Russia has begun its military intervention in Syria - Plan attacks against Rebels and ISIS

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Of course I understand every bit of what you said as it is common knowledge.

The current situation sucks & if the current actors can't fix it, it's time for a new direction.

Yes it's time for a new direction. Isis has to die, it's the only way to stop these (I can't think of a word bad enough to describe them anymore). Maybe Mohammad's minions straight from hell might be befitting.

Why don't you go over there and talk to them? That's very sweet.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
So Putin found his Afghanistan.
He is going to prop up a dictator, expend his own combat troops and equipment.
Where was his Security Council Resolution procedure?

When the US looks sideways at some country everyone throws a tantrum if the US doesn't follow the rules. Putin gets a free pass as usual.

That's rich. The world did NOTHING while America raped the oil bearing countries. Hindsight should be 50/50..... not completely blind.

Nope.
The US had UN resolution upon UN resolution starting before the first gulf war all the way through the occupation of Iraq.

When the US had to get rid of their former propped up dictator, it was by the books and Russia got a vote on the Security Council every step of the way.

Now that Russia has to deal with their propped up dictator for behaving badly, they get carte blanche? Pathetic set of circumstances that is anything but the same procedure. All backroom handshakes with our traitor in chief sending Mr Swiftboat himself to bow down to Putin.

Completely false. There was no unsc resolution legitimating a preemptive attack on Iraq.
Moreover, never has one existed EVER via the security council. For anyone.

The UN Charter explicitly outlaws preemptive attacks AND unilateral aggression by any one country. The US acted as an aggressor, illegally invading and regime changing Iraq. Much of the UN Charter is explicitly aimed at stopping actions exactly like the War in Iraq.

Anybody actually educated on UN law and protocol knows this.... I studied with SC officials. I studied all of relevant UN issues to this.

But please, by all means put your head in the sand and continue to play apologist for war crimes and evil.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Maybe depends on how somebody looks at it.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
So Putin found his Afghanistan.
He is going to prop up a dictator, expend his own combat troops and equipment.
Where was his Security Council Resolution procedure?

When the US looks sideways at some country everyone throws a tantrum if the US doesn't follow the rules. Putin gets a free pass as usual.

That's rich. The world did NOTHING while America raped the oil bearing countries. Hindsight should be 50/50..... not completely blind.

Nope.
The US had UN resolution upon UN resolution starting before the first gulf war all the way through the occupation of Iraq.

When the US had to get rid of their former propped up dictator, it was by the books and Russia got a vote on the Security Council every step of the way.

Now that Russia has to deal with their propped up dictator for behaving badly, they get carte blanche? Pathetic set of circumstances that is anything but the same procedure. All backroom handshakes with our traitor in chief sending Mr Swiftboat himself to bow down to Putin.

Completely false. There was no unsc resolution legitimating a preemptive attack on Iraq.
Moreover, never has one existed EVER via the security council. For anyone.

The UN Charter explicitly outlaws preemptive attacks AND unilateral aggression by any one country. The US acted as an aggressor, illegally invading and regime changing Iraq. Much of the UN Charter is explicitly aimed at stopping actions exactly like the War in Iraq.

Anybody actually educated on UN law and protocol knows this.... I studied with SC officials. I studied all of relevant UN issues to this.

But please, by all means put your head in the sand and continue to play apologist for war crimes and evil.

The US used United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 in 2002 which stated Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire and gave Iraq ""a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". When Iraq failed to comply the US used the fact the UN had declared Iraq in violation of the ceasefire and that this resolution stated it was a final opportunity. Others wanted another resolution. However the vague statement of what would happen if the final opportunity meant everybody interpreted their own way. The legality of it all has been much debated however the real problem was in the wording of the resolution.

Also the UN does in fact allow for preemptive attacks. They have a check list of things such as believed imminent threat, proportional response etc. Again the wording in the charted being vague has left interpretation up its members based on each incident. If you have worked with the UN then you know how vague and watered down most of it guidelines are.

I think the staged executions are simply a view into what already happens behind the scenes in these places.

And what a surprise, the story is false. No Russian Jets sent.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Of course I understand every bit of what you said as it is common knowledge.

The current situation sucks & if the current actors can't fix it, it's time for a new direction.

Yes it's time for a new direction. Isis has to die, it's the only way to stop these (I can't think of a word bad enough to describe them anymore). Maybe Mohammad's minions straight from hell might be befitting.

Why don't you go over there and talk to them? That's very sweet.

Why would I go talk to ISIS? I'm literally the demographic they target the most: Muslims who are against militant Wahhabism. And the militant Wahhabis in Libya have been targeting the Libyan "black" ethnic groups since Qaddafi fell, which is one of the reasons for Libya's refugee crisis (which people conveniently ignore).

That's doesn't mean I should want them to die though. There are quite a few Western ideologies that I vigorously oppose, as well. But I don't want them to die either. Strictly adopting a "kill or be killed" mindset is no different than what ISIS does. You can't defeat your enemy by becoming them.

Even the US gave blanket amnesty to the former Confederate soldiers after the US Civil War. Even the few Confederate officers & executives who were indicted for treason were pardoned by President Johnson when he left office. Like I said, that's actually a very common procedure.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: TechniXcality

I honestly see nothing wrong with this, Isis needs to be destroyed period end of story.

I don't disagree but Israel has been providing air-strike support for ISIS so this has the potential of expanding into a greater war very quickly.

You should know better than listen to the UN. Israel would never help ISIS. ISIS is their sworn enemy.

Israel would rather have Assad any day given the alternative is some nut Islamic they do not know. They know Assad is weak and would never attack them.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Maybe depends on how somebody looks at it.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

There was no unsc resolution ahead of the attack allowing the U.S. to attack. I want to inform you that just because a country is alleged to violate a UN mandate or other international agreement, does NOT mean another country or coalition gets to play God and attack based on that. There has to be another Chapter VII resolution authorizing force. That was not there. My original points still stand correct. The U.S. has no right to unilateral action under international law, excepting in true self defense and under attack launched by the other country. The law is clear.

originally posted by: MrSpad
And what a surprise, the story is false. No Russian Jets sent.

Oh neat indeed.

How do we confirm all this either way?

Controlled opposition comes to mind.

a reply to: MrSpad

Hey Mr. Moderator: I had already started this same story: here is my ats linkwww.abovetopsecret.com... started a long time ago..same ynews article. Maybe we should be redirecting everyone to my thread instead?


Also, working on confirmation of this story, since I know that RT has presented an article where their source claims the story is untrue. I sent you a u2u.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Of cause they helping ISIS destroy Syria, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Russian military denies this story:

rt.com

No Russian jets were deployed to Syria in order to launch attacks against Islamic State militants (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL) and Syrian rebels, a military source told RT, dismissing reports in Israeli media.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
So Putin found his Afghanistan.
He is going to prop up a dictator, expend his own combat troops and equipment.
Where was his Security Council Resolution procedure?

When the US looks sideways at some country everyone throws a tantrum if the US doesn't follow the rules. Putin gets a free pass as usual.

They don't throw that big of a tantrum, obviously. I mean, how many countries have we toppled in just the last twenty years?

Russian's deserve a country, too. Why should the USA get all the contracts to blow everything up and rebuild them? That just ain't fair, man.

a reply to: MrSpad

Suspected this from the start.. It would have been a major major escalation..
and a true path to war with Russia.

I do want an end to ISIS and the general killing in Syria though.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: TinfoilTP

There is quite a difference between the red line from Obama and his socalled proof for using chemicals in an attack by Assad and fight against the islamic extremists.

We should all be ashamed that we have allowed this massacre on the Syrian population.

If the US had its way, they would help IS just like their ally Turkey has been doing in the past weeks.
Accidentally all the bombs fell on kurds that are fighting against IS on the ground.

Have to agree here, although I'm usually the one flaming anti-US preachers and those blaming every single thing that happens anywhere in the world on "secret US operations", which funnily enough even counts for earthquakes and hurricanes..lol

That said, Turkey has indeed shown its stripes. I would even venture enough to say they were a wolf in sheep's clothing (an actual ally of ISIL). What they are doing "with US help", would certainly point towards this conclusion.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I honestly see nothing wrong with this, Isis needs to be destroyed period end of story.

I agree.
Not many "Just" wars I see ww2 as a just war and the war against these bastards is Just.
We should be doing more.

I can't believe I'm writing this. I've been looking into conspiracy theories/prophecies before, but it was a long time ago and I had forgot all about it until yesterday. But now with Russia entering Syria and the Chinese warship outside Alaska... Does anyone remember the Henry Gruver prophecy? I searched ATS but he hasn't been mentioned in a while. You might want to take a look at this: americaslastdays.blogspot.se...

There's a lot about Russia and China attacking USA in it, but what stands out for me, as a European, at this particular day is:
"When Russia opens her gates and lets the masses go the free world will occupy themselves with transporting, housing and caring for the masses and will begin to let there weapons down and will cry peace and safety and that's when it will happen."

With all the refugees in the Mediterranean everything everyone posts about on Facebook, Twitter, etc, is helping them, which is of course both honourable and necessary. But it is the oldest trick in the book, to distract people to look one way, when something shady is happening. With Russian entering the Syrian conflict they make sure there will be a continuing steady stream of refugees and they are bringing small children now, many who drowns, so people in Europe is rightfully very involved in the situation. And this is when Russia will strike...

Add Nostradamus prophesies and it paints a pretty grim picture: ourlady3.tripod.com... The interpretation/summary: "Soon World War III will take place. Russia, Iran-led Muslims, and China will form Eastern Alliance. Russia and Iran-led Muslims shall attack and occupy Europe". (Iran and Russia has just come closer military wise with a nuclear deal: www.foxnews.com...)

Well, happy Thursday everyone!

a reply to: donhuangenaro

New report from Debka backing up the Russian adventure www.debka.com... Maybe the Russians are going in now spurred on by the Isis taking things to Dagestan.

I do not understand why Syria is so important but it is apparently at the forefront of TPTB's activities.

Interestingly and not surprisingly, there is practically a media black out on what is happening despite the significance and enormousness of the conflict - 220,000 people have so far been killed in the conflict and 4 million people have fled Syria.

While this is going on, people continue to talk about dumb sh#t on ATS..


Syria: The story of the conflict

Related article:
Russia 'is building military base in Syria'