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.


As Clinton vows $45 million to rebels, violence in Syria hits new levels

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:45 AM
One of the greatest tragedies is playing out in Syria, here's a report from Russia Today as violence reaches new levels and the 'rebels' continue to spread chaos throughout the nation-

As the violence gets worse, Clinton vows $45 million to fund the 'rebels'-

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the “opposition” in Syria, reported the Associated Press. The Western press chose their words carefully, ensuring that the term “civilian opposition” was repeatedly used to describe the armed terrorist forces attempting to violently overthrow the Syrian government.

Our tax money is funding these rebels to put the country of Syria into chaos. This is old news to many as it has been going on for months, but the violence is getting worse, the nation is turning into an outright warzone and our leaders are pledging our hard earned tax into funding the chaos.

We are literally funding the deaths of thousands of people in order to get rid of Assad. It doesn't matter to our leaders if Al Qaeda make up parts of the FSA and are openly targeting civilians, the money and weapons keep flowing in until they get what they want, seemingly at any cost to the Syrian people

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:12 AM
They’re Al Qaeda. Didn’t the US create them in the early 1980’s as a front for CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, amongst other uses? It only seems reasonable to continue to fund something that you created to serve a purpose, and they’re serving that purpose fairly well for the moment. Only now they probably feel that Americans and the West at large is docile and stupid enough not to notice/care, so there's no need to be covert about it. I think it’s horrid for a national to actively fund a “rebel” coup of an instilled government, regardless of where the conflict is and whose meddling. Frankly, it is absolutely none of their business. I still don’t see what gives the US the right to think that they can dip their fingers in every pie going around? It’s not their job. What was the UN supposedly created for? They should look at their own backyard before throwing mud at others.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by Wonderer2012

When Russia and China vetoed the "Humanitarian" violation of Syria's borders in the UN (twice) they threw a big monkey wrench into the works of the US who wanted to get the same thing done in Syria as they did in Libya BEFORE the elections. Now the result is a slow, grinding, bloody, proxy conflict with the US and certain Nato countries backing (rebel) actions. After the US election you can expect this situation to change post quick.

Until then the intent is to bleed the countries fighting resources, weakening it for invasion after whomever is elected to the White House. Want to give odds on how many weeks its going to take before the announcement that Nato has begun airstrikes on Syria? And or Turkey has rolled across the border (quietly) supported by US carrier borne aircraft?

Another "regime change" and destruction of a Mid East country is about to begin. Waiting on you America.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:29 AM
So basically the US and its buddies are already starting WW3 and about to attack Iran but they are trying to make the public believe we are just waiting in limbo. I guess after the Nov elections we can expect things to really heat up quickly.

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Socrato

Assad could clear out before then, but I doubt it He's Pres. of his country. Why should he leave? He could be assassinated too, but that is even more unlikely. It would get him out of office but then negate the need for invasion. Hey, regime change, right?

Rewind the Libya tape. Not before we get the green light to go in. And just after we're done destroying their infrastructure and sending them back to the stone age. Assad can then be chased out of his palace by Nato jets and killed on some desert hiway. That way you see, they can never even remotely bother Neanderhoo ever again. He can stop drawing cartoons in his secret underground nuke laboratory. And all the big oil companies will wring their hands with glee and toast one more oily feather in their caps.

And the whole world will sleep a little better at night knowing that it is a little safer because of "democracy".

Oh wait... Iran. I see another evil dictator with WMD on the horizon.

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:22 PM
Hillary Clinton is the prime fund raiser for terrorists, and pedophile 50 year olds looking to marry and have sex with 9 year olds. Why has this woman not been arrested for funding terrorism?

So Rushdie who did the "innocense of muslims" film can get arrested for practicing free speech even though it was douchebaggery, but this woman can give millions of hard working tax payer dollars to terrorists who blow up little kids and drop mortars on people shopping in the markets for even meal ingredients, and she gets 2 thumbs up from the U.S. government? Congress should be crawling up her ass and out her mouth with every kind of inquiry they can think of, and some new ones they just invented for the hell of it.

top topics

log in