Once Again The Mainstream News Oulets,More Propaganda On Syria, Syria is a Proxy War on Iran And Rus

reply to post by neo96


Apparently it is ok to take sides since Russia,China,Iran is arming Assad and their intelligence agencies, Fsb,Vevak, and China's, and then Pakistan, and it's ISI.

So from what post alone you wouldnt have any problems of America and UN or the New World Order then? since you responded that way, it seems that.

So its ok for Britain and America and its puppet allies in Eurpoe to be siding with the Saudi Arabian royal family which has ruled KSA for more then 200 years.
And its fine for Britain and America and its puppet allies in Eurpoe to be siding with the Qatari royal family which they also have been ruling the land for much longer then Assad?


Or the fact that Saudi Araba has funded bin laden and its own terrorists network cells?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Or the fact that Saudi Araba has funded bin laden and its own terrorists network cells?

9/11 was an inside job!





Yes?







No?






Sometimes?







Maybe, only when it's convenient eh?

reply to post by SLAYER69


So now your deflecting my argument by changing the topic.

reply to post by Biliverdin


The 3 years since 2008 constitutes "decades" now? is that some of that fuzzy math I keep hearing about?

I can' speak for Britain, but if the US has been "courting Syria", they're doing it wrong... Since you seem more knowledgeable about the British in Syria, would you mind specifying where the advisors were based at? I know for fact that the only US "advisors" in country were under wraps and doing recon of things like missile emplacements, mobile launch platforms, and military bases.

That's just the US, though. I don't know about the Brits or other Europeans - they may very well have been working against us for all I know... sort of like our own government is working against us now, in the past couple of years in Syria.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

So from what post alone you wouldnt have any problems of America and UN or the New World Order then? since you responded that way, it seems that.

So from what I post?

So what other posts?

People make up their minds about this, that, and the other about world events based off what someone says here on ATS?

That is some really critical thinking.,

So its ok for Britain and America and its puppet allies in Eurpoe to be siding with the Saudi Arabian royal family which has ruled KSA for more then 200 years.

I honestly do not give a ratt's behind about the Middle East leave that up to all the necons who say stuff like this:

Or the fact that Saudi Araba has funded bin laden and its own terrorists network cells?

Excuse me while i go email my shell corporation in the Caymans and have a shipment of some Hornady zombie bullets shipped to the rebels.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

So now your deflecting my argument by changing the topic.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Or the fact that Saudi Araba has funded bin laden and its own terrorists network cells?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Another great thread Agent_USA_Supporter!

Will these sheep ever learn?

How many times does this have to happen until people finally figure out what is going on?

Syria is a Proxy War on Iran And Russia...

AND THAT'S A FACT.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So now your deflecting my argument by changing the topic.

\

That's what they do when they run out of ammo.

AND THAT'S A FACT.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by nenothtu
That's why Syria is armed up with T-72's, BRDM's, BMP's, RPG's, and AK's - not your standard "western" armament

And since when did it matter where the armaments came from, surely it only matters who is footing the bill? Wasn't it you who told me that you had a friend who could get anything? And if one is careful and wise enough to the game, would they really be supplying arms direct from a manufacturer in their own country?

yes and no. I don't think I called him a "friend" - he's more of an acquaintance. It makes sense if one is supplying clandestine arms to supply either sanitized ones or plausibly deniable ones from foreign powers, but that applies only to small arms - not tanks, APC's, and AFV's. Those are generally too big to hide when sneaking them across the border. I refer you to the Soviet and Cuban supply of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua with Mi-24 helicopters, tanks, and AFV's. We knew that they were doing it, we knew that they were coming in through Bluefields and Corinto aboard Russian ships, and had not a boot on the ground there at the time to spy them out.

The Soviets probably also knew it was us supplying the Mujahideen with Chinese Type-56 rifles and Egyptian Maadis, but they couldn't prove it at the time. Those items never showed up on satellite, nor were the delivery vessels coming in to Pakistan with them identifiable as US vessels.

Now apply that to Syria. WHO is docking and unloading tanks, helicopters, and other big stuff, and who has BEEN doing that for 50 years or so? Do you suppose the US has perhaps stolen a couple of Russian ships, and they just haven't noticed they're missing?

In the Iran-Contra deal, a lot of those armaments came out of France for the very reason that Casey didn't want them to be traceable to the US in the event that the shipments were intercepted on their very circuitous route.

I didn't see any French weapons there, but I saw a ton of Romanian AK's. I saw NO big items, like tanks, choppers, and AFV's being used by the Contras. the Sandinistas had some big armored goodies, though - courtesy Russia and Cuba.

BTW, Casey was an idiot. There were all sorts of American weapons already floating around there, from years of dumping weapons into the area. Everything from old Springfields to M1 rifles and carbines. During the Contra War, the Sandinista Army was actually carrying US-made weapons - Ruger Mini-14's and AC-556's. There were also a lot of M-16's around. Serial numbers on some of those that were captured were traced back to loads we left in Vietnam during our precipitous departure.

So in Syria we have Russian advisors, Russian weapons to include the big stuff, and we are to believe that "the west" actually are the ones who sneaked them in and handed them over to Assad?

Did we smuggle in the Russian Advisors, too?

maybe that's where we got the Russian ships to haul the freight?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

The 3 years since 2008 constitutes "decades" now? is that some of that fuzzy math I keep hearing about?

That was why I added the bit about France and Germany, they have always been the main 'Western' partners to Syria, but Britain, in conjunction with the US had been getting cosier in recent times. Or attempting to, primarily as a means of garnering support against Iran. 'On the ground' as you put it, is a different ball game altogether. What happens in the Foreign Office and what happens in the MOD are not necessarily driven by the same principles, or in the case of the former, any principles at all. I would envisage, that a similar situation would be at play in the US.

While meetings took place between Britain and Syria, and Ministers exchanged visits, the British were also providing support to the Syrian Brotherhood in attempts to overthrow Assad. And, Foreign Office officials are on records at the time encouraging increased relations with the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of countering more 'radical' groups. Hence the simplicity of the situation from my perspective. All bases were covered, all with the objective of ensuring that whoever did gain (or on the off-chance maintain) power, they were indebted to the UK for their support. It doesn't matter who gets power, so much as who doesn't. And the who that doesn't, is any truly nationalist democratic movement. That is the threat to be avoided. That and anyone who would be willing to form a strategic alliance with Iran. The UK, and I suspect the US, will back anyone, in order to avoid that eventuality, no matter what the long term consequences on the international scale.

reply to post by nenothtu


Certainly the Russians like to play the game, and are to a certain extent involved economically in trade, but geopolitically, the Russian's role is all about containment, and given it's self-sufficiency, it can meddle where it wants to, but it still has far too many problems of it's own to get involved in the globalist game. Later along the line maybe, but in an advisory capacity, they are far more at home merely observing and stirring the pot when it amuses them to do so. So while they most definately will sell, they are not that much in the business of buying and hence have little interest in price fixing. Unlike the UK.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


I’m not even sure what the point of the OP is.

You act as though this ‘proxy war’ proclamation is some type of great revelation or something.

It works both ways, friend. Everyone has seen the ‘bromance’ between Assad and Ahmadinejad



And the cozy ties to between Assad and Putin



These 3 have been conspiring against the US and its allies for years…big revelation that the US is returning the favor!

Originally posted by FactFactor

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So now your deflecting my argument by changing the topic.

That's what they do when they run out of ammo.

AND THAT'S A FACT.

Are you Agent's brother from another mother or the same one? I only ask because all you do is high five him in every thread. Sorry, but that's an observable FACT. If not where do I get my very own mini me? Is it in the dropdown menu of ATS ?

reply to post by TinfoilTP

Agent is all one sided, and it is has always been the losing side when it comes to falling regimes. He thinks his unique 6 year old experience refugeeing from Bosnia entitles him to hate on the US as he is snuggled up safely in the bosom of Canada. I find no other way to sum it up, I put it as lightly as possible.

Second that.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Just checked...and you were right, Casey wanted to send French armaments, but Iran turned them down...

In the event, according to Loftus and Aarons, Casey got cold feet. He was worried that the TOW missiles could be traced and proposed sending the Iranians French STRIM missiles instead. But the Iranians refused to accept the French missiles; they wanted US ones. So Aspin set up another deal that did go through.

Claims of British involvement are not limited to Aspin nor to his briefings with Gow. Loftus and Aarons allege that a senior diplomat in the British Embassy in Washington at the time, Andrew Green, regularly met North. Green confirmed to the Independent yesterday that he had met North, but not to discuss Iran-Contra.

The US would have had good reason to involve Britain: London had excellent contacts with Middle Eastern drugs and arms dealers, who were well positioned to facilitate the Irangate trade. In particular, the British had recruited as an agent a notorious Syrian drug dealer, Monzer Al-Kassar, whom Aspin knew from the Seventies when they had been involved in gun-running.

www.independent.co.uk...

Apologies for my error

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by FactFactor

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So now your deflecting my argument by changing the topic.

That's what they do when they run out of ammo.

AND THAT'S A FACT.

Are you Agent's brother from another mother or the same one? I only ask because all you do is high five him in every thread. Sorry, but that's an observable FACT. If not where do I get my very own mini me? Is it in the dropdown menu of ATS ?

edit on 18-7-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

what a disproportionate imbalance, all ganging up on Agent_USA_Supporter.

The star count is crazy, 100% inflated.

Agent_USA_Supporter is one of the few left here who is independent...

reply to post by amcpwoy

Agent_USA_Supporter is one of the few left here who is independent...

Independent as in ‘free from integrity’?

People are quick to point fingers at the US but I’ve never seen some of you make a thread about the anti-US propaganda that goes on day after day….including here on ATS.

Selective outrage!

reply to post by Biliverdin


I like you, Biliverdin, I really do. Your asessment of British foreign policy made me grin. I've no reason to doubt it at all.

Yes, there's no doubt France has been dabbling in the area for decades - more so in Lebanon, I believe, but Syria as well, and of course Libya.I don't think they've done much in the way of military support in Syria, but who knows? I mean, they're French! Once upon a time they had a lot going on militarily, but that was long, long ago. God help Assad if he took any military advice from them to heart. France seems to be fairly good at stirring crap up, then getting other folks to do the actual fighting and dying.

While meetings took place between Britain and Syria, and Ministers exchanged visits, the British were also providing support to the Syrian Brotherhood in attempts to overthrow Assad. And, Foreign Office officials are on records at the time encouraging increased relations with the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of countering more 'radical' groups. Hence the simplicity of the situation from my perspective. All bases were covered, all with the objective of ensuring that whoever did gain (or on the off-chance maintain) power, they were indebted to the UK for their support. It doesn't matter who gets power, so much as who doesn't. And the who that doesn't, is any truly nationalist democratic movement. That is the threat to be avoided. That and anyone who would be willing to form a strategic alliance with Iran. The UK, and I suspect the US, will back anyone, in order to avoid that eventuality, no matter what the long term consequences on the international scale.

That will be their downfall - not far sighted enough. The Muslim Brotherhood is more radical than most folks think, but everyone will come to realize that in a few years time. They are FAR more dangerous as a unified front with a Caliphate goal than is any nationalistic movement in Syria, democratic or not. The US and UK better start considering those long term consequences, or the long term consequences they ignore will be the ones that get them.

No nationalist government in Syria can present any sort of credible threat, even in alliance with Iran. They've been holding hands with Iran to destabilize Lebanon for years, with less than stellar results. Some results to be sure, but less than stellar ones. When you've got the Muslim brotherhood in 5 or 6 power bases to spread out from, and merge them together by connecting the intervening territory, then they're going to find out what "destabilized" means from a western perspective.

That may eventually be the one thing that can force an alliance of necessity between the US, UK, and Iran, believe it or not. A unified Sunni Islamic state under the Muslim Brotherhood stretching from Algeria to the eastern border of Iraq, hell bent on regaining all of their old territory from Spain to Indonesia, is going to scare the crap out of everyone and make for some strange bedfellows.

And here we are, pushing for just that outcome!

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Third that here. Agent is all one sided, and it is has always been the losing side when it comes to falling regimes. He thinks his unique 6 year old experience refugeeing from Bosnia entitles him to hate on the US as he is snuggled up safely in the bosom of Canada. I find no other way to sum it up, I put it as lightly as possible.

Thank you very much for insulting me and attacking me for what i have been through a war zone its bad enough that i have been insulted by a Sryian Rebel supporter issuing me death threat on my life just for debating on about Sryia on twitter.

No TinfoilTP i am not one sided but the way you have been replying towards me by insulting breaking ATS TOS and if thats not all your getting likes for the insults, by pretty much obvious persons. You wanted the stars? well i hope those stars that you have there made you feel good for insulting me.