Re: Vlad's at it again
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:21 am
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Syria and Russia ought to agree first on how many missiles they claim to have shot down. Syria reckon they shot down 13, Russia claim 71.Wilson's Toffee wrote:Russia claims 70% of missiles in attack were shot down. By old, defunct air defense systems ...
The laboratories were empty, long evacuated after Israeli airstrikes, years ago ... nothing going on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOoEwIrg0g
Can anybody fact check ?
And a quick check of satellite photos shows that the 3 targets got fairly comprehensively bitchslapped.Saint wrote:Syria and Russia ought to agree first on how many missiles they claim to have shot down. Syria reckon they shot down 13, Russia claim 71.Wilson's Toffee wrote:Russia claims 70% of missiles in attack were shot down. By old, defunct air defense systems ...
The laboratories were empty, long evacuated after Israeli airstrikes, years ago ... nothing going on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOoEwIrg0g
Can anybody fact check ?
Meanwhile the Pentagon reckon that Syria fired at most 40 SAMs, most of them after the last Allied missile had found it's target
Turbogoat wrote:And a quick check of satellite photos shows that the 3 OTHER, EMPTY targets got fairly comprehensively bitchslapped. UNCLEAR WHETHER FROM PREVIOUS ISRAELI STRIKES (AS INDICATEd) OR FROM THIS OPERATIONSaint wrote:Syria and Russia ought to agree first on how many missiles they claim to have shot down. Syria reckon they shot down 13, Russia claim 71.Wilson's Toffee wrote:Russia claims 70% of missiles in attack were shot down. By old, defunct air defense systems ...
The laboratories were empty, long evacuated after Israeli airstrikes, years ago ... nothing going on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOoEwIrg0g
Can anybody fact check ?
Meanwhile the Pentagon reckon that Syria fired at most 40 SAMs, most of them after the last Allied missile had found it's target
Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You, on the other hand, display an amazing lack of brains.La soule wrote:Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You have an amazing level of patience.
Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
Weren't you decrying ad hominems less than 24 hours ago?Wilson's Toffee wrote:You, on the other hand, display an amazing lack of brains.La soule wrote:Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You have an amazing level of patience.
He wouldn't bloody knowZakar wrote:Weren't you decrying ad hominems less than 24 hours ago?Wilson's Toffee wrote:You, on the other hand, display an amazing lack of brains.La soule wrote:Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You have an amazing level of patience.
Zakar wrote:Weren't you decrying ad hominems less than 24 hours ago?Wilson's Toffee wrote:You, on the other hand, display an amazing lack of brains.La soule wrote:Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You have an amazing level of patience.
I did not have you down the type of guy who would be consistent about anything.Wilson's Toffee wrote:Zakar wrote:Weren't you decrying ad hominems less than 24 hours ago?Wilson's Toffee wrote:You, on the other hand, display an amazing lack of brains.La soule wrote:Turbogoat wrote:Why ask the question then if you've already bought in heavily to one set of claims?
You have an amazing level of patience.
That was during a debate. This is not a debate.
tc27 wrote:Anyway - Vlad cant protect his client regime in the ME and was too scared to even turn on his vaunted missile defenses to protect Syria whilst his Russian trained and equipped allies ended up launching dozens of missiles pointlessly after the strike had finished.
https://www.resolutets.com/bimboman wrote:tc27 wrote:Anyway - Vlad cant protect his client regime in the ME and was too scared to even turn on his vaunted missile defenses to protect Syria whilst his Russian trained and equipped allies ended up launching dozens of missiles pointlessly after the strike had finished.
That's the good bit about these strikes, we get some "testing" done. The cruise missle seems fairly resolute technology now doesn't it.
Plot twist: satellites are a conspiracy, man has never been to space and all you're looking at are photoshopped pictures taken by helicopters hovering above cardboard fake installations in Nevada.Turbogoat wrote:And a quick check of satellite photos shows that the 3 targets got fairly comprehensively bitchslapped.Saint wrote:Syria and Russia ought to agree first on how many missiles they claim to have shot down. Syria reckon they shot down 13, Russia claim 71.Wilson's Toffee wrote:Russia claims 70% of missiles in attack were shot down. By old, defunct air defense systems ...
The laboratories were empty, long evacuated after Israeli airstrikes, years ago ... nothing going on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOoEwIrg0g
Can anybody fact check ?
Meanwhile the Pentagon reckon that Syria fired at most 40 SAMs, most of them after the last Allied missile had found it's target
The literal 'fog of war.'Red Chopper wrote:Interesting article from Robert Fisk, a jouno who's actually on the ground in Syria; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syr ... 07726.html
No doubt in the pay of Assad or a shill for Putin though...
OAN report from Douma; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU
Yep...pretty much:No doubt in the pay of Assad or a shill for Putin though...
Managed to finally get rid of that pesky stash of Egyptian cottontc27 wrote:Anyway - Vlad cant protect his client regime in the ME and was too scared to even turn on his vaunted missile defenses to protect Syria whilst his Russian trained and equipped allies ended up launching dozens of missiles pointlessly after the strike had finished.
The Iraqi army completely collapsed in Mosul and Northern Iraq, leaving behind tonnes of heavy weapons and small arms. It's not surprise the US is up there considering they were also the biggest supplier to the Iraqi army.pontifex wrote:Have a read of this: https://www.conflictarm.com/download-fi ... le_id=2574
It is a best attempt at identifying the sources of IS weaponry, and the US is right up there as a source.
It's abundantly clear that the US has had their finger in this war reasonably deeply, and against the Syrian government, for some time, and that they're happy to provide weapons to supposed enemies. I see no reason to trust their statements on Syria any more than those of the Russians - and in this case, logic, and a fair bit of evidence suggests that the Syrian government did not gas civilians. Meanwhile, the UK is selling cluster bombs to the Saudis to use on Yemen (and Yemeni civilians). The Russians are certainly on the wrong side of some things in this multi-theatre proxy war, but they're not the ones on the wrong side in the Middle East. We are.
Chocolate Covered Cotton?message #2527204 wrote:Managed to finally get rid of that pesky stash of Egyptian cottontc27 wrote:Anyway - Vlad cant protect his client regime in the ME and was too scared to even turn on his vaunted missile defenses to protect Syria whilst his Russian trained and equipped allies ended up launching dozens of missiles pointlessly after the strike had finished.
Without getting too deep into the latest five minutes of shenanigans going on I can't help but agree tbh.pontifex wrote:Have a read of this: https://www.conflictarm.com/download-fi ... le_id=2574
It is a best attempt at identifying the sources of IS weaponry, and the US is right up there as a source.
It's abundantly clear that the US has had their finger in this war reasonably deeply, and against the Syrian government, for some time, and that they're happy to provide weapons to supposed enemies. I see no reason to trust their statements on Syria any more than those of the Russians - and in this case, logic, and a fair bit of evidence suggests that the Syrian government did not gas civilians. Meanwhile, the UK is selling cluster bombs to the Saudis to use on Yemen (and Yemeni civilians). The Russians are certainly on the wrong side of some things in this multi-theatre proxy war, but they're not the ones on the wrong side in the Middle East. We are.
What does?Turbogoat wrote:Once again it boils down to the rank stupidity of the "Enemy of my enemy" approach to foreign relations.
It's all too easy for both sides to be arseholes, and for the civilians caught up in it to be the ones getting royally shafted, yet again.
Rinse.
Repeat.
So many of the attempts, missteps, and clusterfucks getting involved in the Middle East from other nations.RuggaBugga wrote:What does?Turbogoat wrote:Once again it boils down to the rank stupidity of the "Enemy of my enemy" approach to foreign relations.
It's all too easy for both sides to be arseholes, and for the civilians caught up in it to be the ones getting royally shafted, yet again.
Rinse.
Repeat.
The Persians ?a civilization older than ours.
Read the article. Some anti-tank weapons were sold by the Bulgarian manufacturer to the US, for their use exclusively, within 59 days of being found in the arms of ISIS soldiers. Their provenance is not all, or even mainly, via Mosul.Bullettyme wrote:The Iraqi army completely collapsed in Mosul and Northern Iraq, leaving behind tonnes of heavy weapons and small arms. It's not surprise the US is up there considering they were also the biggest supplier to the Iraqi army.pontifex wrote:Have a read of this: https://www.conflictarm.com/download-fi ... le_id=2574
It is a best attempt at identifying the sources of IS weaponry, and the US is right up there as a source.
It's abundantly clear that the US has had their finger in this war reasonably deeply, and against the Syrian government, for some time, and that they're happy to provide weapons to supposed enemies. I see no reason to trust their statements on Syria any more than those of the Russians - and in this case, logic, and a fair bit of evidence suggests that the Syrian government did not gas civilians. Meanwhile, the UK is selling cluster bombs to the Saudis to use on Yemen (and Yemeni civilians). The Russians are certainly on the wrong side of some things in this multi-theatre proxy war, but they're not the ones on the wrong side in the Middle East. We are.
Yes.bimboman wrote:The Persians ?a civilization older than ours.
Mainly TYT network but I watch and read stuff from all different viewpoints. Basically anyone who doesn't shill for corporations.RuggaBugga wrote:Like who?Bowens wrote:FB memes? This is a pretty cliched argument. The people sharing those seem to mostly be Baby Boomers like Taranaki Snapper. I use Twitter to follow some independent media (who probably have better records when fact-checked than some mainstream sources). That's about it. Imagine being a big enough doofus to still trust people like Brian Williams on Syria after all that has transpired in recent years.message #2527204 wrote:Is f**king frkightening that people prefer to believe hostile propaganda on FB than their own governemnt. And that they think that fabricated, bullshitting memes somehow give them the 'bigger picture' rather than obfuscating the truth as they are designed to doBowens wrote:You're good man. But Syria is on all our radars now, and with smart phones and sociaml media everyone has access to info they didn't necessarily during Iraq 1 & 2. We have seen this movie before.
Bowens wrote:Yes.bimboman wrote:The Persians ?a civilization older than ours.
In 2003 both the US and UK broke those protocols. Blair and Bush have never been prosecuted in the International court in the Hague. You can't pick and chose when to apply the GC.message #2527204 wrote:Parties to the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols are explicitly obligated not only to respect their treaty obligations, but also to ensure respect for them.Wilson's Toffee wrote:message #2527204 wrote:Parties to the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols are explicitly obligated not only to respect their treaty obligations, but also to ensure respect for them.Wilson's Toffee wrote:message #2527204 wrote:
By 'The western alliance' I take it you mean 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN body that has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security?
Assad has been warned on many occasions not to use chemical weapons and there have been 400 reports of his forces using them since then. It is a UN security matter if international treaties are flouted.
So according to which UN resolution did the governments of the USA, UK and France attack Syria, a sovereign country, earlier this month ? Who give them the right to deploy troops and military personnel in Syria, uninvited ? Why do they assist and abet forces illegally waging an armed conflict with teh legal government of Syria ? On whose authority ?
In Syria the mentioned Western countries are simply terrorist states, aiding and fomenting terror. Nothing more. Quite despicable, actually, but they have form ...
According to which resolution can Russia ignore the laws regarding chemical weapons?
The use of chemical weapons is a war crime
The use of chemical weapons is a violation of international criminal law
The use of chemical weapons in a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population is a crime against humanity.
Did Russia deploy chemical weapons ? Where and when ? Dates and places....
So, Russia is guilty, because you say so, and they'd better provide evidence that they are not ?
Hypothetically. Let's say Assad gets killed. Who takes over from him??? And would the Western Alliance help rebuild their country??? You don't exactly have a good track record for cleaning up the mess!Bullettyme wrote: Yeah, I'm not reading 200 pages of it today. Will do another time. A brief skim sets out that 50% of the arms come from Russia and China. I've no doubt that the US vetting system was a complete crock, and has has been involved since the start.
Not sure what the "wrong side" is in the ME though really. You'd want to flesh that out. And as for "evidence and logic" part of your post, haven't been presented with a) and evidence and b) any logic apart from the discredited "he's winning the war why would he do this". Must just be a coincidence that Ghouta capitulated so soon after the alleged chemical attacks. For me the previous points to the Assad government, a long with the usual Russian obfuscation.
bimbo does historybimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:Yes.bimboman wrote:The Persians ?a civilization older than ours.
is it really even older than post "Magna Carta" UK or federal France from the 10th century ?
Haven't seen an awful lot of TYT but I watch a bit of Vice stuff from reporters on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa etc...Bowens wrote:Mainly TYT network but I watch and read stuff from all different viewpoints. Basically anyone who doesn't shill for corporations.RuggaBugga wrote:Like who?Bowens wrote:FB memes? This is a pretty cliched argument. The people sharing those seem to mostly be Baby Boomers like Taranaki Snapper. I use Twitter to follow some independent media (who probably have better records when fact-checked than some mainstream sources). That's about it. Imagine being a big enough doofus to still trust people like Brian Williams on Syria after all that has transpired in recent years.message #2527204 wrote:Is f**king frkightening that people prefer to believe hostile propaganda on FB than their own governemnt. And that they think that fabricated, bullshitting memes somehow give them the 'bigger picture' rather than obfuscating the truth as they are designed to doBowens wrote:You're good man. But Syria is on all our radars now, and with smart phones and sociaml media everyone has access to info they didn't necessarily during Iraq 1 & 2. We have seen this movie before.