Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles: U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


The iskander that russia "gives" away has 280km range... not 280 miles. 280 miles are 450km... which is the iskander russia uses in its own army and that one can go beyond the INF, so I doubt that russia would give those to syria since that would be an encouragement to violation and would be a direct dare to the us which is not the purpose here - this is a "demonstration", not the real deal.

No, they gave them the 280km version which is enough to make a stand. And who likes to see a one-sided fight after all? I agree with russia's move. It makes the patriot look useless and it makes the us seem ridiculous supplying their allies with old tech - if they're going to use patriots against the iskander they might as well use rocks and slingshots...

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Ah, all that computer circuitry used in a weapon, seems like a perfect waste of the gold used in it.

Makes on think.. why aren't we using EMP shield technology? Bombs enter the shield and become duds.

EMP's....

honest inquiry

Has the US developed a EMP device?

The concept of EMP's is well known. But has a weapon been created, other than a nuclear bomb of any size that actually produced what we know as an EMP?

reply to post by maloy


Let alone Israel would have found and blown them up by now as them being a serious risk to their national security. Russia is not dumb and will not give its best toys to crazy Arabs to hand over upon defeat by America or NATO.

I'm just going to toss this out there... I said I wouldn't include my theory in the OP, but that was soooo long ago lol.

Is it not possible, that the US, Russia, China and Israel are setting up the stage that allows for a much higher escalation of fighting not only with in the surrounding countries boarders. But, between the countries themselves.

There are some resources in the region in which the US, Russia, and China all might want? Is it not possible that the fast growing economies that are based on Islamic banking practices will get in the way of securing these resources? It would be reasonable to say, IMO... that based upon Islamic banking models, it will become self-sustainable with out the need to export their resources to make money.

I think that it's strange that nobody talks about this!!!!

Here's just the tip of the iceberg, that is Islamic banking:

Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking: to make money for the banking institute by lending out capital. But that is not the sole purpose either. Adherence to Islamic law and ensuring fair play is also at the core of Islamic banking. Because Islam forbids simply lending out money at interest (see riba), Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to prevent this perceived evil. The basic principle of Islamic banking is based on risk-sharing which is a component of trade rather than risk-transfer which we see in the conventional banking. Islamic banking introduces concepts such as profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijar).
In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of loaning the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments. However, the bank's profit cannot be made explicit and therefore there are no additional penalties for late payment. In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral. The goods or land is registered to the name of the buyer from the start of the transaction. This arrangement is called Murabahah.

en.wikipedia.org...

Does ANYBODY SEE A CONFLICT with current banking practices that dominate the world. AKA Federal Reserve...

These means(Islamic banking) has the potential to disrupt and remove leverage on an unprecedented scale.

Does ANYBODY BELIEVE that Russia benefits off of exports and investment banking with the countries that practice Islamic banking? Or how about the US? Or how about even China?

NO WAY IN HELL The very notion of removing interest all but completely removes the very means of profiting from investing with these nations on any level. There's a strong history in regards to the concept of charging interest and positions taken based on Religion doctrines.

en.wikipedia.org...

Usury ( /ˈjuːʒəri/[1][2]) is defined either as the practice of making loans with excessive or abusive interest rates, or simply the practice of loaning money with interest. [3][4][5]
The term may be used in a moral sense — condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes — or in a legal sense where interest rates may be regulated by law. Historically, some cultures (e.g. Muslims) have regarded charging any interest for loans as sinful and some still do today.
Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew).[6] At times many nations from ancient China to ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, in medieval Europe, the Christian church banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).

This is, IMO... not the only contributing factor... but I'd suggest is one of the most influential.

"Hey Mr.Islamic business and/or banks, would you like a loan? Would you like to do business, allowing me to finance it for you. All you have to do is pay me back... well of course with a little bit of interest. Lets do business!"

"Hey Mr.Non-Islamic-banker, you have evil practices... I don't support your means. Soon, I can sustain myself with out the need to even work with you. Thanks for the start up money and means by purchasing our oil for all those years."

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


No. CHAMP isn't an EMP weapon, it's a High Powered Microwave weapon. It used a directed HPM pulse to take out the electronics in a specific area.

reply to post by maloy

Good job on here malloy. This thread is debunked in your capable hands...

I just love how a pseudo-news website of dubious origin and with even more dubious sources can generate this much discussion and influence people with absolutely absurd news backed by absolutely no credible evidence. Its a farce, much like Debka

Other articles at the bottom of this absurdity excuse for a website want us to believe Obama "left his gay life to become president" and he is "building a Death Star".

www.wnd.com...

I suppose the following is just as important to note:

Usury and slavery in present day
While the practice of direct slavery is widely banned across the world, in some places debt-slavery is still practiced.[40] A debtor who is found unable to repay a loan can be placed in a state of debt-slavery, a situation where-by their life and labors are directed by the lender until the debt is considered repaid.[41] Usury is often a major part of extending this slavery, not uncommonly assisting in extending the debt-slavery onto the children of the debtor, thus making slaves of multiple generations and promoting child labor.[42] Another form of or name for this practice is debt bondage.

en.wikipedia.org...

The following are lyrics from the song "Uncle Sam, Goddamn" ~ Brother Ali

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grant imperial guard where the dollar is sacred and power is God

IMO, this is a fairly close perception that many in Islam have. Although this obviously doesn't apply to every supporter of Islam... but it is present among the majority.

Only two generations away from
the Worlds most despicable slavery trade

Pioneered so many ways to degrade a human being
That it can't be changed to this day
Legacy so ingrained in the way that we think
We don't only need chains to be slaves

Lord it's a shameful display
The overseers even got raped along the way
Cause the children can't escape from the pain
And they're born with the pores
and this hatred in their veins

Try and separate a man from his soul
You'll only strengthen him and lose your own

More lyrics: www.lyricsmania.com...
All about Brother Ali: www.musictory.com...

Again, this is just one view and not all of Islam shares the 'exact' same feelings that are expressed by Brother Ali. But, eventually the complete disconnect between Islam and the Worlds economic relationship is inevitable. This is because the entire sentiment of Islamic banking is rooted in a shared doctrine of Islam will no longer participate and help support the rest of the world, because in doing so promotes and perpetuates doctrines that Islam does not support.

So, it comes down to... "Why support your enemy(better choice of words: opposing means), when the necessity of your interaction with them is no longer present as a means of economic sustainability?"

...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by maloy

 

Good job on here malloy. This thread is debunked in your capable hands...

I just love how a pseudo-news website of dubious origin and with even more dubious sources can generate this much discussion and influence people with absolutely absurd news backed by absolutely no credible evidence. Its a farce, much like Debka

Other articles at the bottom of this absurdity excuse for a website want us to believe Obama "left his gay life to become president" and he is "building a Death Star".

www.wnd.com...

edit on 8-12-2012 by intrptr because: pre spun

I hope people note that immediately following the OP, I then posted the following:

"Is WND.com full of it? Reliable source? "

,,,, yeah, disinformation at it's finest?

If so...

What would be the initiative behind creating such an article? Website traffic? If so... that's pretty pathetic.

If anybody somehow missed this part, please go back and read the article I presented in that post that directly contradicts the claims in the article presented in the OP.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


I don't think it is intended as disinformation. It is just someone with too much time and too much imagination, that tries to get traffic and attention based on sensationalism. Sensationalism is the prevailing driving force behind Main Stream Media as a whole - only some sensationalism is based on real events that are spun way out of proportion, while is some is outright garbage. Notice how much attention MSM gives to violent shootings, wars, natural disasters, scandals, etc. It's entertaining and engaging, and if people are entertained they will watch TV or read the news for much longer than they otherwise would. Most people would rather look at pictures of explosions and read about terrifying dictators, than watch politicians debating each other in Congress.


Attention on Syria in the MSM seems to be dying down recently. As far as most are concerned, it is just a boring civil war now that has been going on for over a year. So MSM, along with NATO's endless parade of ministers and delegates tries to reinvigorate the interest with the recent "Chemical Weapons" story. If that's not entertaining then I don't know what is. Next year no one will remember any of this, because they will be entertained by some new scandalous crap.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Sorry, OP. I should have made it more clear that the web site article you linked to is what is debunked., not your thread. Thanks for bringing it. Thats what ATS is for.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Yes I am sorry, as you are quite right what you said, it is not the people, it is the leaders of today that are making problems for the people of earth, just a shame we cannot get shut of them as easy as they can us yer? but till the public take the bull by the horns and do that we are in a poo. Take care, everyone who is reading these message as we are well and truly all in danger. Merry Christmas to you all.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


If you thought there was a question to the validity it should have been at the beginning of the first post.

Is WND.com full of it? Reliable source?

You opened the flood gates by asking ATS to give opinions.

I think any war or posturing is futile. There are real problems to deal with that need attention. Whatever Russia's intentions are make no difference, Turkey, Syria, Israel and that entire region are heading for a showdown, the US and UK are going to see to it, by using the UN and NATO to intervene a False Flag of some kind will present itself very shortly. They use war to create distractions, they have done it throughout history many times. They use war to manipulate the economy, they use war to depopulate, they use war to create distractions. Does it really matter what kind of weapons they have aimed at each other, they all kill...they all destroy what they hit, does a missile with a nuclear warhead make you feel safer than one with chemicals? I get so angry over the use of conventional weapons and guns, I do not need other weapons involved. WAR is ridiculous, and all soldiers should just walk away and refuse to fight any more.

Just to be clear:

Russia/China are not taking the stance they are "to shield Assad from International criticsm".

THEY are on the side of International law, even if it does coincide with their interests.

Who the # is Obama or Hillary to dictate and/or decide who should run Syria? Cause they're doing such a great job in/with their own country? And have nearly universal domestic and international popularity and support? (sarcasm...)

Maybe other countries should start shipping arms and funds to the Republicans; officially recognize Mitt Romney as the head of the Free American Army...

If America, in the guise of NATO, want to be the new Hitler and invade country after country, at least have the balls to cop to it, instead of pretending humanitarian concern, which almost no one, outside of their own deluded citizens, believes.

On the OP, I just found an article from Dec 5 referring to the Iskanders, though it does not provide sources. Was the debka article out on or before the 5th?

"Syria faces military showdown amid
chemical weapon fears"
English.news.cn 2012-12-05
news.xinhuanet.com...

Found it linked here:
pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com...

I've read the opinions that the reports are neither credible nor sensical, just thought I'd add it fwiw.

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
Just to be clear:

Russia/China are not taking the stance they are "to shield Assad from International criticsm".

THEY are on the side of International law, even if it does coincide with their interests.

Who the # is Obama or Hillary to dictate and/or decide who should run Syria? Cause they're doing such a great job in/with their own country? And have nearly universal domestic and international popularity and support? (sarcasm...)

Maybe other countries should start shipping arms and funds to the Republicans; officially recognize Mitt Romney as the head of the Free American Army...

If America, in the guise of NATO, want to be the new Hitler and invade country after country, at least have the balls to cop to it, instead of pretending humanitarian concern, which almost no one, outside of their own deluded citizens, believes.

edit on 8-12-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction

I'm not denying anything that you've said... but would you mind then addressing the following:

in regards to Russian veto's

Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong said Beijing vetoed the resolution because it had "uneven content intended to put pressure on only one party." He said that if passed, the resolution would "aggravate the turmoil and cause spillover to the other countries in the region." Mr. Li also called the West "rigid and arrogant."

Yeah... said spill over, as in not just Turkey, but Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and so forth, bringing it closer to Russia and eventually spilling over onto their soil.

They're afraid that radical Islam will spill over into their country.

Analysts routinely cite three additional reasons for Moscow's continued support for the Syrian government: Russia's millions of dollars a year in legal arms sales to Syria; Russian naval access to a port at Tartus. on Syria's Mediterranean coast; and a desire to maintain its last ally in the Middle East.

But analysts also say Russia's stance must be put in the context of Moscow's 30-year struggle against encroachment into its sphere of influence by militant Islam. The support given these groups at times by the U.S. and Gulf Arab nations opened a three-decade rift with Russia that began in Afghanistan and has run across the Northern Caucasus to the Balkans and now into Syria, analysts said.

Russia is opposed to regime change in Syria not only on principle, but because the likely new regime would be headed by an Islamist government inimical to Russian interests, analysts and diplomats say.

"Russia is obviously concerned about Islamic regimes, and perhaps most important of all it is terrified of chaos," said Mark Galeotti, chairman of the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He said chaos and anarchy in the Middle East fuel the rise of Islamic extremism.

online.wsj.com...

So how how does their actions not include their own interests?

The transfer of such missiles would agravate the situation into an excuse for intervention surely.....
I handt realised the source was shakey, but i agee the arming of Syria with these birds would be counter productive for Assad.
The iskander has an underwater twin though....which i believe that Iran has bought...called the Shkvaal sic....
these are the ship killers that theres not much defense for....
I was thinking the iskanders would be solely for a swan song strike on Israel....

I said "though it does coincide with their interests".

It is against international law to force or engineer regime change on another country, though the US has gotten away with it many many times - engineering or backing coups in South America, Iran, Iraq, Africa - most recently Libya.

From this article which links to sources:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548300

: jurist.law.pitt.edu...
forumnew98.php
snip:
Something has been missing from the
debate over the use of U.S. military
action for regime change in Iraq:
Coercive regime change violates basic
tenets of international law.
snip:
Forcible regime change violates the
deeply enshrined principle that people
should be allowed to choose their
own government. The cornerstone
human rights document, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, provides
that the only legitimate government is
one based on the "will of the people."
The International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, a convention
ratified by the U.S., recognizes "self-
determination" as a human right and
specifies that "by virtue of that right"
all peoples have the right to "freely
determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development."
Armed interventions for regime
change also run contrary to Article
2(4) of the United Nations Charter,
which prohibits the threat or use of
force "against... he political
independence" of another state "or in
any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations."
This includes the need to respect and
to observe human rights and to
promote self-determination. The
definition of aggression adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly
in 1974 also provides that it if "the
duty of States not to use armed force
to deprive peoples of their right to
self-determination." Violations of this
duty may constitute an international
crime.
The use of military force for regime
change is in fact radically different
than other kinds of U.S. intervention
in recent years. Before taking that
route, the U.S. should think hard
about the precedent it will establish
and the possible consequences.
See the link for the full article. Check
this out as well: www.bard.edu...
bgia/journal/vol3/i-article1.pdf
The US has violated international law
as written in at least three separate
documents, two of them documents
the US has ratified and/or been a part
of.

The US and NATO, and the UN for that matter, can call it what they want, but everyone knows what it is - illegal.

Shame on all the countries who participate in the ongoing farce that is the UN.

If it weren't against their interests, no doubt Russia and China *would* be on board. I don't attribute them altruistic qualities, but they ARE on the right side of the law, and the UN's own charter, in this instance.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Very interesting, had not considered this thank you!

Op- Thanks for the thread I too find this very disturbing.