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.


U.S. missile attack will damage not only Assad troops but also opposition forces!

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:47 PM
Another hot news from Arabic Facebook. Here is the summary

U.S. missile attack will damage not only Assad troops but also opposition forces! According to source in the Turkish General Staff, during the second phase of the operation in Syria, U.S. missiles will vanish militant training centres of “Al-Nusra Front” and “Islamic State of Iraq and Shama”. The U.S. will also destroy the control centres of the main radical opposition groups and this way the problem of Islamic extremists in Syria will be solved.
h ttp://

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by farhad

Try listening to this, SPOT on from George Galloway the man who owned the us senate a few years ago.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:54 PM
He couldn't...could he?? He WOULDN'T...would he??

Would Obama REALLY be stupid enough to not just pick the wrong side...but not fully choose EITHER side before actually opening fire?!

What in the name of anything military is he thinking?? The story MUST be inaccurate. I can imagine nothing else. Obama could be that naive...but would his military commanders be that suicidal???

If we hit Assad *AND* hit the opposition? Even just the extreme elements of the FSA??? How does that work out when we have hundreds of them in our camps in Jordan for training?? Are they going to just turn the other cheek and say the ones we killed weren't really their personal friends so they'll let it slide??

If this is valid (and I've seen crazier things actually I don't rule it out, despite the insanity) then our President needs looked at for pure and literal mental stability. Maybe Janet Napolitano isn't the only one in need of psychiatric assistance.

However... Obama's mental problems in playing both sides against each other during a situation WMD has already been used?? Well, they aren't personal. They're the world's problem.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by farhad

Original Facebook Post By that is being sourced:

Here it is

Tried translating it, but I didn't get out what the telegraph was saying. Maybe I need a better translation though.
edit on 8/29/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

The participation of a friend page Said Al-Khalaki would strike the United States with a missile on the lion, but forces on the opposition.

New information has emerged about the details of the meeting, which was held in Istanbul between us diplomats and friends coalition leaders Syria and Syrian national forces of revolution and the opposition. My friends thought of the General staff of the Turkish armed forces necessary to disseminate important information to the fate of the Middle East.

The most important news is the target of u.s. missile strikes, including areas in which opposition groups for Lion front victory and the Islamic State.
And starting the first phase of the u.s. attack by firing Tomahawk targeted to strategic areas of the Syrian regime, radar systems and air defense systems, and vehicles used in the manufacture of chemical weapons and Scud missile silos.
This will focus your attention on the shot and will often cruise missiles launched from us warships to training centres for the victory and the Islamic State of Iraq, the Levant and the leadership of the opposition extremist groups as well as targeted to Shariah courts.

For information on the bubble of targeting Mujahideen brigades and even quiet areas as under the control of the Mujahedeen will attack the profile from the first row. And to persuade the health information disclosed will be firing missiles at military sites in the port of Tartous and the Presidential Palace in Damascus and other sites.

In conclusion it can be said that the Syrian opposition had sold to benefit former supporters of America. Extremists will not regret it! What the United States did not have the care of the interests of its allies. And no wonder that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have the support and promotion of the victory and the Islamic State. Since standard bilateral is what establishes the policy of the United States both towards enemies or alhalavaa.
With sincere gratitude.
Happy Serdar

edit on 8/29/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:19 PM
Welcome to ATS

Doesn't matter because no matter how Wahhabis die , they go to heaven

Haven't you heard about the last Fatwa of incest in Jihad announced by Saudi Mufti ?

So if incest is not going to stop them from going to heaven and meet 72 virgins , what else could stop them from going to heaven ? Being KIA (killed in action) by another friend ?

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by mideast

I understand your perspective and it's a valid one from the Muslim/Arab side of seeing this. I hadn't really thought about that...

I'm thinking of this in terms of Damascus being like Benghazi with a FAR harder edge and much more attitude from the locals against anything that speaks English and not Russian.

Funny thing on this one? Americans really could go visit Syria and not have any problems....until someone opened their pie hole to say Hello instead of Pryvet, like locals would be expecting.

I think the US will have a hard time making an alliance with a death row prisoner in a North Korean labor camp if we actually take a swipe at BOTH sides of the same war we're just entering.

I many ways can you say "Please... SHOOT ME! I'm a threat to the whole world!" before someone takes ya up on it? America would be trying really hard, eh?

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:28 PM
Well, now, talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone....

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by farhad

This sounds like a tactic to drive the fighters to the FSA - which is the CIA controlled terrorists. This makes sense in regard to the idea of stabilizing the state after removing Assad - however it wont work.

It wont work because the groups are fanatics, and even destroying their current leadership wont make them change their ways.

The US is making a huge mistake here - they vastly underestimate the response that might come from Syria and Iran.

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by wrabbit2000

I'm thinking of this in terms of Damascus being like Benghazi with a FAR harder edge and much more attitude from the locals against anything that speaks English and not Russian.

Why do you think that Russians were present there.

IMO , Russia and China are doing best thing in neo-colonialism age and that is the main difference. They are not seeking to one world govt , they seek only their interests , so they try to get it without being on the land. They don't support extremist groups either. They are truly opportunists.

But US wants to arrange the world and politicians and hearts and minds how it wants , no matter what the people want to think m no matter who the people want to follow.

And that is how awake nations stand against US policy. (by awake nations I mean the people who care and monitor the foreign policy of their govt and care for it , not necessarily all average middle eastern oil pumping people . The ones who care for development instead of being a user of technology)

I have been trying hard in the last days to tell people about Wahhabis and their nature. Few cared to look at the picture and you are one of them.

I hope you discover more about them and tell me later.


posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:29 PM
I have already heard through my navy sources that the US is going to "accidentally" target the Iranian and Hezbollah troops helping Assad.

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 01:47 PM
This could be the strategy - incredibly dangerous and foolishly risky. A possible attempt to put leverage on the playing field??

Consider a victory to Assad's regime, with the help from Iran along with Hezbollah troops. This would lock up the power & prestige of Shiite Iran & Hezbollah, and be a threat to the Sunni Arab states & Israel.

But consider a victory to the rebel groups, some having been aligned with Al Qaeda. This would be a dangerous threat as they develop a new government with hostilities toward the U.S. and its allies, turning Syria into a base for global jihad.

It's very difficult to stand by and witness the horror that's taking place. Certainly Syria's civilians are petrified of a victory on either side, as every imaginable atrocity has been committed against them.

A win by either side would not be in the U.S. best interest. America is in a stalemate, and a definitive move in any direction would be dangerous & costly.

Is America really ready to pay the price for a full invasion and try to defeat Assad and the extremist rebels? If the U.S. can resist intervening and instead allow them to continue fighting the war among themselves, it prevents them from attacking America or its allies. It's a stalemate, one we should maintain - and may be the only option left.

Here's a very interesting opinion piece written by Edward Luttwak, an American military strategist and consultant, and historian who has published works on military strategy.

In America, If Either Side Wins It Loses ]In Syria, America Loses If Either Side Wins

new topics

top topics


log in