Russia says it will go ahead with deliveries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and that the arms will help deter foreign intervention
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22688894
Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said the Russian missile systems had not yet left Russia.
"I hope they will not leave, and if, God forbid, they reach Syria, we will know what to do," he said.
What a mess.
|
|
Yeah, the last thing this needs is the israelis getting involved.
|
|
Just hope it doesn't turn into another proxy war between the superpowers with us hanging on in the background trying to look good.
|
Yes our foreign secretary looking pleased with himself because we together with the rest of the EU have apparently decided to arm the opposition/rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters/good guys/bad guys.
Lots of lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan then, since when has Syria's internal politics been any of our business.
Keep our home security services busy, another militant faction to keep an eye on or employ.
|
So much for EU unity then, I was beginning to think they were going to put the kybosch on warmonger William Jefferson Hague and his Frog counterparts plans to supply killing machines to the insurgents in Syria.
The S-300 card played by the Ruskies may make them have a rethink on that idea though.
|
|
Innocents will continue to die, is there any oil in Syria? Iraq was a great success, same crap different day.
|
It is not our business: should never be our business.
Let them sort it out themselves, as it is pretty apparent that there is absolutely nothing between the sides for brutality and general nastiness.
|
|
We never seem to learn that joining forces with insurgents or freedom fighters leaves us fighting alongside some very dubious "friends". And the more effective they are as fighters, the less do we wish we had supported them once they get power and eliminate their rivals.
|
Some years ago the then government of the UK - it matters not of which colour - made much of its adherence to an "ethical foreign policy". That did not stop their support for, and involvement in, foreign wars of dubious ethical status. Frankly, some of those wars (probably most of them) have been downright amoral.
I presume the notion of "ethical foreign policy" has now been quietly replaced by "upholding/restoring/establising democracy" - which, in its western form, is largely irrelevant, for cultural and religious reasons, to much of the world. In other words, we are back to good old "realpolitik" and all the unprincipled, shifting (and shifty) alliances with self-interested groups in the hope that, in the short term, the UK can get something material out of it - possibly re-generation contracts when enough destruction has been done and some kind of peace returns.
In the longer term, I imagine the UK wants to lean towards the US/Israel axis and against the Iran/Hezbollah one.
I have no doubt Assad is a truly awful piece of work, but his enemies come from the same mould and any régime change would be swings and roundabouts.
|
There are many phone-filmed videos of real nastiness available on the likes of Live Leak.
It is never clear on whose side the perpetrators are, but it just illustrates that in this civil war there is not a cigarette paper twixt the two evil factions.
A cynic might say that while they are fighting each other they are not fighting us.#silverlining
|
I have a Syrian Customer. A very professional Gentleman. There isn't any oil apparently unlike Libya and the recent conflicts elsewhere.
Only a Dictatorship would work there he says. I know no more.
|
Syria's importance is geopolitical - where it is, who it overlooks or has borders with - and historical/racial through its importance, along with Iraq's, in forming Arab history and identity.
Talking to Iraqi friend last night in London and going on about the tomb of Zeinab. He said by the way, probably built largely by Iraqis. I said yeah, but I bet those tiles came from Iran or were made by Iranian ceramicists. He agreed.
His wife then said: how can you go on about the tomb of Zeinab when real human beings are being killed in hundreds and thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I didn't have a good quick answer to that. But on reflection, one could say that just because there's one crime it doesn't mean the other crime isn't a crime. Two crimes, worse than one.
On further reflection, there's another thing too: in wars people kill their enemies, they always have and we are sort of used to it. But in ancient, primitive days people had a sort of superstitious respect for the ancient and beautiful. It takes modernists, rationalists to be philistine about the giant Buddha statues or the tomb of Zeinab. Low-grade characters who want to stick two fingers up to the whole of humanity, and thus show that they are its enemies. That at least is honest of the carphounds, in a twisted way that makes you want to kill them.
|
|
In olden times it provided the Soviets with a Navy base in the Med - their democratic successors have invested much in maintaing it. The Iranians are of course involved on the same side - in the next month Obama has to make a decision on what to do about their nuclear programme, before the Israelis decide what happens....talking of them didn't I read whilst I was in the States that the Israelis had already bombed some strategic sites in Syria...?
|
Iran has a right to nuclear research and technologies, like anyone else who can afford them and is being treated respectfully as a proper nation, UN member etc. Ahmedinejad may look as if he's jumping up and down sometimes but those mullahs are canny old birds.
As for the Israelis, they are the permanent fly in the Middle East ointment. One is forced to believe that that is their purpose. They are a permanent threat to world peace and the essential root cause of Islamist ideology. Without Israel/Palestine there would be none of this nonsense.
No doubt the powers that be could quickly dream up something else of course.
|
>> As for the Israelis, they are the permanent fly in the Middle East ointment. One
>> is forced to believe that that is their purpose. They are a permanent threat to
>> world peace and the essential root cause of Islamist ideology. Without Israel/Palestine there would be none of this nonsense.
AC ventures a mild reference to Israel - not 100% complimentary; therefore he's a racist!
(I'm sure you are not – rest easy!)
This is the new political correctness, using buzzwords as pejorative adjectives and being ascribed to anyone whose views are anathema to the PC brigade.
Actually, I think that the Arabs have a legitimate beef over the forced establishment of a fully funded alien state in land previously - or reasonably recently - theirs.
The influx of settlers from all over Europe, many having no actual links to the land itself, but only having a religion (more or less) in common, has been profoundly difficult for the Arabs to accept.
If one accepts that religion defines nationality - a comparison now being duplicated by racially profiling radical Islamists as being of a race ,not a religion - one can see that the influx has been seen as a racial invasion of the Arab's homeland.
That idea of religion defining nationality - in all its silliness - is being duplicated in this country with criticism of a religion - in this case Islam - being re-defined as racism.
"Racism" is the preferred epithet of denigration being applied to almost any criticism of this dangerous militant threat to our country.
|
>> That idea of religion defining nationality - in all its silliness - is being duplicated in this country with criticism of a religion - in this case Islam - being re-defined as racism.
Rastaman: you appear to be conflating the religion of Islam with the political ideology of Islamism. That would be similar to conflating Jewishness with Israeli government foreign and security policy. In each case the connection is really quite a tenuous one.
It's impossible to think usefully about the Middle East without being clear on these important distinctions.
|
>> Rastaman: you appear to be conflating the religion of Islam with the political ideology of
>> Islamism.
So what do you think of this take on it?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz267A6jhbw
|
To 'Pat Condell', whoever he may be, there appears to be no distinction made between the religion and the ism. You can tell more or less at a glance - within 20 seconds - that the guy is a mischief-maker of an unpleasant, if commonplace, type.
That's what I think of it Roger.
|
>> To 'Pat Condell', whoever he may be, there appears to be no distinction made between
>> the religion and the ism. You can tell more or less at a glance -
>> within 20 seconds - that the guy is a mischief-maker of an unpleasant, if commonplace,
>> type.
>>
>> That's what I think of it Roger.
>>
Well, you are wrong.
|
I enjoy a good Pat Condell rant, he talks a lot of sense, his latest this week was particularly interesting.
If you haven't listened to him before, Chunky Mark is another YouTube ranter worth a punt..;)
|
>> Well, you are wrong.
I didn't expect you to agree Rastaman. You asked what I thought and I told you.
These people seem to 'talk a lot of sense' but they don't mean well by it. This stern, ignorant lecture to Muslims to get their act together comes at a moment when the real Muslims seem to be doing just that. Redundant then, and delivered in a distastefully arrogant and didactic tone. But if that's what you buy, buy it. I can't save your soul from here.
|
|
Heh heh FMR... goes to town a bit though. One look, three sentences is all it takes.
|
>> >> To 'Pat Condell', whoever he may be, there appears to be no distinction made
>> between
>> >> the religion and the ism. You can tell more or less at a glance
>> -
>> >> within 20 seconds - that the guy is a mischief-maker of an unpleasant, if
>> commonplace,
>> >> type.
>> >>
>> >> That's what I think of it Roger.
>> >>
>>
>> Well, you are wrong.
You know roger, there is little difference between you and an Islamic Fanatic. People like Pat Condell are your radical preaching Imams.
|
>> You know roger, there is little difference between you and an Islamic Fanatic. People like
>> Pat Condell are your radical preaching Imams.
>>
.....and your comments, who so well match the mainstream politicians of today's Britain, i.e. condescending and dismissive of other people's beliefs and worries....is why UKIP are doing so well at the moment.
I think you'll find the Pat Condell viewpoint is more prevalent than you realise.
I don't just mean me either. I've seen some of Pat Condell's videos...and agree with most of what is in them....and so do a considerable amount of people I mix with, either friend's or family or just acquaintances.
I'm very unsure of what he is really about. If he is similar to me, people like me, people I mix with and my family...then fine...if he's the voice of reason of something more sinister, then it's not fine. I don't know.
|
It not condensing. Waste of time condescending an out and out racist like Roger.
Its a pity you cant see the parallels between people like Condell and people like Abul Hamsa. Both use the same tools, and both have the same aims, but from different sides of the argument.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 30 May 13 at 10:19
|
>> Its a pity you cant see the parallels between people like Condell and people like
>> Abul Hamsa. Both use the same tools, and both have the same aims, but from
>> different sides of the argument.
>>
Well in that case, it's high time that my viewpoint and those of similar people of whom there are many....is listened to, not cheapened and ignored.
When you look at what is happening politically...the merest shoots of spring are already happening in that department. I suspect future election campaigns will have to factor it in, big time.
I'm well pleased.
I'm well able to see that Abu Hamsa is a rabble rouser and so is Pat Condell. As far as I can tell though, the former advocates death and mayhem for the unbelievers and is an extremist...whereas the latter does not and merely vocalises his firm views on the subject of religion and intolerance.....there's therefore a big difference. Even if you believe him to be spectacularly intolerant, he isn't advocating death or harm to others.
|
>> the Pat Condell viewpoint is more prevalent than you realise.
It's all too prevalent Westpig. Righteously furious, not without reason, but strangely reluctant to make the effort to understand the issues involved. The arrogant hectoring tone is spectacularly not justified by the crass, confused quality of the analysis.
There really isn't much point in listening to someone who isn't going to tell you anything useful. Heaven knows this crap is going to be with us for some time (although all things pass, usually being replaced by something worse). It's well worth trying to see clearly what's going on. That guy is no help at all, and unpleasant with it.
|
>> There really isn't much point in listening to someone who isn't going to tell you
>> anything useful. Heaven knows this crap is going to be with us for some time
>> (although all things pass, usually being replaced by something worse). It's well worth trying to
>> see clearly what's going on.
This sort of thing will definitely be with us....as long as our politicians treat the rest of us as a 'do as you are told, we know better'...and...
.... the 'Islington Set' as it used to be called, think everything outside of their remit is automatically wrong and we are poor dumb fools to think it ....and
.... when there are things going on that are plain wrong and no one is willing to pipe up and say so for either fear of offending someone or through a distorted sense of political correctness.
As I said before, that is why UKIP are currently on a surge... and long may it continue.
|
>> .... when there are things going on that are plain wrong and no one is willing to pipe up and say so for either fear of offending someone or through a distorted sense of political correctness.
What things are those Wp? My impression is that everyone screams the place down about everything more or less all the time.
Islamists spout rubbish and some commit terrorist outrages. No one likes it. And no one needs obnoxious idiots like Condell or joke populist politicos like Mr Vuvuzela to tell them they don't like it. You counteract rubbish and malevolence with reason and force, not with a different kind of rubbish.
|
>> What things are those Wp? My impression is that everyone screams the place down about
>> everything more or less all the time.
Women in this country being treated as second class citizens as a matter of course...because it is accepted as part of someone's religion, despite there being laws here to prevent that?
The inhumane slaughter of some animals, to comply with religious principles, despite it contravening our laws?
Overt homophobia that is not checked.......
Some criminality....remember Sir Paul Condon's attempt to address publicly the issues of young black men and street crime? He was vilified and accused of racism...despite stating what was obvious.
The silent majority have had to keep quiet for quite some time...and now the tide is beginning to turn.
Yes, the racists can dive in too, but the pendulum had swung too far the other way. We had become a nation of appeasers, everyone too afraid to say what was what.
>>
>> Islamists spout rubbish and some commit terrorist outrages. No one likes it. And no one
>> needs obnoxious idiots like Condell or joke populist politicos like Mr Vuvuzela to tell them
>> they don't like it. You counteract rubbish and malevolence with reason and force, not with
>> a different kind of rubbish.
I'd agree with that...but..to date only Mr Vuvuzela has been willing to stand up and say anything .....so as he's the only one, he's got the support. Maybe it's time for the rest to get a spine.
>>
>>
|
Points taken Wp. But you must be forgetting the many oppressed or even abused wives of native British husbands whose neighbours are aware, but 'minding their own business'; animal cruelty, teenage crime etc. were also present before there were many 'recent immigrants' in this country, and as you well know in certain areas generally winked at. Homophobia is widespread and often overt to this day, I mean among people otherwise much like you and me.
It's true that I've met people who overdo the anti-racism and are annoyingly PC. But you have to remember the recent history: not that long ago overt racism was quite widespread and shared by the police who are after all citizens like the rest of us. There was friction, there were riots, it was a mess with everyone lying and pointing the finger. It has all gradually calmed down since the Stephen Lawrence business during which it was admitted that some police were racist. That seemed to do the trick but many echoes of this situation still survive.
To give the devil his due I don't think Mr Vuvuzela wants to stir up racial or religious hatred. But he's exploiting the existence of these things which is almost as bad. Condell is very clearly malevolent.
|
>> Points taken Wp. But you must be forgetting the many oppressed or even abused wives
>> of native British husbands whose neighbours are aware, but 'minding their own business'; animal cruelty,
>> teenage crime etc. were also present before there were many 'recent immigrants' in this country,
>> and as you well know in certain areas generally winked at. Homophobia is widespread and
>> often overt to this day, I mean among people otherwise much like you and me.
Quite agree, cannot fault anything you say. The bit that irritates me though, is one version is decried by most and can be easily discussed at any time. The other has to be contained and is repressed, in case you are labelled something 'ist'.
All i'm saying is both are wrong and all of us should feel free to say so.
>>
>>
>> It's true that I've met people who overdo the anti-racism and are annoyingly PC. But
>> you have to remember the recent history: not that long ago overt racism was quite
>> widespread and shared by the police who are after all citizens like the rest of
>> us. There was friction, there were riots, it was a mess with everyone lying and
>> pointing the finger. It has all gradually calmed down since the Stephen Lawrence business during
>> which it was admitted that some police were racist. That seemed to do the trick
>> but many echoes of this situation still survive.
A great chunk of that was dreadfully overly simplified. Why were some cops racist? If you accept some people will be anyway, because of ignorance or being bigoted...what about the others? If some people are awful in the way they are with you...you'll think them awful..and that goes both ways, although if you are a paid public servant you are expected to be professional with it. Trouble is human nature and all that...
>> To give the devil his due I don't think Mr Vuvuzela wants to stir up
>> racial or religious hatred. But he's exploiting the existence of these things which is almost
>> as bad. Condell is very clearly malevolent.
I think they both highlight discrepancies. Let's face it, it is human nature that if you can get away with something, you will. If it's a subject matter that many are not allowed to or they don't feel comfortable, talking about, then it causes resentment. If a politician or You Tube ranter mention it, the resenters relate to it. Simples.
>>
|
>> Why were some cops racist? If you accept some people will be anyway, because of ignorance or being bigoted...what about the others?
I would think that if a given 'canteen' was dominated by a few long-established racist characters, new young coppers would probably keep shtum at least, and perhaps be influenced. There's no shortage of provocation on the other side after all, cheeky young hooligans many of whom are black.
But something worth understanding about racism is that it has a pathology, a psychology, and an associated politics. It isn't something people just have because they are ignorant or badly brought up. It's something they do to another group, an assertion of power if you like: we are the majority (or the moral or economic majority) here, so don't you aliens forget it.
This racist politics and psychology are nakedly obvious in say parts of the American deep south to this day, and doubtless elsewhere in all sorts of places. But I think it's present in the psychology of any real racist (as opposed to an ignorant kid who's just being rude to his black schoolmates). Real racists are much given to denying the fact.
|
>> I would think that if a given 'canteen' was dominated by a few long-established racist
>> characters, new young coppers would probably keep shtum at least, and perhaps be influenced. There's
>> no shortage of provocation on the other side after all, cheeky young hooligans many of
>> whom are black.
You are absolutely right AC...and I know, because I joined the Met in 1980 as a cadet and due to a lengthy stay in the nursing home (due to a cartilage op) at the same time as PCs injured in the Brixton riots...and joining as a PC in late 1981... I saw and heard all that.
But...the Old Bill encourages single mindedness....it is different from the forces, in that it expects its junior ranks to make their own decisions...and they do. When you get to a management grade it can be exceptionally frustrating...because they think for themselves all the time (or they used to).
So canteen cowboys were there....and the influence could be measured....but only to a degree. And as time went on it became less and less....until you got to the politically correct days...when it went hopelessly the other way...and so it remains.
So what i'm saying is, you cannot label that outfit as institutionally racist as it is currently defined....not by a long shop...if anything, Zero's pendulum has gone far the other way...not because of the thoughts of the individuals..but because of the institutional political correctness and inertia through the fear of offending anyone.
>>
>>
>> This racist politics and psychology are nakedly obvious in say parts of the American deep
>> south to this day, and doubtless elsewhere in all sorts of places. But I think
>> it's present in the psychology of any real racist (as opposed to an ignorant kid
>> who's just being rude to his black schoolmates). Real racists are much given to denying
>> the fact.
You are right, again...and that is why you give me the time of day...because you can see beyond the hype. Trouble is many cannot or will not or don't want to.
>>
|
>>
>> >> What things are those Wp? My impression is that everyone screams the place down
>> about
>> >> everything more or less all the time.
>>
>> Women in this country being treated as second class citizens as a matter of course...because
>> it is accepted as part of someone's religion, despite there being laws here to prevent
>> that?
Most of them accept that as part of their religion. Sure there are cases where that is not the case, and yes certain parties make hay about that, despite it not being the norm thjey would suggest.
>> The inhumane slaughter of some animals, to comply with religious principles, despite it contravening our
>> laws?
Our laws are fully complied with, animals killed for halal AND dont forget Kosher, are stunned before drained. If you have seen the way non halal and kosher are killed here and the states in certain abattoirs you woulfd not eat meat again.
>> Overt homophobia that is not checked.......
Like the White Swivelled eyed native brits in the Tory party you mean?
>> Some criminality....remember Sir Paul Condon's attempt to address publicly the issues of young black men
>> and street crime? He was vilified and accused of racism...despite stating what was obvious.
>>
Young black commit crime they are equipped to do, didnt see Condon moaning about white crime, like fraud. Much more prevalent, but not nearly as newsworthy.
>> The silent majority have had to keep quiet for quite some time...and now the tide
>> is beginning to turn.
Because they are being fed crap and misinformed by certain parties, just like the muslim parties are being fed crap and misinformed. Same as the common market crap as well.
Like all pendulums the swing is never in the middle.
|
>> Because they are being fed crap and misinformed by certain parties, just like the muslim
>> parties are being fed crap and misinformed. Same as the common market crap as well.
>>
Yes, and one of the most guilty of those "certain parties" is the British Government itself, even to the extent of justifying military action (Suez in 1956 and Iraq in 2003 being prominent examples).
"Common market" is a blast from the past! The EU hasn't gone by that name for a while. However, yes, you are correct that this was another matter on which the British people have been fed with lots of crap but from BOTH SIDES (for example, the Murdoch press on the ANTI side, and the Heath Government on the PRO side).
|
>> Our laws are fully complied with, animals killed for halal AND dont forget Kosher,
hadn't forgotten
>>
>> Like the White Swivelled eyed native brits in the Tory party you mean?
If it's wrong, it's wrong for all, if it's illegal, ditto.
>>
>>
>> Young black commit crime they are equipped to do, didnt see Condon moaning about white
>> crime, like fraud. Much more prevalent, but not nearly as newsworthy.
Fraud isn't and wasn't a policing priority. Street crime i.e. muggings is and was, a priority set by the Home Office i.e the Govt. For the head of policing in this country to not be allowed to state something that was and is glaringly obvious....is plain wrong, a suppression of free speech if nothing else.
>>
>>
>> Because they are being fed crap and misinformed by certain parties, just like the muslim
>> parties are being fed crap and misinformed. Same as the common market crap as well.
>>
You can't blame it all on 'misinformation'.
>>
>>
|
I had a quick look at what seems to be this Condell bloke's latest video.
He mentions that the Muslim Council of Britain did not denounce "armed jihad". That might technically be true, but they did denounce the murder and, it seems, that they have cut the usual addition of "...but...we need to understand that if the West do X, then consequences follow" which is an improvement.
I watched some of the news coverage recently which mentioned changing the narrative told to young Muslims, of oppression by the West and the need to fight it.
Changing the narrative would be an improvement, but I don't see it making a big difference.
After all, it is a very tiny minority of young Muslims who engage in acts of violence.
In any young male social group, you will find those who wish to prove themselves and be drawn to a cause. It is typically a cause that needs a dimension of violence, so trying to sell them a jihad against misogyny is probably not going to do it.
Even if the standard Muslim narrative is changed to total love and understanding, some will always look for a fringe, aggressive narrative, that they can use to prove themselves, whether just by talking the talk, or walking the walk.
Young Muslim man, maybe Al Qaeda and all that stuff, young white man, maybe the EDL.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 31 May 13 at 19:16
|
>> Even if the standard Muslim narrative is changed
Is there one?
For more or less the first time, in the wake of the Woolwich murder, I get a strong impression that the mainstream Muslim organisations understand that it is their job to counter Islamist distortion - the attempt to bully Muslims into accepting mediaeval backwoods attitudes to the treatment of women for example, or ludicrous proposals to establish a sharia state here or world-wide - from the viewpoint of real believing or part-believing ordinary Muslims.
I hope so anyway, because as I keep saying it can't be done without them. We'd be hopeless. We're too ignorant.
|
Yahweh, God, and Allah, would be diagnosed as psychopaths.
Comment from that YouTube.
|
>>.talking of
>> them didn't I read whilst I was in the States that the Israelis had already
>> bombed some strategic sites in Syria...?
Yeah, hence the Ruskies shipping the missiles into Syria. However, it begs the question how do the Sovs get the stuff shipped in there, without it falling into rebel hands?
|
>> However, it begs the question how do the Sovs get the stuff shipped in there
I was wondering about that, they can't overfly Turkey, Iraq, or S/A, so the only way in is via the Med,
or am I missing something.
(Don't answer that!)
|
|
By sea. Israelis might have something to say about that...
|
>> By sea. Israelis might have something to say about that...
Maybe they are already there but shouldn't be. Now they will be allowed and could be used? Just my conspiracy though :-)
|
>> >> By sea. Israelis might have something to say about that...
>>
>> Maybe they are already there but shouldn't be. Now they will be allowed and could
>> be used? Just my conspiracy though :-)
>>
"Syria has already received the first shipment of an advanced Russian air defence system, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is reported to have said in a Lebanese TV interview.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22713119
|
Just to add - a report on the BBC R4 lunchtime news interviewed a Russian who clearly stated that of course the Syrians have yet to be trained to operate the missiles so in the meanwhile Russians would be manning the kit.
|
>>.............Russians would be manning the kit.
>>
>>
The slippery slope gets ever steeper. Time for our politicians to keep their noses out of other peoples wars.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 30 May 13 at 14:52
|
>> >>.............Russians would be manning the kit.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> The slippery slope gets ever steeper. Time for our politicians to keep their noses out
>> of other peoples wars.
Hear, Hear. (Official UKIP policy, too).
|
>> Hear, Hear. (Official UKIP policy, too).
Its official Hezbollah policy too. And the Islamic Republic of Iran.
|
>> Its official Hezbollah policy too.
>>
Is it? Somebody had better tell their leader in lebanon then.
BEIRUT (AP) — The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group vowed to help propel President Bashar Assad to victory in Syria's civil war, warning that the fall of the Damascus regime would give rise to extremists and plunge the Middle East into a "dark period."
In a televised address, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah also said Hezbollah members are fighting in Syria against Islamic radicals who pose a danger to Lebanon, and pledged that his group will not allow Syrian militants to control areas along the Lebanese border. He pledged that Hezbollah will turn the tide of the conflict in Assad's favor, and stay as long as necessary to do so.
"We will continue this road until the end, we will take the responsibility and we will make all the sacrifices," he said. "We will be victorious."
news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-chief-commits-victory-syria-201126215.html
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 6 Jun 13 at 01:10
|
I meant its official policy to keep OUR noses out
|
>> Just to add - a report on the BBC R4 lunchtime news interviewed a Russian
>> who clearly stated that of course the Syrians have yet to be trained to operate
>> the missiles so in the meanwhile Russians would be manning the kit.
>>
And guarding it.
|
>> And guarding it.
... essentially to ensure that no missiles will be fired in a frivolous experimental spirit, one can't help thinking. Reassuring almost, fingers crossed.
|
>> >> And guarding it.
>>
>> ... essentially to ensure that no missiles will be fired in a frivolous experimental spirit,
>> one can't help thinking. Reassuring almost, fingers crossed.
>>
Though of course it would be an "interesting" development if Israel found and attacked some of these launchers and accidentally damaged some of the Russian guards . . . .
|
>> Though of course it would be an "interesting" development if Israel found and attacked some
>> of these launchers and accidentally damaged some of the Russian guards . . . .
>>
>>
Just one stage of the slippery slope.
|
|
That's what I was thinking, plus the British bases in Cyprus.
|
>> His wife then said: how can you go on about the tomb of Zeinab when
>> real human beings are being killed in hundreds and thousands in
>> Iraq and Afghanistan?
>>
Because one is a sad situation now, which will one day be a mere footnote in history, while the other is an act of iconoclasm which has every chance of fuelling sectarian hatred and conflict for hundreds, if not thousands, of years to come.
Also people come and go. Great artworks and monuments are irreplaceable.
|
|
People produce great artworks and monuments.
|
>> >>
>> which will one day be a mere footnote
>> in history,
As Hitler said, who now remembers the Armenians?
|
>> As Hitler said, who now remembers the Armenians?
The Armenians do, and from time to time they remind us in one way or another, not aalways peacefully, that they still exist and have an old national grievance essentially against Turkey.
Of course you know all that CP, but I thought yr post might be a bit too dry for some of us.
|
|
Yes the Armenians were essentially disarmed then wiped away. One of the reasons Americans will not give up their weapons and who can blame them.
|
>> >>
>>
>> Of course you know all that CP, but I thought yr post might be a
>> bit too dry for some of us.
>>
>>
Thanks - appreciated.
I know, my trademark is often dry remarks or jokes that no one gets or takes literally, and then I find myself engaged in an argument with someone on the same side who can't see that I am agreeing with him.
Hitler was so breathtakingly cynical it's hard sometimes not to admire his chutzpah.
But of course a strong point is often someone's ultimate downfall.
Time wounds all heels, as Marx said.
|
We have to move on but often it's takes a generation before people forget and forgive.
Marx was right.
Here we go again maybe we should have a talk with the Chinese about the people of Tibet.
Syria is a hotbed of hatred.
|
I'm no expert, but a quick web search suggests to me that these missiles would be of little help in defending against an attack (perhaps implementing a no-fly zone) that includes the US.
It seems that the US military's acknowledged tactic would simply be to use F-22 stealth aircraft to take out the missile sites.
It may make others think twice about any kind of offensive, but any Western offensive is very likely to include the US.
|
|
I would think it is very useful in any offensive against Syria. There are various types of theweapon so it's hard to say how effective it could be. That said the system itself is high end in the anti-air area. I doubt it's the top spec, the Russians keep that for themselves.
|
>> I would think it is very useful in any offensive against Syria. There are various
>> types of theweapon so it's hard to say how effective it could be. That said
>> the system itself is high end in the anti-air area. I doubt it's the top
>> spec, the Russians keep that for themselves.
I'm not sure how it would be effective against a coalition that included the US, if they could simply destroy it using F-22 aircraft.
|
|
They wouldn't use the f22 to do destroy it. If anyone it would be the us navy, even then their anti air systems are pretty good. Impossible? No but a tough not to crack, this sa 10 adds another string to their bow.
|
>> They wouldn't use the f22 to do destroy it. If anyone it would be the
>> us navy, even then their anti air systems are pretty good. Impossible? No but a
>> tough not to crack, this sa 10 adds another string to their bow.
What would the US Navy use? I understand that the S-300 can be effective against cruise missiles.
I've read a few articles that suggest that the US's preferred tactic is the F-22 and that, in fact, one of the main arguments for funding the F-22 was to attack such systems.
|
|
Without getting too geeky and dull, the f18. To knock their air defences out takes specialist aircraft, the f22 is impressive but wrong tool for the job.
|
>> Without getting too geeky and dull, the f18. To knock their air defences out takes
>> specialist aircraft, the f22 is impressive but wrong tool for the job.
I'm not so sure Sooty. Everything I've read says that if they used an aircraft it would be the F-22 Raptor, and that it is suited to the job. Here are just a couple:
tinyurl.com/mks8pcd
"the fact that the S-300 exists and is purported to be a killer of anything but the Raptor is clearly a theoretical threat."
tinyurl.com/meyms72
"Konstantin Sivkov, the vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, believes that the F-22 fighter jets pose a great danger to any modern missile defense system."
“This aircraft has a wide range of opportunities to defeat the system. Its stealth element makes it inconspicuous for anti-aircraft systems. One has to add the enormous speed, which the aircraft develops, its maneuverability and its airborne equipment. All of that makes it a very powerful and dangerous aircraft,” he said.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 31 May 13 at 22:33
|
|
I'm sure some people believe that, I don't. I don't want to get to bogged down in such matters, but really taking out sa-xx isn't its job.
|
From a layman's perspective...
- those missile launcher vehicles look big and therefore fairly slow
- looks like they can fire 4 missiles before reloading
- they will have limited spare missiles
- missiles are expensive and will be limited
So to me it looks like a cruise missile attack could be a threat. Yes I take it that these missiles can also take out cruise missiles... but then that's fewer missiles to fire at aircraft!!?!? So the cruise missile either takes out the launcher or a missile is wasted. Both positive bearing in mind the relative low cost of a cruise missile. And if you fired lots of cruise missiles... Maybe just make them fire these smart missiles at them. And then send in the planes.
And you only need to take out the launchers too. Without them any spare missiles are useless.
I'm not saying the F-22 or any other aircraft couldn't take these out... just that there's probably other options. Plus of course simple smart bombs if you can get anyone to pinpoint these.
After I said above they are probably there... I wonder if that is the case and Russia wishes the Assad regime had not just kept quiet and talked/negotiated.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 31 May 13 at 23:54
|
|
In fact.... if you think you know where the missiles are... fire a cruise missile or two at them. If they are there and don't fire to intercept, you get them. If they do fire (1) missiles sent after easily replaced missiles and (2) you know where they are for sure.
|
|
They may not be where you think they are, by firing you may be giving away more than you think. It's a game of electronic warfare chess.
|
|
The USA has far more cruise missiles than Syria will ever have of these missiles. It's not a cold war scenario of mutual destruction etc.
|
>> They wouldn't use the f22 to do destroy it. If anyone it would be the
>> us navy, even then their anti air systems are pretty good. Impossible? No but a
>> tough not to crack, this sa 10 adds another string to their bow.
>>
Not a problem, locate them with a satellite and hit them with a few cruise missiles from a submarine. It wouldn't impress the Russians though.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 31 May 13 at 21:21
|
>> Not a problem, locate them with a satellite and hit them with a few cruise
>> missiles from a submarine. It wouldn't impress the Russians though.
Its a mobile system for that very reason. If they have any sense, and they do, they will be shuffling these things around, and leaving plenty of decoys.
Given that you can only shuffle them around a limited number of sites where there is the perceived threat.
|
>> Its a mobile system for that very reason.
Keep up Zero, targeting is done in real time these days.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 31 May 13 at 21:55
|
As much as possible yes, but satellites aren't that helpful in this case the 'loop' is too big. It's specialist aircraft for this job, that's the real time process. Zero is the right the mobility is a problem if you want to narrow them down and satellites are a big help in that.
Their systems overall are far better than most people give them credit for.
|
>> >> Its a mobile system for that very reason.
>>
>> Keep up Zero, targeting is done in real time these days.
Keep up matelot, lookup the word D E C O Y
|
|
It is difficult (and expensive if the decoy is destroyed) to accurately replicate the electromagnetic and thermal signature of a missile system, even when it is shut down. Things have moved on from cardboard cut outs. :-)
|
|
The Russian's are very good at such levels of subterfuge for their kit. As the kit becomes more expensive so does the appeal of a decoy.
|
|
Although my knowledge is 15 years out of date, I had first hand experience of soviet equipment development over a 20 year period. It went from primitive to in some cases better than the kit I was using, and I had the best that was available in the West at the time.
|
|
Well you'll know then, when the Russian kit is good it's good.
|
>> Well you'll know then, when the Russian kit is good it's good.
>>
I don't dispute that, detection, identification, and targeting, is a complex business. During the cold war arms race I was using some kit that was delivered direct from the laboratory where it was invented and built, it was installed by the lab staff, totally bypassing the normal procurement, manufacture, development and training process. My team visited the laboratories concerned to be instructed in its use. This equipment sometimes became mainstream some years later. This was during the period of "computerisation" of the equipment and the rapid development of processing power and techniques. Sometimes it appeared to be a bloke in sandals, socks, and a scruffy cardigan working on the back of a fag packet in a big shed, but someone had a big budget and they came up with some amazing and sometimes game changing kit.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 1 Jun 13 at 08:56
|
|
At last the MSM are reporting the riots in Turkey. Looks nasty.
|
I can't find it now, but I read an article a couple of days ago which suggested that technology being give to Syria by Russia and Iran, is strongly turning the tide against the rebels.
It seems that Iran have a fairly good line in UAVs which are helping with locating and targeting, along with a lot of communications trickery (inc jamming etc), and "situational awareness" capability.
Perhaps it's a good thing, because it might be better if it did come to the boil (internally), rather than continuing with the current relentless simmering.
|
Syria boiling up ? - Zero
