeling they have something more planned for Syria. Put their own puppet in there and control it all Or just the resources.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
It is a shame that the Syrian government has decided to cull it's own population. I find the whole scenario to be more than appalling and beyond contempt. I am at a loss of words to describe the crimes being committed in Syria(and around the world).



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWetCoast
 


As long as man roams the earth there will be war, if we are not struggling against the elements or struggling to survive we will struggle against each other , it's just the way it is.

edit on 9-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 

I think the crux of the matter that GogoVicMorrow is trying to get across to you -- and which you seem to be ignoring -- is that this whole confrontation between the US and Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons or giving a ____ about the innocent civilians affected by them. It's to do with a much larger agenda within the Middle East (probably to do with oil/US dollar), in which Syria must be taken under control in order to be used as a stepping stone -- which in most likelihood -- gives way for confrontation with Iran, the last piece to the Middle Eastern puzzle.

Russia's involvement and their proposal for which this thread is about, is more about thwarting this Middle Eastern agenda, or at the least further exposing it for what it is, to the general public.

No matter what happens, it's a win/win for Russia and those against the American Middle Eastern agenda.

If this scenario is something you do not agree with, then just come out and say it, rather than ignoring and sidetracking the issue -- otherwise it gives the impression you're being dishonest and/or trolling.

edit on 9/9/13 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

all2human
reply to post by TheWetCoast
 


As long as man roams the earth there will be war, if we are not struggling against the elements or struggling to survive we will struggle against each other , it's just the way it is.

edit on 9-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

If you could end all the wars would you do so(even if you had to give up EVERYTHING)?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWetCoast
 


There is not a day that goes by without the odd feeling or thought I war born on the wrong planet, and I can tell you that I am not alone on this.
On the other hand I can remember a few people in my life that would completely agree with me

War is the manifestation of the will to power,the most fundamental and primary drive of all living things is a will to rule, to overcome, we can't escape our nature.
edit on 10-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

all2human
reply to post by TheWetCoast
 


There is not a day that goes by without the odd feeling or thought I war born on the wrong planet, and I can tell you that I am not alone on this.
On the other hand I can remember a few people in my life that would completely agree with me

edit on 10-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Our planet/humanity is not what it should be. I have felt alone and out-of-place my whole life. We are not alone(even though it sometimes feels like we are). I can't say that it feels like I'm on the wrong planet(I have most likely been here a VERY long time).



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by all2human
 


This is true. We are programmed to survive and rise above so it's human nature to seek power in our world. It just seems reasonable to expect people to turn off that natural tendency once they have secured resources for themselves and the next 100 generations of their lineage. Why do some not have a built in guage while others do?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Navieko
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 

I think the crux of the matter that GogoVicMorrow is trying to get across to you -- and which you seem to be ignoring -- is that this whole confrontation between the US and Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons or giving a ____ about the innocent civilians affected by them. It's to do with a much larger agenda within the Middle East (probably to do with oil/US dollar), in which Syria must be taken under control in order to be used as a stepping stone -- which in most likelihood -- gives way for confrontation with Iran, the last piece to the Middle Eastern puzzle.

Russia's involvement and their proposal for which this thread is about, is more about thwarting this Middle Eastern agenda, or at the least further exposing it for what it is, to the general public.

No matter what happens, it's a win/win for Russia and those against the American Middle Eastern agenda.

If this scenario is something you do not agree with, then just come out and say it, rather than ignoring and sidetracking the issue -- otherwise it gives the impression you're being dishonest and/or trolling.

edit on 9/9/13 by Navieko because: (no reason given)


This thread is about the proposal to get rid of the chemical weapons in Syria.
The absence of chemical weapons stockpiles on Israel's border would be a huge step towards regional stability.

The US acted to avoid a civil war outcome in Egypt by not acting to support Mubarak, there was no civil war.
Russia acted to prop up Assad artificially so he would not fall, this resulted in civil war.
You can see the two agendas plain as day. One supports Democracy the other Totalitarianism.

Really it is Russia's mess so they should be at the forefront in cleaning it up. If one of the end results is the elimination of chemical weapons from the region then it will be something positive coming out of all the blundering Russia has done in Syria. The next problem is the endless civil war as long as Assad is the leader. Maybe Russia can host him to live in Russia like the ousted Shah of Iran lived in the US.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Obama said it would take 2 more weeks to convince the american public to bomb syria (?)

This "war" is not about the poor people in syria, it's not about chemical weapons.

This "war" is about the US petro-dollar, and the destruction of the USA.

What do we have coming up in the USA? The 17 trillion dollar debt and the "need" to raise our Borrowing of - what? - Chinese money? Who are we borrowing from these days? If the federal reserve, IMF, is to stay "viable" , the petro dollar has to be USD.

The allies of BRICS nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - are not buying oil in USD's anymore.

Now, I personally believe, that obama was put in place to destroy the USA so as to have a NWO - a new world-wide currency and world-wide gov't.

What are TPTB planning for the US if obama and putin are in cahoots? Lindsey graham made reference to a nuke in Charleston, SC. I think that would get the US citizens all revved up for WW3 - do you?

We are all being played, to all of our own demise.




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join