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.
Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
reply to post by HappyWarrior
Hi there.
What jumps out at me in this news is why say "We are going to attack in two weeks!"..?
Havnt the USA got some boats parked off the coast down in that area? m.nypost.com/p/news/international/weapons_warships_move_towards_syria_uBryxh9YzBrHlvWu6ZdwUL
They have agreed to let UN inspect, yet attack is to happen.
m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23833912
What's the thinking?
eee.edit on 25/8/13 by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire because: Trying to fix links............
Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by Tardacus
Because you need scientifically backed evidence to prove anything, except online (with the exception of ATS in most cases.)
Neither Obama nor Cameron can just print out whatever copies they have of their various intelligence gathering resources and just publish it.
Think about it, we have highly powerful spy satellites, a vast communications monitoring system, and as at least one other thread has pointed out there are in all likelihood special forces already in this area. None of that can just be said openly though, especially not with the world watching. So you call in the UN and let them do as they do.
Originally posted by Thorneblood
We can argue about this all you want guys. Reference any war in the Middle East that you like and we will just start the endless circle of "this and that" all over again.
But can we at least agree that Putin could have ended this with a snap of his fingers? He is by far the most influential power in that area and he has just been selling guns to Syria instead of doing anything. Russia could have vastly improved it's appearance to the rest of the world by handling this situation itself, so could China, both have much more diplomatic power there then the US or the UK.
Neither chose to do so, it wasn't in their own best interests, what does that tell you?
Why is doing something for a real moral reason such a bad thing when either of those two powers could have done so as well and just sat on their thumbs while the money rolled in?
reply to post by Thorneblood
Putin could have ended this with a snap of his fingers? He is by far the most influential power in that area and he has just been selling guns to Syria instead of doing anything.
Originally posted by AurelioMaghe
y shouldn't he pay the price?
Do you actually believe what you are saying?
Rebels are:
1-al-quaida infiltrated
2-backed by the US (EU just lifted their weapon embargo too)
3-muslim extremists culpable of several atrocities
Ask yourself, why is the US government backing hostile forces in Syria, Lybia and Egypt?
Can you come up with a reason other than "kill baddies dictators" (formerly US backed too)?
Also you may have got it backwards, the attack took place right as the UN investigators arrived in Syria, as far as I've read.
In this declaration of the Bush Doctrine, the president paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that the state apparatus of Afghanistan had not actually attacked the United States.
The core of the early Bush Doctrine, however, was formulated in the wake of the September, 11th attacks. President Bush famously announced, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
Now what are they telling us is going to happen?? They are going to weaken Assad to let the rebels over-run Damascus and....then what?
Originally posted by Thorneblood
Ultimately though the point seems moot. They are going to do it.