Missiles fired at Russian plane with 159 passengers onboard flying over Syria

Originally posted by live2beknown
reply to post by all2human

 

lol your stupid don't speak..Don't under estimate Russia. They're more powerful than you think..I'm tired of all these ignorant kids here riding America's D**k.. yea America has technology, but it doesn't always win a battle.. I.e WW2 with Hitler..

edit on 30-4-2013 by live2beknown because: (no reason given)

Um, Hitler was on the offensive trying to attack a nation and invade it making probably the biggest strategic blunder of all time.

Russia's army/generals/Stalin had VERY little to do with Nazi failure - but old mama nature sure did.

Originally posted by timewarpedbrain7
One thing Russia does have is tons and tons of men willing to fight. Just look at WW1 and WW2.

In WWII, you either fought or they shot your family. If you retreated, they shot you. "Willing" isn't exactly the word I'd use for it.

NOW - what Russia does have is a sense of determination that would make it damn near impossible to invade and hold land there - to invade a nation you have to have a pretty strong sense of nationalism.

That's why 'Murica is always pupping this "USA USA USA" stuff - keeps the troops feeling patriotic for invading other nations.

reply to post by gncnew



My point was, Hitler had the most advanced technology back than, 10-25 years ahead of the allies, he had a huuge army..And he still lost. It doesn't matter how much technology you have, like 1 emp can take out half of that stuff.

look America can't even take over Afghanistan, it's Impossible to take over a country, there's to much ground to cover. 12 years or something and they still haven't won that war and they never will..and they're trying to pull out of it cause they simply can't take out the "Taliban"

Technology will only get you so far, look at US, there F35 jet is taking so much time to finish and get it right..it's 2 years over due..

Yeah, America has amazing technology, but so does other countries, we just don't hear much about it.. Just because the news is blabbing about the states "new" tech, prob 5 years old..as they say Military are years ahead of the public, doesn't mean China/Russia doesn't have state of the art stuff also..

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

Quote: As for Russia... you are aware that if Russia gets into that mess it will support Assad right?

That's good... we don't need another nest of radical idiots like Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Iran etc. They need to be ruled with an iron hand like Saddam Hussein.

reply to post by majesticgent


I think it stands to reason that Assad would not just start firing missiles at one of the two superpowers of the modern world. He could not possibly gain in any way, shape or form from such an attack.

However, elements amongst the rebel forces (especially the jihadi mercenaries) would have absolutely EVERYTHING to gain by getting the blame for such an attack pinned on Assad.

Sheesh. The stuff getting blamed on Assad at the moment makes it seem that he's swinging from chandeliers and screaming for a refill of his intravenous absynthe drip whilst transcribing hallucinations as instructions for his generals.

He is trying to retain his legitimate hold on power. He previously enabled people of many faiths and nationality to live peacefully within his borders. There was stability, and - relative to other parts of the principally Islamic world - a great deal of personal freedom. When the rebels win, as they will with the support of the USA and other Western leaders, then the regime will not change to some peaceful democracy - it will become another unstable flashpoint, and will devolve into a Jihad-oriented state where Islamic fundamentalism crushes everything but itself, and Sharia law rears its ugly head to subjugate whatever humanity still remains.

This pattern, or at least stages preliminary to the long-term events described above, has/ have been witnessed in Egypt & Libya, and the actions in Syria - whilst touted as bringing down a dictator - are in fact short-sighted idiocy aimed at isolating Iran, which in actual truth will do nothing but generate an uneasy proxy war with Russia, and pave the way for implementation of a unified Islamic caliphate in the ME..

Ultimately all of this short-sighted idiocy will ensure that Israel is surrounded by enemies baying for its demise.

This will all, in one way or another, trigger serious exchange of weaponry. Iran and/or Russia let fly at Israel & US targets, or vice versa, and WW3 will have begun. In the chaos, Islamists will mount assaults against Israel first, then at US positions, then at any and all nations deemed anti-Islamic, or who openly support the US and her allies. Islam intends to be the last man standing in the cage match of ideologies.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by live2beknown
reply to post by all2human

 

lol your stupid don't speak..Don't under estimate Russia. They're more powerful than you think..I'm tired of all these ignorant kids here riding America's D**k.. yea America has technology, but it doesn't always win a battle.. I.e WW2 with Hitler..

edit on 30-4-2013 by live2beknown because: (no reason given)

Um, Hitler was on the offensive trying to attack a nation and invade it making probably the biggest strategic blunder of all time.

Russia's army/generals/Stalin had VERY little to do with Nazi failure - but old mama nature sure did.

Really? The USSR fought back fiercely for years. It wasn't winter the whole time, and they drove the Nazi army all the way back to Berlin.

Originally posted by timewarpedbrain7
One thing Russia does have is tons and tons of men willing to fight. Just look at WW1 and WW2.

In WWII, you either fought or they shot your family. If you retreated, they shot you. "Willing" isn't exactly the word I'd use for it.

OK, Russia had tons and tons of men who were motivated to fight.

Most were willing because you either fought back against the Nazis or the Nazis shot your family, bombed your town, pillaged your crops, took your oil and starved your city. And they started it.

It wasn't like WW1, when the revolution was seriously helped by resentment about getting into a pointless war for pointless aristocrats.

reply to post by mbkennel


In 1941 when the Axis invaded the USSR many soviet citizens actively sided with the invaders - all through Byelorus, Ukraine, the Baltic states and even "ethnic Russians" - hundreds of thousands of them ended up serving as "auxiliaries" or "hiwis" in het axis armed forces - I recall readong once somewher ethat about 1000 "east Eurpeans were surendering to the anglo-allies in France every week at one point after D-Day!

However most of the "salvic untermensch" soon learned that hte Axis was not the liberatos they had hoped for, and Stalin shrewdly revived/called on concepts such as "Mother Russia" to bolster morale and resistance - concepts that the communists had tried to suppress previously.

Service in the RKKA was not always willing - hundreds of thousands served in penal battalions, there WERE times when machineguns were set up behind troops with orders to shoot anyone who retreated. And not in a handful of isolated situations - they weer quite common especially in the dark days of 1941 ad 1942.

And as the soviets advanced back over previously lost territory they ruthlessly press-ganged inhabitants into eth armed forces - a few weeks training (where possible - it wasn't always!) and these newly liberated citizens would be fighting the previous occupier.

the USSR fought a total war the likes of which we "pampered" westerners will hopefully never experience - maybe 20-25 million peole weer killed - 1 person in 7 ofhet pre-war Soviet population. If you lived in Leningrad or Stalingrad in 1941 you had about a 50% chance of not being alive in 1943 - the Piskarevskoye Cemetery at St Petersburg reputedly holds 500,000 unnamed casualties of the Leningrad seige!

After 1941 the USSR faced about 70% of the Axis armed forces for the rest of the war. Lend elase helped - the west provided about 10% os the VVS's combat aircraft, IIRC about 14,000 total, and a simlar number of tanks, also millions of rations and boots, 500,000 trucks and millions of kilos of raw materials and even a complete aluminium smelter! But almost none of these were available when the Axis was stopped in 1941 (a few Brtiish tanks and Hurricans had made Murmansk by the end of that year).

And in the end all teeh western leand-lease was stil manned by Soviets.

without the West eth Soviets would have lost a lot more people - but they would not have lost the war - they might have tanken 2-3 more eyars to win it. without the Soviets "the west" would not have won the war in Europe - at least not without nuking Berlin!

I don't care for communism, and Stalin was a ruthless tyrant at least as murderous as Hitler - but anyone who denigrates the sacrifice and effort of the USSR in WW2 is a moron.

reply to post by majesticgent


My guess would be Al Qeada rebels. Russia is hated by them.

But, then again, I would also want to know what other news sources are saying.

Could this all be a media false flag like the USS Maine a real incident

Like a MANPAD was fired but the airliner was not even the target but a witness?

Russia has announced that they are suspending all commercial flights over Syria indefinitely, beginning immediately.

reply to post by live2beknown


America has not been able to root out Taliban in Afghanistan because it does not want to do so.

America's presence in Afghanistan is just for show.

The fight was against Al Qaeda (basically 'foreign fighters').

America fights where its sees the money.

The dogmatic fights like Vietnam and Korea (against Communism) are things of the past.

The future will throw some serious challenges - the rise of extreme Islam, and resurgence of Mongols. We are going back to time of Huns. It will reset every paradigm that West has developed.

Any recent updates on this?

Got squashed pretty quick.

Or did it?

The officials did not specify what U.S. equipment is under consideration, although the rebels have specifically requested ­antitank weapons and surface-to-air missiles.

Source

Safe to say the weapons are already there?

reply to post by Seek_Truth


There's not really much to update since they missed. It's not like they can send their version of the FBI there to question people and find out who did it. About all they can do is suspend overflights, which they already did.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Seek_Truth

 

There's not really much to update since they missed. It's not like they can send their version of the FBI there to question people and find out who did it. About all they can do is suspend overflights, which they already did.

Can you post a source Zaphod?

All I can see is that the "No Fly Zone" is still in question.

Asked about the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone over rebel-held areas in Syria, the official said the administration was “reviewing all options.”

Washington Post

"Pilots are not going to fly into certain death. I don't care how brave they are," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former Navy pilot. "You shoot down one or two of them, and they're not going to fly there again. They may like Bashar al-Assad, but they like to live a little more." Yet others have argued strenuously against military action – including a no-fly zone – because of Syria's "advanced anti-air defenses."

US News

PLEASE tell me you have some sort of credible evidence a no fly zone is in place.

Just trying to really figure out WTH is going on here.

reply to post by Seek_Truth


It's not a "no fly zone" per se, just a "our airlines aren't going to fly there anymore" zone.

Russian authorities have ordered the country's carriers to avoid overflying Syrian territory following an apparent attack on a Nordwind Airlines Airbus A320.

The aircraft had been in Syrian airspace, en route from Sharm el-Sheikh to Kazan on 29 April, when its crew came under armed threat - possibly from an attempted missile strike.

Russian federal aviation regulator Rosaviatsia had already recommended, on 28 February, that airlines should try to bypass the airspace given the conflict in the Arab state.

"Some carriers did not listen to the advice and continued to operate in the airspace in which hostile actions are taking place involving missiles," it says.

While several airlines have suspended transits over Syria, Rosaviatsia is resorting to a formal directive to preserve safety.

www.flightglobal.com...

The JCS has come out and said straight up that a no-fly zone would be difficult to do (unlike Libya), with the Syrian defenses that are in place. If we were to try, we'd have to decimate their defenses to allow our pilots air superiority, which means we'd have to pretty much do a full up invasion to institute it.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says sorties over Syria are a daunting but feasible prospect, and doubts the virtue of the likely outcome.

"The U.S. military has the capability to defeat that system, but it would be a greater challenge, and would take longer and require more resources" than in Libya, Dempsey said during a lunch meeting with reporters.

"The air defense picture in Libya is dramatically different than it is in Syria," he said. "Syria has five times more air defense systems, some of which are high-end systems, that is to say higher altitude, longer range."

These systems are primarily set up in the western third of the country, he said, and are much more dense and dislocated than those in EpLibya.

What is now considered the Syrian civil war began in March 2011. It has displaced over a million Syrians from their homes, and forced more than 100,000 refugees into each of its neighboring countries, including Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

www.usnews.com...

Where is Assad in all this? he must be underground somewhere, Syria is finished.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Excellent post.....Nice to see someone knows their history.

reply to post by PonyRide


no syria is not finished, which is why the US govt is still trying to push various false flags to bring about a war agenda...no reason to go in and help the rebels if they are really winning...and all you have to do is look at a few recent videos to see...the rebels are tactically and technically deficient, the opposite of a well trained force

that is why the jihadists, wahabbis, salafists, and outside terrorists like al qaeda are going there to bloster the rebel forces, and bungling up in the process, by losing hearts and minds when they behead people indiscriminately, or set up snipers to shoot everything that moves...

they may have had the element of surprise at first and the SAA may have underestimated them at first, but you can guarantee all the veterans are coming out of the woodwork to help bolster the professional army of the syrian state...and they are pushing the terrorists back...

i am american, but i disagree with the US govt foreign policy on this and want to see the SAA destroy the terrorists that have taken over the popular reform movement and turned it into a bloody revolution, they have even hijacked the original cause of the revolution and made it into something evil...at least with the defectors from the SAA that originally made up the FSA, they had a chance for a cease fire and a resolution, but now assad can no longer rely on that due to the disconnect between the various factions that are the FSA patchwork now, and has to wipe them out for the hope of the syrian people...its a very confusing thing, i know, but it is not what the US govt says it is...