Exclusive: Syria places massive missile, warplane, sub order in Moscow

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


The Brits and Aussies have things that are from the US. Just as Israel does. They also supply us with things (Israel included)

reply to post by xxpigxx


Lol... I think your seriously underestimating the scale of US support to Israel, have a look at this, it should open your eyes:

www.pdfdownload.org...

Total Foreign Military Financing, Economic Support Funds and Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining & Related Program funding for Israel from the United States EXCEEDED $19 billion dollars from 2001-2007. Last year $6 billion dollars alone was given in military funding.

Were not talking about a few planes and tanks here like the US gave Australia in 2005, were talking about more money than the combined GNP of most third-world nations, is being given to Israel.

That is absolutely unjustified and ridiculous. Israel hasn't given the US a dime close to that amount.

This is not Alliance like I said, it's a parasitic relationship. The Host (America) is being sucked dry by the parasite here (Israel) for it's own personal gain and benefit. The host stands to gain nothing from this.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
It is called an alliance.

We gave the Allies everything they needed in WW2, as well.

I do not see the problem here.

A question: Does England support Israel as well?

England doesn't, The United Kingdom does.

source is run by the israel government = bias.

and this has been said for at least 3 years now `massive syrian arms deal`

Here are photos of what is on there shopping list:

1. The latest model of the Russian Iskander-E, a surface-to-surface tactical missile with a range of 280 km and a 480-kilo warhead. This missile is considered one of the most advanced of its type in the world today, partly because of its cruise attributes which enable it to home in on target undetected and with high precision. Iskander-E can be guided by pilot-less air vehicles or satellites.

2. Fifty of the latest MiG-29SMT fighter-bombers. The Russians have added advanced avionics and electronics and lengthened the warplane’s operational range. It can fly 3,700 kilometers without refueling, and 6,700 kilometers with in-flight fueling. Their purchase therefore goes with Russian refueling aircraft.

3. The Pantsir S1E air defense missile systems. Syria has already received nine or ten batteries but Moscow has held up the rest of the 36-missile order at American insistence after part of the first consignment was transferred to Iran.

4. Damascus wants 800 Strelets short-range anti-air missiles. The Igla-S version, our military sources report, is shoulder-borne and able to hit surface-to-surface and cruise missiles. Damascus has informed Moscow that the vehicle-mounted version is acceptable for deployment along the Syrian-Israeli border as a defense against Israeli missiles.

5. A key component on the list is 75 Yak-130 light combat-cum-training planes.

As a fighter craft for short distances, the Yak-130 is reputed to be one of the most effective of its type in any of the world’s air forces.

The fact that it has been commissioned by Syria points to heavy investment, with the active help of Russian military experts, in creating a defense system for halting an Israeli invasion.

5. Syria wants to buy two Amur-1650 submarines, whose features compare with the Israel Navy’s German-made Dolphins, which are capable of firing cruise missiles.

The Amur-class submarine can strike salvo missile blows at different targets. This is its outstanding feature. Its sonar signature level is considerably less than the Kilo-class vessels which are reputedly the most silent in the world.

source: Damascus Talks Peace, Bids for Sophisticated Military Hardware

Looks like some heavy duty stuff to me.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by LDragonFire]

i wouldn't say america gets nothing from isreal, looks like isreal's going to go to war with syria because america doesn't have the troops for it. then again, the tail might well be wagging the dog.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


And England nor Australia are getting attacked on an almost daily basis either.

Apples and Oranges, my friend

Edit: Spelling

[edit on 27/5/2008 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by XyZeR
I guess the Syrians were just as surprised/frightened as the rest of the world that Isreal currently has 150 Nukes, and are now going to Russia to seek backup and arms.

Logical if you ask me, if my neighbour would have occupied the next door house and secretly and illegaly stockpile it with weapons, i would become a tad bit scared myself, at the least intimitaded.

Yes, especially if I had spent the last 60 years denouncing their right to exist and waging war on them with the intention of completely eradicating their state from the Earth.

What keep baffling me is the support the USA gets to Isreal, any other country in the world who would act the same as Isreal would be long invaded.

1948 Arab-Israeli War - Arab nations invade Israel as soon as it is founded, and are defeated.

1967 Six-Day War - Arab nations amass 540,000 men to invade Israel, lose the war with a horrible casualty ratio and lose the Sinai penninsular and Gaza strip as well.

1968 War of Attrition - Egypt attacks Israel in an attempt to regain the territory lost in the Six-Day War. Inconclusive, but Israel did not lose significant territory back to the Egyptians. This war ends with the Egyptian leader's death, causing the new leader to regroup and prepare for the Yom Kippur War.

1973 Yom Kippur War - Arab nations attack on the one day of the year the Israeli's are not at their battle stations and after a few initial successes, still lose.

1978 South Lebanon conflict - PLO establishes a semi-state in Lebanon with the purpose of raiding Israel. Israeli's defend themselves, pushing the PLO back from the boarders.

1982 Lebanon War - After endemic skirmishes, the attempted assassination of an Israeli diplomat forces Israel to go to war with the PLO. Israeli victory.

1982 South Lebanon conflict - An Arab "success", Israel decides to withdraw rather than fight a guerilla campaign against Hezbollah, who conduct their campaign from within the Lebanese populous.

1990 Gulf war - Iraq manages to shoot scuds at Israel, despite the fact that Israel is not part of this conflict. Israel does not retaliate.

2006 Lebanon War - Lebanese forces attempt raids at Israel, sparking a new war which they are losing, and losing badly.


So what have we learned from this?

1. Arabs are aggressive.
2. Arabs suck at warfare.
3. Israel is not actually initiating these conflicts.
4. Arabs do not recognise Israel's right to exist as a nation.

Would the Arabs have lost Sinai, Gaza and Golan had they just sat at home and had a (proverbial) beer and a bacon sarnie? No.


The Arab nations are claiming right to the land of Israel by military force only. Their religion must prohibit it as Islam is essentially an extension of Judaism and Christianity, and the Jews are the chosen people of God, the Arab's God, and he said "this is where the Jews shall live".

And those who live by the sword must die by the sword. Muslims only ever occupied that, and any, territory by force of arms. If they cannot keep it by force of arms, they are no longer entitled to it. Plain and simple.

The British conquered it in 1917, and in 1948 they chose to give it to the Jews.

The Arabs get no say and have no further claim to it. They lost it the way they took it. Life is tough, and they decided to bite, and don't like it when the world bites back. They have made no efforts to integrate the displaced populations into their own, and have used them as a political tool to use against Israel.

As Julius Caesar said, it is the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they like against the vanquished.

So now, why should the Israeli's not be going on a mission of conquest over the Middle East?







[edit on 27-5-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]

reply to post by xxpigxx

And England nor Australia are getting attacked on an almost daily basis either.

True but doesn't mean they don't need support. The Australian Army while well-trained and armed is puny, Indonesia could have us for breakfast if they wanted to.

Turkey is a major non-NATO US Ally, with dozens of US Bases on it's soil. It's fighting a low-intensity campaign against Kurdish rebels in the South. It could use help.

Russia could DEFINITELY use help. It's economy is in severe recession, their dirt-poor and their facing non-stop conflict with Chechen Extremists in the Caucasus.

Hey if the US is throwing 6 billion a year at Israel where's the rest of the love?
Why Israel, they can handle their own backyard well enough. They've got the most powerful military in the Middle East and more than enough equipment, they don't need $6 billion dollars worth of weaponry a year. It's ridiculous.

Especially since most of the Middle East has now signed Peace Accords/Ceasefires with Israel or accepts it's right to exist. This ain't 1974 any more the chances of full scale invasion from it's Arab neighbours are quite low these days, $6 billion a year is a serious, pointless drain on America.

Apples and Oranges, my friend

Your telling me...

$6 billion a year to Israel, nothing to the rest of the "Allies".
And why?
JEWISH LOBBY.

Read more here about the increasing number of key Bush Administration personnel who are not only Jews but have dual-citizenship with Israel:
www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes

And where do you think their loyalties would lay?

What. may I ask, does the reported Syrian intent to purchase military equipment from Russia have to do with the US - American relationship?

Doesn't it seems that the OP intended to start an "Israel" right or wrong thread?

I don't mind the subject matter, but if that was the point, why not state so from the start? - like in the title.

Look, Israel is appropriately concerned that Syria, armed with $5 billion, is going to 'toughen' up its military capabilities. Sure, they report it with a clear bias towards mocking the 'peace process', but that is to be expected from the source, no? But let's face it, for a country who has the US in it's pocket and intentionally or otherwise casts a very real specter of nuclear threat around the region, this is a bit disingenuous.

If the point is they are arming themselves during a peace negotiation, that is the WISEST course of action. No one respects a helpless foe, certainly this can be evidenced in recent Israeli history.

Truth be told, from a military perspective Syria was long overdue to modernize her military.

What I want to know is why Iran had to foot the bill? What was in it for them? Surely they don't need to have Syria as an ally for no reason. I would like to know the terms of the Iranian-Syrian transaction, more so than the mundane purchase of weapon systems.

Sort of off topic, but seeing what the Syrians are getting for their 5bil, I would like to see Canada use the 30 they want to use to beef up the military on the Russian garage sale. We could get 6 times what Syria is getting, maybe get some tanks thrown in as well. Then we no longer have to hear about being protected by the US, we could do it ourselves with good equipment.

AS far as Iran footing the bill, I think it is yet more setting up for a war by proxy. America vs Iran via Israel and Syria.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

2006 Lebanon War - Lebanese forces attempt raids at Israel, sparking a new war which they are losing, and losing badly.

lol, more BS from an ignorant american, it was not lebonanese forces that raided Israel,

what ??? murdering lebanese civilians and murdering babies is a israeli victory ??

Hezobollah soldiers blew 50 israeli merkavas in battles within two weeks along with 115 israeli soldiers(dead) .....and israeli army behaved like a bunch of sissies in front of international community crying that that hezobollah has kornet heavy anti-tank missiles

they stopped the Israeli Goliath Juggernaut right in its tracks ..

Estimated IDF casualties :
120 soldiers ranked KIA and more than 2000 WIA

IDF equipement destroyed or heavily damaged by Hezbollah:
120 Merkava series tanks
30 armored vehicles (APC, armored engineering vehicles...)
1 Saeer 5 ship
1 Saeer 4.5 ship
3 Apache helicopters
1 F16 fighter
1 MK drone

Official tank loss numbers from Hezbollah ~270 Merkavas destroyed/heavily damaged This is clearly a hash induced fantasy. Since the IDF deployed ~600 Merkavas into Lebanon, and there's no possible way that they suffered 45% mission kills. I really can't accept the numbers from either side since there seems to be more propaganda than fact. Now some third parties: 1. The Iranian IRNG is reporting ~170 Merkavas killed/heavily damaged 2. The US Stratfor is reporting ~120 Merkavas killed/heavily damaged 3. The CCTV is reporting ~150 Merkavas killed/heavily damaged 4. The Japanese Kanwa is reporting ~110 Merkavas killed/heavily damaged
(this is from strategypage.com )
and

this is from israeli sources :

Meanwhile, the AT-14 E Kornet missile, one of the most advanced Russian anti-armor systems, took a considerable toll on Israeli armor in the confused, sporadic ground war that raged close to the border. Hizballah also employed the RPG 29, the AT-4 Spigot, the AT-5Spandrel, and the AT-13 METIS-M systems. In all, around 40 tanks were damaged in the course of the war, resulting in the deaths of 30 tank crewmen--25 percent of the IDF's entire combat losses in the war
meria.idc.ac.il...

even your beloved Israel , lost the war against Hezobollah , Hezobollah won,

Israel's verdict: We lost the war

By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel
Tuesday, 15 August 2006


Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.
www.independent.co.uk...

from Hal lindsey:

Israel Can Only Lose Once - 8/19/2006 PDF Print E-mail
During one of Israel's many wars, Golda Meir offered this famous ? and tragic ? observation: "The Arabs can fight, and lose, and return to fight another day. Israel can only lose once." Golda's assessment became a truism of the Middle East up until now. And the jury is still out as to whether her assessment remains true to this day. In the strange and surreal world that is the Middle East, Israel lost its war with Hezbollah. And while it remains intact at the moment, her enemies no longer view the Jewish state as invincible.
hallindsey.org...

Why Israel lost
Posted: August 16, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

By Benjamin Shapiro
© 2008



With Israel's decision to accept a United Nations-brokered cease-fire with the Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, it has suffered the most ignominious defeat in Israeli history. Israel's aura of invincibility has been shattered; its will has been called into question; its citizens are still under constant threat; its enemies have been elevated in the eyes of their radical compatriots. Syria, emboldened, is talking war. Iran, emboldened, is talking war. And the Lebanese government, emboldened, will refuse to disarm Hezbollah.

What happened? There are many reasons Israel did not finish off Hezbollah. It underestimated Hezbollah's capabilities. It overestimated its own capabilities.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by manson_322]

reply to post by LDragonFire


those are some sweet purchases (if they do buy them)
good detturent for most countries

reply to post by manson_322

lol, more BS from an ignorant american,

even your beloved Israel , lost the war against Hezobollah , Hezobollah won,

FYI- Not every American is pro-Israel. Despite America's flaws we have moved beyond mixing religion and government. You can't fault Americans for their apprehension towards some of those governments.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


Yep . . . cuz those Indonesians love shooting rockets over your walls everyday.



I guess we should have given all the aid in WW2 to Canada, seeing as how they were getting their cities bombed nightly.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Ha... HA... ha...
You gave me one piss-weak arguement to justify why it's okay to treat Israel like the special disabled kid on the block...
And...?

Funny how you seem to dodge or ignore any of my points that prove too tough to refute.
Just at least admit defeat, don't pretend you didn't read my posts.

Why exactly are you so unrelenting in your backing for Israel? You seem to ignore whatever facts I give you and come back with inane insults or point out trivial errors...
Which exactly fits the profile of many other pro-Republican, Zionist-minded chicken hawks on this forum.
A coincidence? Maybe...

See that banner up there? deny ignorance?.

DO IT.

Originally posted by Maxmars
What I want to know is why Iran had to foot the bill? What was in it for them? Surely they don't need to have Syria as an ally for no reason. I would like to know the terms of the Iranian-Syrian transaction, more so than the mundane purchase of weapon systems.

I am no expert but I beleive Iran and Syria have always had a pretty good relationship. Neither of them accept Israel (i.e. they will not allow anyone who has ever been known set foot in Israel visit their countries).

The Syrian government is technically secular, but I believe they have a lot of Shi'a. That sets them a bit apart from the rest of the Arab world (though of course Iraq is following suit with a shi'a power base now).

Plus Syria does not have much money (no oil) whereas Iran is doing quite well these days. Then there is also the idea of the Shi'a crescent, Iraq, Syria, Iran, strengthening the shi'a presence in the middle east as never before.

It seems quite natural to help out a friend/ally who can't afford new weaponry, especially when they have the same political outlook and the same enemies. You can be sure that the U.S. would be likely to give weapons aid to our friends who need it especially when they happen to border our enemies.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Maxmars
What I want to know is why Iran had to foot the bill? What was in it for them? Surely they don't need to have Syria as an ally for no reason. I would like to know the terms of the Iranian-Syrian transaction, more so than the mundane purchase of weapon systems.

I am no expert but I beleive Iran and Syria have always had a pretty good relationship. Neither of them accept Israel (i.e. they will not allow anyone who has ever been known set foot in Israel visit their countries).

The Syrian government is technically secular, but I believe they have a lot of Shi'a. That sets them a bit apart from the rest of the Arab world (though of course Iraq is following suit with a shi'a power base now).

Plus Syria does not have much money (no oil) whereas Iran is doing quite well these days. Then there is also the idea of the Shi'a crescent, Iraq, Syria, Iran, strengthening the shi'a presence in the middle east as never before.

It seems quite natural to help out a friend/ally who can't afford new weaponry, especially when they have the same political outlook and the same enemies. You can be sure that the U.S. would be likely to give weapons aid to our friends who need it especially when they happen to border our enemies.

Thank you Sonya!

It seems that I have always had a hard time wrapping my mind around a certain aspect of the Islamic world in that region. It always seemed to me that the whole concept of 'nation state' is antithetical to the Islamic nature of the culture. I mean their religion precludes the notion of war on each other and yet they are not one gigantic nation; shouldn't they be? It's not like they can engage in jihad against one another, yet that is the only form of aggressive cultural expression they are allowed (the whole sunni, shi'a, aspect is a contrivance which arose after succession became a contested issue, no?)

Originally posted by Maxmars I mean their religion precludes the notion of war on each other and yet they are not one gigantic nation; shouldn't they be? It's not like they can engage in jihad against one another, yet that is the only form of aggressive cultural expression they are allowed (the whole sunni, shi'a, aspect is a contrivance which arose after succession became a contested issue, no?)

Well I asked some Muslim online friends and they agree, Sunni and Shi’a cannot engage in Jihad (something to do with the War of the Camels).

Regarding a united Islamic Nation, personally I believe that was the plan of Osama Bin Laden all along. He wanted to se the various governments in the middle east overthrown and raise the Jihad fighters, and what better way to do that than to start a war with the US? They (Osama and crew) defeated the Russians in Afghanistan so he felt he needed to convince the populace that they can rise up, and even defeat the greatest military power in the world (the U.S.) and then taking out their own corrupt governments would be a small thing.

Along those lines supposedly Osama told Zarqawi, (head of Al Queda in Iraq) several times NOT to start a civil war between the Shia’ and the Sunni in Iraq. Zarqawi started one anyway. Suddenly after a year of searching with NO results the U.S. had information on him and knew exactly where he was. I truly believe Osama sent Zarqawi to Paradise as a Martyr.

reply to post by Sonya610


sadly thats bollocks

iranian jews are completely allowed freedom to visit israel at anytime - the sad fact is they are seriosuly upset with israel (iranian jews) because of the repeated insulting offer to `run away from there homes for money`


israel doesn`t allow jewish citizens to visit iranian jews.