BREAKING: US enlists Britain's help to stop ship 'carrying Russian attack helicopters' to Syria

reply to post by victor7


55% support assad as doha debates research by Qatar Foundation.

muslimnews.co.uk...

BREAKING:

(CNN) -- A Russian cargo ship reported to be carrying arms to Syria is turning back, Britain's top diplomat said Tuesday.

"I am pleased that the ship that was reported to be carrying arms to Syria has turned back apparently towards Russia," British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
BREAKING:

(CNN) -- A Russian cargo ship reported to be carrying arms to Syria is turning back, Britain's top diplomat said Tuesday.

"I am pleased that the ship that was reported to be carrying arms to Syria has turned back apparently towards Russia," British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons.

www.cnn.com...

Russia never intended for the ship to actually ever get there if it didn't have insurance, but it did make the news, so its mission is complete. They can now say they tried to return Syria's mechandise, and when Assad falls, they can keep their fixed helicopters. More shenanigans by Russia and you all fell for it again.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP


Russia never intended for the ship to actually ever get there if it didn't have insurance, but it did make the news, so its mission is complete. They can now say they tried to return Syria's mechandise, and when Assad falls, they can keep their fixed helicopters. More shenanigans by Russia and you all fell for it again.

It did have insurance. The company cancelled it mid-voyage when they found out weapons were aboard which breaks the policy.

Originally posted by TinfoilTPyou all fell for it again.

You haven't been following this story at all, it appears.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by TinfoilTP


Russia never intended for the ship to actually ever get there if it didn't have insurance, but it did make the news, so its mission is complete. They can now say they tried to return Syria's mechandise, and when Assad falls, they can keep their fixed helicopters. More shenanigans by Russia and you all fell for it again.

It did have insurance. The company cancelled it mid-voyage when they found out weapons were aboard which breaks the policy.

Originally posted by TinfoilTPyou all fell for it again.

You haven't been following this story at all, it appears.

They knew the insurance was no good if weapons were on board before the ship ever left port.
Russia never intended for the ship to reach Syria.
So yes, you all fell for it again.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

American role in Libya? do i need to discuss such nonsense??

Since that operation was led by the French and the British, by all means, dsicuss your nonsense. Please be sure to take it to the Libya thread though since we are discussing Syria and Russia in this one.

As for other comments on the insurance there was a press release (I will try and find it) that raised the exact same issue I raised. By insuring a vessel carrying military hardware to Syria, and that company being in Europe, they are in violation of the EU sanctions on Syria.

As for the speculation about the Russians knowing the ship would never make it thats an interesting take. I never really thought about how easy it wouldhave been to transport those to the black sea region and deliver them that way.

The problem with playing both sides of the road though is the possibility of getting hit by traffic in both directions.

Since that operation was led by the French and the British, by all means, dsicuss your nonsense. Please be sure to take it to the Libya thread though since we are discussing Syria and Russia in this one.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Lead from the front or the back, it does not matter. Be advised that global politics is a chain reaction and interconnection of sorts. I have no reason to take comments to Libya threads. Your tail is already down below your legs by asking to take matters to Libya thread.

No need to discuss nonsense as that would not make any difference. The only difference that would make is a counter punch which Russia and friends are too illprepared and thus timid to make.

Originally posted by victor7
Lead from the front or the back, it does not matter. Be advised that global politics is a chain reaction and interconnection of sorts. I have no reason to take comments to Libya threads. Your tail is already down below your legs by asking to take matters to Libya thread.

Since the Libya operation was pushed by France, and led by France and Britain and NOt the US your logic is flawed. As I have stated in other threads quit trying to blame the US for everything. It gets old and you never post anything to support your claims. As an example im still waiting on your to post your source that supports your claims that 60K + Russians die every year from drugs that come from Afghanistan.

Yes its all inter related, however you arent trying to relate anything in it other than push the agenda of Libya and the US, which makes no sense since it was France and Britain who led that situation. Something you fail to acknowledge by simply blaming the US for everything with no support.

Originally posted by victor7
No need to discuss nonsense as that would not make any difference. The only difference that would make is a counter punch which Russia and friends are too illprepared and thus timid to make.

There are no grounds for RUssia to retaliate against Britain, as much as others like to argue. It was a business decision and a valid one at that. If Russia wants to deliver the material they can pack them up on military transports and deliver them, endearing themselves even more to the Syrian population who, if they win the struggle, will boot Russias ass out of the country.

reply to post by Xcathdra


www.so... tt.net/ articles/show/143385-About-80-000-Russians-die-of-drugs-annually

About 80,000 drug-related deaths are registered annually in Russia, Alexander Yanevsky of the Federal Drugs Control Service said on Friday.

"Some 70,000 Russians die of drug-related diseases and another 10,000 from overdoses," he said.

A total of 350,000 drug addicts were registered in the country at the end of 2006, and some six million Russians have reportedly used drugs. Some 70% of those people who admitted to drug use are under the age of 30.

"Russia is in the 'drug belt' - it receives heroin from the south and synthetic drugs from the west. In addition, drug production within the country is also on the rise," Yanevsky said, adding that this threat could be eliminated only through preventive and educational measures.

reply to post by Xcathdra


www.unodc.org...

More deaths at home (from drugs) than on the battlefield (from bullets)

Surprising as it may seem, the human cost of addiction in consuming countries is higher than the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan's poppy fields. The number of heroin addicts in Russia has gone up by a factor of ten in the past decade, to the point that more Russians die every year from Afghan drugs (more than 30,000 according to government figures) than the total number of Red Army soldiers killed during the 10-year Afghan war.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
BREAKING:

(CNN) -- A Russian cargo ship reported to be carrying arms to Syria is turning back, Britain's top diplomat said Tuesday.

"I am pleased that the ship that was reported to be carrying arms to Syria has turned back apparently towards Russia," British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons.

www.cnn.com...

Russia never intended for the ship to actually ever get there if it didn't have insurance, but it did make the news, so its mission is complete. They can now say they tried to return Syria's mechandise, and when Assad falls, they can keep their fixed helicopters. More shenanigans by Russia and you all fell for it again.

Right, because a few million $'s in helicopters that are pretty much out-dated now is totally worth risking international relations with numerous countries, likely to cost Russia many billions

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

www.unodc.org...

More deaths at home (from drugs) than on the battlefield (from bullets)

Surprising as it may seem, the human cost of addiction in consuming countries is higher than the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan's poppy fields. The number of heroin addicts in Russia has gone up by a factor of ten in the past decade, to the point that more Russians die every year from Afghan drugs (more than 30,000 according to government figures) than the total number of Red Army soldiers killed during the 10-year Afghan war.

This site says it uses Russian Govt figures and gives roughtly 7-8000 drug deaths per year since 2005. Of course the russian govt is reliable - at least as reliable and any UN body.......;0

WOW........Break Assads gripe on Syria NOW!
STOP all Russian weapons shipments NOW.
The terrorists ARE NOT THE PEOPLE fighting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The TERRORISTS are and have been ASSAD......and like HIS SCUMBAG FATHER....they murder murder murder thier own citizens.....in THE 70's ASSAD KILLED 70,000 SYRIANS for wanting freedom and independence...JUST WIPED THEIR TOWN OFF THE FACE OF THE MAP...All of you who profess to believe that this is an orchestrated move by the NWO or the US can kiss you own butts...YOU ARE WRONG AS USUAL. RUSSIA is a two bit piece of crap..THEY GIVE NOTHING TO ANYONE EVER...Ricky Revere rides again.....The wicked ones are here.....and lots of them on ATS.....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Since the Libya operation was pushed by France, and led by France and Britain and NOt the US your logic is flawed.

France and UK are on the same side as the US as far as this "Arab Spring" fiasco goes. Sometimes people may speak of US directly, but you might as well imply the whole NATO. US was just as vocal and threatening towards Lybian regime as France and UK were. I don't think it matters all that much how the three of them decide on logistics and who is going to do the bombing.

Don't try and claim US had absolutely no hand in Lybia.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There are no grounds for RUssia to retaliate against Britain, as much as others like to argue.

There were no grounds for NATO to bomb Lybia - and yet they did. There were no ground for US to threaten Assad - and yet they did. Its all fair game when it comes to the US/EU world police, but its off limits to everyone else in your view? Face it, if US and EU are willing to risk escalation over this crap, Russia may just as well decide to play game.

Fact is Russia is not going to retaliate against Britain, because British action didn't really hurt it all that much. But relations may suffer in the long run, as may British business dealings with Russia. It's all business after all, nothing personal right?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It was a business decision and a valid one at that.

So when Russia stops doing business in offshore drilling with British companies, we can too call that just a business decision, and a valid one.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If Russia wants to deliver the material they can pack them up on military transports and deliver them, endearing themselves even more to the Syrian population

Again you talk of Syrian population as a single-minded entity. How many Syrian do you think support Assad, or are opposed to the rebels? I don't know the %, and neither do you, and any guess are worth crap. It is a Civil War, and Russia chose one side and US chose the other side. To argue whose side "the population" is on is ridiculuous if you know anything about Civil Wars.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
who, if they win the struggle, will boot Russias ass out of the country.

If Russia abandons Assad, and US/EU decide to drop some bombs to seal the deal, then the rebels win anyway and won't be friendly towards Russia in any case. So Russia may just as well stick with the side it chose and let this take its course through the meat grinder. As for booting the Russians out - that depends on who comes to power in the power-vaccume that develops. It may very well be that if Assad falls, his old supporters like the Baathists will continue to struggle for power, and this Civil War may drag on considerably longer. Look at what is happening in Egypt - the "Old Guard" are still effectively running the country.

Originally posted by maloy
Don't try and claim US had absolutely no hand in Lybia.

No-one has said any such thing.

There were no grounds for NATO to bomb Lybia - and yet they did. There were no ground for US to threaten Assad - and yet they did.

nonsense - there were clearly "grounds" for both.

You may argue they are insufficient to jsutify the action(s) but to say there are none at all is dishonest.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Right, because a few million $'s in helicopters that are pretty much out-dated now is totally worth risking international relations with numerous countries, likely to cost Russia many billions

Russia is risking international relations no more so than US and UK. How is this going to cost Russia billions? Will US and EU stop doing business with Russia? Will they pull their investments out of Russia? Will they freeze Russian assets? I think they are a bit more pragmatic than that. That is why the large economically important powers don't have open conflicts with one another - they are bound to result in more money lost than gained. Sure they may slap each other with a fish politically, and play a few cards to bargain with one another.

Now if anyone tries to interfere with the military vessels or ships in international waters (which is not the case here), that will be another matter, and I am certain it won't come to that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
nonsense - there were clearly "grounds" for both.

You may argue they are insufficient to jsutify the action(s) but to say there are none at all is dishonest.

I am just proving a point about someone saying that Russia has no grounds to retaliate against EU trying to block its actions. There are grounds for Russia's actions, just as there are for the other side.

In either case "grounds" and justification is very subjective in this case, just as in almost any conflict. They are present almost all the time - it the "suffiency to justify the response" that is usually the prevailing question.

reply to post by maloy


It will take only 1 week mere 7 days mere 168 hours of closing of the NDN supply route. Russia should close this supply route for 7 days in retaliation to the ship insurance incident. After 7 days, double the prices of each container crossing the RF territory and instruct the other CSTO members to do the same. US/EU/NATO all will come into a line.

If they do not, then ship in $10M worth of weapons from China to the AQ/Talibian in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. When action heats up then boys will cry mommy and for every 1 killed, 5 others will commit suicide.

So much for poking nose into Russia's affairs.

Fact is Russia is not going to retaliate against Britain, because British action didn't really hurt it all that much. But relations may suffer in the long run, as may British business dealings with Russia. It's all business after all, nothing personal right?

reply to post by maloy


Russia has no future in trying to suck up and develop any sort of partnership with US, UK type nations. If Russia keeps working on that hope then best they will get is the Master-Servant terms. Some that Hitler tried to work on in the WWII. 20 years is more than enough to judge the intentions of the various nations and peoples. Russia should look more to east like China, India, Japan, Islamic World. 'Evil Hatred' lives in Western Europe and in those who migrated from there. No place for Evilness in our minds and daily lives.

Originally posted by maloy
France and UK are on the same side as the US as far as this "Arab Spring" fiasco goes. Sometimes people may speak of US directly, but you might as well imply the whole NATO. US was just as vocal and threatening towards Lybian regime as France and UK were. I don't think it matters all that much how the three of them decide on logistics and who is going to do the bombing.

Don't try and claim US had absolutely no hand in Lybia.

Then when referring to the operations include France and Britain instead of just singaling out the US. It doesnt matter what side they fall on, they still led the vanguard for Libya, not the US. It matters a great deal as to what role we played. Trying to ingore it or water it down so you can lump everything together does not work.

Originally posted by maloy
There were no grounds for NATO to bomb Lybia - and yet they did. There were no ground for US to threaten Assad - and yet they did. Its all fair game when it comes to the US/EU world police, but its off limits to everyone else in your view? Face it, if US and EU are willing to risk escalation over this crap, Russia may just as well decide to play game.

You are lost I see and hell bent on comparing apples to zebras.. Please explain to everyone what grounds Russia has against the government of the UK for a private business that operates out of the UK, which is required to comply with EU laws, for yanking insurance from a private Russian company.

While your at it please explaimn how that action has anything at all to do with Libya, I mean other than your attempt to confuse and obfuscate those who arent paying attention?

Originally posted by maloy
Fact is Russia is not going to retaliate against Britain, because British action didn't really hurt it all that much. But relations may suffer in the long run, as may British business dealings with Russia. It's all business after all, nothing personal right?

Yet here you and others are, stating the company had no right to take that action, while at the same time using the term british instead of private british company. As far as business goes, thats what I stated to being with while others were trying to make it into a government to government conspiracy.

Originally posted by maloy
So when Russia stops doing business in offshore drilling with British companies, we can too call that just a business decision, and a valid one.

again pay attention and quit trying to obfuscate. A private British company decided to end their business arrangement with a private Russian company. The governments of each country have nothing to do with the decision. Russian businesses are just as free as british businesses to decide who they do business with. What has led you to beleive otherwise?

Originally posted by maloy
Again you talk of Syrian population as a single-minded entity. How many Syrian do you think support Assad, or are opposed to the rebels? I don't know the %, and neither do you, and any guess are worth crap. It is a Civil War, and Russia chose one side and US chose the other side. To argue whose side "the population" is on is ridiculuous if you know anything about Civil Wars.

Since the Assad regime controls the media I dont have an answer for you. I know there are enough Syrians who are tired of his rule that they are present in suffificent numbers to cause him serious issues. the fact the UN, other nations and now you refer to the situation as a civil war leads me to beleive their is a significant part of the population against Assad.

Originally posted by maloy
If Russia abandons Assad, and US/EU decide to drop some bombs to seal the deal, then the rebels win anyway and won't be friendly towards Russia in any case. So Russia may just as well stick with the side it chose and let this take its course through the meat grinder. As for booting the Russians out - that depends on who comes to power in the power-vaccume that develops. It may very well be that if Assad falls, his old supporters like the Baathists will continue to struggle for power, and this Civil War may drag on considerably longer. Look at what is happening in Egypt - the "Old Guard" are still effectively running the country.

You are ignoring the fact Russia is ignoring the actions of the Assad regime towards the Syrian people based solely on use and access to the port and the med. That wont sit well with the Syrian people, and based on information coming out of Syria, its a factor.

As for the Baathist party its done with. The days of a single person rule are coming to an end as well, especially in traditioonal dictatorial countries in the ME and Asia.