- Joined
- Jun 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,150
- Reaction score
- 15,598
- Location
- No longer Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
:lamo
Not at all surprised to see you're so easily amused.
:lamo
Definitely not in the Roosevelt, Truman mold.
This is more like implied malice to come.....
This is nowhere nea the leve of gravity, thank god, of a CMC.And this shows that President Trump and the nation are willing to make fairly safe pinpricks. Not exactly the will demonstrated by President Kennedy and most Americans in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Who are you kidding HD. It's pretty well known that you believe anything RT says. Hell you have demonstrated quite thoroughly that you believe anything without question that you feel is anti US.
One thing this clearly did is to send a message. And not just to Syria, but to Iran and North Korea as well (and to China to a lesser effect).
Remember, this was one of the most important Air Bases in Syria. And it had some rather impressive air defense capabilities, including the S-300 as well as some of the best RADAR systems that Russia exports.
And of the 60 missiles launched, at least 23 of them struck their targets, which in addition to the air base support facilities were the air defense systems protecting the base.
I know that you believe everything that comes from RT without question but do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim of yours.This also sent a message loud and clear to ISIS--your enemy is our enemy, and we will provide this type of air attack in the future. We have your back.
I had no idea our Tomahawk SLCM had such a low efficacy. 24 out of 59 is something less than half.
I know that you believe everything that comes from RT without question but do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim of yours.
Bad news this morning, Drained.
RT has far more credibility in one single paragraph than NYT and WaPo have in an entire edition. You will never understand that, and that's OK by me.
An S-300 wouldn't be the best defense against subsonic missiles like the Tomohawk. A more effective defense would involve SPAAGs like the Shilka. Granted them all together in a IADS would be the best.
I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:
1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT="]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."
I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]
And yet RT has been caught in lie after lie.
Hmmmmmm
I don't think you can ignore all aspects. Personally, I find the attack as waste of good missiles which cost around a million and a half a piece. It sure wasn't an attack in which Assad would hunker down in fear. It seemed kind of a publicity stunt. Trump doing what was expected of him after the chemical attack because most people expected him to do something.
From looking at the picture of the device used, it looked more like a pipe bomb. Not something dropped from a plane, certainly not a bomb, perhaps a rocket, maybe. If that picture of the spent device was accurate, anyone could have planted it and detonated it. But who knows these days what is real and what isn't.
This is the most detailed examination I have read regarding the attack. No, it's not from NYT, WaPo or RT, but it seems quite meticulous. What do you think?
Khan Sheikhoun, Syria: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
What is the biggest and best known lie that RT was caught telling?
This is the most detailed examination I have read regarding the attack. No, it's not from NYT, WaPo or RT, but it seems quite meticulous. What do you think?
Khan Sheikhoun, Syria: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
If you are only willing to accept stories from non-mainstream news sources, that makes you just as non-credible as those that are only willing to accept stories from mainstream news sources.
Who the **** would seriously buy the **** this guy is trying to peddle (whomever it is that runs CRG, that is)?
Other than getting the date correct, practically everything about 9/11.
I wasn't reading RT in those days, if it even existed.
But in the last 10 years or so, I cannot recall RT publishing anything at all about what really happened at 911, either pro or con.
Can you provide a reference to any particular article, or shall I just consider your post to be a bluff, like most everything else you post?
FYI, I read stories on the internet, and watch and read stories from much of the mainstream media, including NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, Common Dreams, ABC and CBS and others.
Your jumping on me for not reading MSM stories makes you suddenly look quite incredible yourself. eace Open mouth Abba, and insert foot. :lol:
Global Research covers angles and details simply not found elsewhere, in case you ever decide to read what you automatically reject. It certainly is, I must admit, very much the UN-msm, if you know what I mean.
The man from MIT does a very detailed examination showing that the White House report on this matter is intellectually bankrupt.
But go ahead on my man, and demonstrate your bias for MSM.
Just because you believe that does not make it true. And the fact that you have such faith in a state run publication does a very good job of demonstrating you lack of critical thinking ability. But hey we all already know you will believe anything 100% as long as it goes along with your fairytale version of reality.Bad news this morning, Drained.
RT has far more credibility in one single paragraph than NYT and WaPo have in an entire edition. You will never understand that, and that's OK by me.
I never said it was. However, it is one of their most impressive air defense weapons, and shows that they are not simply buying old Vietnam era surplus like so many nations have done over the years.
The Russians have been stepping up their arms deals. The Algerians are running around with T-90s and Kilo-class subs, and now Turkey is on the list to get the S-400, and the Iranians want in too. This isn't the Cold War when the Soviets handed out monkey models to whatever third world ****hole asked for them.
Actually, when it comes to International Arms sales, both the US and Russians have several tiers they are willing to sell, provided the buyer is willing to pay the price.
Most nations buy the lower level of equipment. Mostly it is simply up to the buying nation what they think they need.
For example, the Russians stopped using the T-64 over 20 years ago. Yet they still sell and maintain-upgrade them for other nations.
The same with the SA-3 Goa missile. That was was removed from service by the Soviet Union, which is well over 25 years ago. Yet Russia still manufactures and sells them to nations all over the world.
But a lot of nations do not bother to buy the newer equipment, since their main threats are generally their neighbors, which have threats that are generally on par with their own equipment. But Syria is not one of those, they (as well as Iran) has been buying the best of the export level equipment that Russia sells on the open market.
But yea, Russia will still sell the "older junk" if asked. Just 5 years ago they sold a bunch of brand new upgraded SA-3 systems to Venezuela. And granted, the newer upgraded SA-3 systems are better than the original versions from 50 years ago, they are still not impressive when compared to the newer systems developed since then.