Slashdot Mirror


No New S-300 Air-Defense System To Syria Says Russia — But Maybe Old Ones

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, Russia's Foreign Minister declared that Moscow would not sell any new surface-to-air missiles to Syria, although there is a catch. He said old contracts are being honored. Could old contracts just be code for an already signed, but undisclosed deal for the S-300? Lavarov certainly left the door open: '...when questioned in particular about the S-300, his reply was not clear if the "earlier contracts" were for the S-300 or something else.' With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu going to the Black Sea town of Sochi early next week for talks with President Vladimir Putin, it seems they may have something to talk about."

188 comments

  1. Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem.

    1. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just like genocide!

    2. Re:Not your problem by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      because various groups in Syria don't arm those that attack other nations?

    3. Re:Not your problem by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      S-300 is an intrinsically defensive weapon system...

    4. Re:Not your problem by benjfowler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Bah!

      Let the goddamned savages murder each other, and then Allah can sort them out. The more they're fighting and slaughtering each other like animals, the less they'll bother us. We should only intervene to keep the fighting going, and to ensure that no faction gets overwhelmingly strong than another.

      Syria is currently perfect -- it's a self-cleaning oven.

    5. Re:Not your problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem.

      Unfortunately problems in other parts of the world can become large and really hurt if you just ignore them. Kind of like when your neighbor is running a meth lab. If you ignore it, you're going to have problems.

      I'm not saying we should do anything about Syria right now (although we have a lot of options besides attacking/invading), but we need to watch carefully and make sure things don't happen that will bite us later.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Not your problem by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem.

      And if a large majority of Syrian citizens are against further arming Assad's regime? Whose problem does it become? If they ask or beg for the UN to impose a no-fly zone to counteract the Assad regime's airstrikes, whose problem does it become, these new(er) anti-aircraft missiles?

      Was Rwanda and its internal affairs just a problem for Rwanda and Uganda? Was the breakup of Yugoslavia merely a problem for the Serbs, Croats and Muslims to duke it out?

      Just curious at how far regimes can descend, before action is taken. Is it a utilitarian argument, where the balance of lives saved must outweigh the lives lost in escalating the rebellion or outright toppling the regime? Is it an argument for means justifying the ends, that there's a tipping point where offensive military action or aid is justified (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey already think so)? Does it change the equation if not stopping the Syrian conflict will inevitably draw Lebanon, Israel and probably Iran, Turkey and the United States into a wider and messier conflict? Would it change the equation if Assad had 10,000 artillery pieces aimed at Istanbul?

      The point of all these questions is foreign policy is difficult and nuanced. No two situations are alike, and although we'd like it to play out like a domestic law enforcement problem, it never does and it necessarily can't be. Leaders and nations following simple rules to a fault, such as "Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem" tend to make a fucked up mess of things, either through gross inaction or not-well thought out action, like George W. Bush.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    7. Re:Not your problem by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Only if you're an amoral monster with a heart as dead and black as a lump of coal. If only they were standing next to you instead of on the other side of the planet, or better yet, a bunch of WASPs, you might see things differently.

      Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Not your problem by alantus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      S-300 is an intrinsically defensive weapon system...

      Just like a shield is a defensive device, it is meant to be use together with an offensive one.
      An advanced surface-to-air missile system can be used to protect a military nuclear facility, just like the one Syria had until it was taken out by Israel. Just think about what have happened would happen if Syria had continue the development of nuclear weapons at the time, and they fall under the wrong hands, which is quite possible given the current situation.

    9. Re:Not your problem by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it can back up an offensive strike; it can shoot down civilian craft

    10. Re:Not your problem by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem.

      Yes, 150 years ago you'd be right. However the world is a little more interconnected now. The up side is that most wars tend to remain relatively small because of it. The disadvantage is that events in countries that were of no consequence now effect the economy globally.

    11. Re:Not your problem by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      One wonders what could possibly go wrong regarding Syria.

      Turkey claims evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use
      UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
      An Al-Qaeda Alliance in Syria Demands Response From U.S.
      Al Qaeda's track record with chemical weapons

      Even if there are chemical weapons laying around, they would still need to get them somewhere where they could be used. They would probably need help for that. Is any available?

      US teen accused of seeking to join al Qaeda-linked Syrian group
      Danish jihadist killed while fighting for Muhajireen Brigade in Syria

      Iran recruiting volunteer troops for Syria
      Hezbollah Steps Up in Syria as Israel Tries to Ease Tension

      US Congressman: Hezbollah agents in US worse than al-Qaida
      Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.

      Border porous for obvious reason
      Official: Book of suicide bombers found in Arizona desert

      . . .the book is published in Iran and contains biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died while carrying out their attacks. . .

      Yes indeed, what could possibly go wrong?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the goddamned savages murder each other, and then Allah can sort them out. The more they're fighting and slaughtering each other like animals, the less they'll bother us. We should only intervene to keep the fighting going, and to ensure that no faction gets overwhelmingly strong than another.

      Yeah, right, it has nothing to do with Yankee intervention. It's just a bunch of savages running wild, right?

      Idiots like you are the fucking problem. You don't realize what a fucking mess your government makes (here's a hint) and you sit back with a smug fucking attitude referring to the victims of your fucking government as 'savages'. Hey fucktard, here's a hint - when you usurp governments, sponsor wars and promote terrorists in a region people start acting pretty fucking badly all around. But fuckwats like you get to insist "it's not your problem" and "they are just a bunch of savages anyhow".

      It is your fucking problem. It's a wonder more of the world isn't blowing Yanks up everywhere. Fucktard.

    13. Re:Not your problem by trylak · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with you? No compassion whatsoever?

    14. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Hezbollah which arose because Lebanon was attacked and occupied by Israel? A legitimate political party?

      Brainwashed moron. Go back to CNN/Fox/MSNBC.

    15. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah... good little propagandist.

      Terrorrrrrrrrrrrists!!! Feeeeeeaaaaaarrrrr!!!! Attack!

    16. Re:Not your problem by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just make sure the beach is safe to surf...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps they realize that getting involved in other peoples' civil wars is a bloody stupid thing to do.

    18. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the insight, Neville.

    19. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course, it must be fear! Because there is no way to rationally make use of knowledge about terrorist activity and threats to do things like target intelligence surveillance on areas where they might travel, and bring chemical weapons with them. Or maybe sea ports or airfields where by might be transferred. And unsecured borders! Bah! No worries. If 10% of the population of Mexico can wander across the border into the United States undetected, what possible danger could there be?

      Most people would get equal insight into terrorism provided by you if they simply ate a dill pickle with supper. Your comment is that useless. Hey, speaking of supper, is that your mom calling your?

    20. Re:Not your problem by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that the families of the 43 people who died in blasts in a Turkish border town today probably consider it a problem. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/death-toll-rises-to-43-as-explosions-hit-turkish-town-on-border-with-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=46682&NewsCatID=341

    21. Re:Not your problem by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

      Does it change the equation if not stopping the Syrian conflict will inevitably draw Lebanon, Israel and probably Iran, Turkey and the United States into a wider and messier conflict?

      Good point, and especially as Assad sees fewer options left to him, he may see more and more incentive in provoking neighboring powers to create the biggest mess possible. Thankfully he hasn't shot down a Turkish plane in the past few months, but it has seemed at times that he wants to provoke outsiders as an excuse to solidify his base.

    22. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a great plan to defend America by sending armies thousands of kilometers off US borders to "wipe out the enemies", instead of having proper border and internal security. Welcome to the Strange Ideas Induced By Pork For Arms And Mercenary Services.

    23. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US missile deals with in Israel/Poland/Turkey
      THIS IS AWFUL!

      Russia missile deals with Syria/Iran
      SO WHAT?

    24. Re:Not your problem by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 2

      But.... this is Charlie's beach!

    25. Re:Not your problem by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

      It is a long standing problem in Syria.

      Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

      In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence

      CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article

      You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.

      Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.

      Have a Rotten Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone
      Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
      Palestinian Myth Machine

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just think about what would happen if you did not believe the Jewish lies and propaganda. They might be forced to stop running an Apartheid system and leave the Arabs they hold hostage alone. And free to international trade. Imagine how HORRIBLE that would be !

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Following_Hamas_takeover_.282007-present.29

    27. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent regurgitation of Turkish propaganda !

      As a matter of fact, the Turks invaded Syrian airspace and got a hit into their ass. Rightfully so. Now they decided to channel weapons into Syria in retaliation for Assad supporting Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

    28. Re: Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post lost all credibility when you used "sheeple". I can now easily disregard everything you have said.

    29. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you write about the little war of Turkey against their own Kurdish people. Turkey is full of shit like the Jews and your common opponent is Assad. You try to smoke him out so that you can continue your respective Apartheid regimes.

    30. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't having "proper border and internal security" result in you accusing them of being fascist? It would seem so. In your mind, it there any alternative to just letting terrorists attack at will, unhindered by any precaution?

    31. Re:Not your problem by Hentes · · Score: 0

      Every conflict like this leads to the strenghtening of radical Islam. Civil wars ensure that the most aggressive groups will seize power in the end. Sure, the Iraq-Iran war may have looked like a good idea at the time, but look at what happened after it was over.

    32. Re:Not your problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We should only intervene to keep the fighting going, and to ensure that no faction gets overwhelmingly strong than another.

      Congratulations, you just identified our foreign policy. You really think e.g. Israel would be more than a memory without U.S. aid?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Not your problem by khallow · · Score: 2

      Just think about what would happen if you did not believe the Jewish lies and propaganda.

      Propaganda isn't necessarily false. Similarly, one could wonder how bad things could get if Israeli nukes got into the wrong hands due to a similar civil war. The problem with your complaint is that Syria is the country with the civil war not Israel.

    34. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Do you think it is a better idea for America to confront jihadis on its own soil? Now you can argue whether it is moral or not, but it is far more sensible to fight them in Afghanistan and Iraq than on the streets of New York (although Boston has shown us it can happen; most people are not aware of the dozens of similar cases foiled by the US security services but with the same jihadi goals, these goals are outlined in the 109 terror verses of the Qur'an http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm plus verses like Sura 9:29 and Sura 9:5, the hadiths etc).

    35. Re:Not your problem by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      "Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem." So we get involved.

      If we ship weapons over to the rebels then atrocities will be committed with them at some point and we will be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
      If we send troops over we'll get another Vietnam where we spend billions (trillions?) and end up with lots of dead Americans, lots of mistakes that get made by our troops that get international attention and we end up being painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
      If we just yell at them and impose sanctions it won't actually do anything and we'll be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).

      Getting involved is a no-win situation, partially because it's a fucking mess and partially because ANY mistakes that are made will be treated as if they were intentional murders of civilians, regardless of the truth of the situation. There is no way for us to win, the closest we can get is to not get involved.

    36. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      S-300 is an intrinsically defensive weapon system...

      What do you think Hezbollah are going to do under an umbrella of the most advanced missile family the made by the Soviets ... er, Tsar Putin's Imperial fiefdom ... er, Russia ? (note: the S-400 is just an improved S-400).

      That's right mostincompetent, they are going to launch the tens of thousands of ballistic missiles and rockets on Israeli *citizens*, aggressively initiating yet another war whose modus operandi is *war crime* and whose sole intent is *war crime*. Don't be such a doofus.

    37. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      Apartheid? against who? you are aware that there are 1 million Arab Israelis, including Muslims, yeah? These Palestinian Arabs get more rights in Israel than they do in the Palestinian Territory, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Gaza (hint: apart from Gaza I've been to all these places, so I *know* you are completely full of sh!t). How about you stop spreading the provably false propaganda. As soon as someone mentions apartheid in the context if Israel it simply proves: a) they don't know what South African apartheid really was like, and b) they don't have the foggiest clue about the substantial Arab minority that live in Israel with full rights and three Members of Knesset (since 1948). If Israel really was an apartheid state I'd condemn it too, but it simply isn't even close. So stop spreading falsehoods that some other no-nothing told you without either of you checking the facts.

    38. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, the most likely use would be for Hezbollah to use their tens of thousands of Iranian supplied ballistic missiles and rockets to start a war that commits the war crime of targetting Israeli citizens exclusively. That's what the S-300 battery will be used for.

    39. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was Amal who did most of the fighting. Hezbollah was a late player who were funded by the imperial theocracy of Iran, but took all the glory. ps. Lebanon was attacked by Israel because the PLO had moved from Tunis to Jordan (where they were kicked out after trying to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy in "Black September") then moved to Beirut and set up base there - where they conducted a global campaign of terrorism (eg. the Munich massacre, numerous hijacks etc). The Israelis came in to Lebanon to rid that weak state of the PLO, and they succeeded. The Israelis then withdrew to South Lebanon and set up a buffer zone with Christian militias. Amal and Hezbollah fought Israel claiming it was because they were in Lebanon. When Israel eventually left Hezbollah refused to disarm and continued their campaign against Israel in Israel. Now Hezbollah holds Lebanon and conducts terror attacks across the globe (eg. Buenos Aires, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Thailand [where they were caught], etc). Having evil Hezbollah under a Russian S-300 umbrella and supplied with Iranian nuclear weapons (which they could use on Israel, Europe or the EU) is a nightmare scenario.

    40. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best idea is not to create them in the first place.

      Propping up the House of Saud and their twisted Wahabbism seemed like a great plan at the time, but blowback's a real bitch ain't it?

      Propping up countless dictators which inevitably leads to opposition from extreme religious groups, also not the best idea. If someone managed to do the same to the US, you better believe it would be the batshittiest of the batshit crazy fundies leading the charge, and the rest of the world would tsk tsk about you crazy fucking Americans and we'd all be quoting verses from the Bible as proof.

      Yeah, you aren't bright enough to figure out that you fucking created the problem.

    41. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The problem with arming the Syrian rebels is that it was already tried and US and Qatari-bought weapons quickly passed through the secular SLA to the Al Qaeda units called "Al Nusra". The rebels should not be supplied with arms. Note: It is likely that the Obama Administration did not provide military assistance to the Ambassador and SEALs in in Benghazi, which got them killed after 8 hours of assaults, in order to hide the gun running that did get to Al Qaeda; either that or it was a botched attempt to swap the pro-Islamist Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik [as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had been working on] - we won't know until the current investigations get past the stone walls put up by the White House and State Department. Supplying the terrorist hosting Iranian-proxy Assad is also a bad move too.

    42. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

      True. But assisting the rebels means that you will be supplying heavy weaponry that will make its way to "Al Nusra", which is Al Qaeda's branch in Syria and currently running Aleppo. Do you think arming Al Qaeda is a good idea? I don't. In Syria doing anything at all is a lose-lose proposition. What the US is doing is trying to arm and train Syrian secularists in Jordan, but this is a dodgy gamble too. I'm a supporter in the US using its might to promote freedom and democracy around the world, to take out tyrants (Iraq, Afghanistan) and oppose Islamic jihad everywhere. But in the case of Syria what the US is already doing is best. Arm and train secularists and wait until both the jihadis and Iranian-proxies are exhausted before sending a strong secular militia to control the end game. Intervention is necessary, but cannot be to early if you want to to win (against a depleted Al Nusra). Yes, civilians will be killed in the mean time - but put the blame where it is deserved - on Assad's regime and the equally brutal Al Qaeda forces fighting him.

    43. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, the hasbara propaganda machine, SplashMyBandit, is back.

      Do you do it for pay or jump because you're a racist?

    44. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies.

      Ah, but the Islamists and their Leftist allies always accuse their opponents of things they want to do themselves. Now you know that is one of their tactics you will be able to spot it when it occurs. It is quite common once you have your antenna up and active (and this is after confirmation bias has been filtered out).

    45. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      By "the wrong hands", do you mean al-Nusra Front?

      It would seem that ensuring that nothing nasty happens to fall into those hands would be easy enough, if we only stopped supporting those guys.

    46. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Racist.

    47. Re:Not your problem by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Unless you live in Russia or Syria, it's not, and shouldn't be, your problem."

      I disagree - if you happen to be a country that is next to Syria (eg Turkey) then it could be your problem. They have already fired across the Turkish border.

      And i am sure that one other of Syria's neighbours regards it as a problem, but if they are older missiles not an insurmountable one.
      Those missiles are likely to be "in HARMs Way"

    48. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's interesting that you bring up Yugoslavia. When Western troops got involved, they were generally pretty happy to let Croats and Bosniaks duke it out on Serbs, but for some reason not the other way around. So the siege of Sarajevo was treated as a war crime, but Operation Maslenica and Operation Storm were pretty much ignored. Ditto Kosovo, where NATO intervened on behalf of KLA (and US even went so far as to remove them from the list of terrorist organizations for the duration - usually it goes the other way, "freedom fighters" becoming "terrorists" later, this was a rare case of the other way around), but KFOR did nothing when de-facto independent after the war Kosovar communities started driving the few remaining Serbs out, burning down Orthodox churches etc.

      So if Yugoslavia is your example of a successful humanitarian intervention, I very much hope that nothing of a kind takes place in Syria.

    49. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood are aligned. Turkey would very very much like for the US to intervene on the Turkish side (Turkey, the African Muslim Brotherhood nations like Egypt Libya etc, and the Syrian Al Qaeda called "Al Nusra"). So there is a possibility that this could be a "false flag" operation - in the same way that Al Nusra used chemical weapons on its own civilians in the last fortnight and accused Assad of doing this (hoping the US would leap in an help Al Qeada out, again).

      In fact, The Muslim Brotherhood have cleverly worked out that they can use the power of the US to further their agenda as long as they claim to be moderate. See:
      http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/the-united-states-has-become-a-tool-of-muslim-brotherhood-expansionism.html

      The Muslim Brotherhood is very very smart/cunning. After seeing NATO intervene on the side of the Bosian Muslims and Albanian Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo respectively the MB realised it could manipulate the US into doing its dirty work. That is exactly what is happening, and the US goes along with this because it believes the MB is a counter to Al Qaeda. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is merely the "good cop" role while Al Qaeda plays "bad cop"- their methods differ (non-violence versus violence) but their goals are completely aligned: all nations subjected to the Muslim political order under Sharia.

      The US should let Assad crush the rebels (yes, this is bad, because Iran is involved, but it is far far better than letting the Muslim Brotherhood get another country for their restored Caliphate plan).

    50. Re:Not your problem by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Those stone walls are protecting highly classified information. This is the business we have chosen... A show investigation can go nowhere, and only serves as a diversion.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    51. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [...] no-nothing [...]

      That's something, isn't it?

    52. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And those old Iranian rockets Hezbolla has are going to fit in the device in exactly what way?
      For some reason you've missed the fucking obvious that there is a war going on and weapons are getting used in that war. Take the 1/10 of a second to think about what's happening with a new weapon instead of trying to fit it into the unrelated barrow you are trying to push.

    53. Re:Not your problem by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.

      What do you suggest — that the United States MIC commit to another "humanitarian" invasion and occupation in order to "liberate" a sovereign nation engaged in a civil war? I suppose you could say we're good at it, as long "good" means a good number of dead foreigners who weren't bothering us, and a good chunk of taxpayers' dollars in the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe/Academi/whatever-the-fuck they're calling themselves these days, etc.

      My apologies if that's not what you had in mind; if you have a different idea — one that would realistically take place, given our track record for atrocities — please share it.

      Here's my idea: Let's stay home, and maybe fix our crumbling infrastructure or something.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    54. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      And those old Iranian rockets Hezbolla has are going to fit in the device in exactly what way?

      Ah, the anti-scientist is back. I've *personally* seen the Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon (the smaller ones though). Have you? I also note you choose the word "old", to downplay the lethality of the rockets intended for murdering civilians. You are such an apologist for evil, still. But to your question, what exact is the throw-weight of a tactical nuclear missile required for single nuclear device for a 100 km target (Israel is *small*). I know the answer, do you? C'mon man, surely you can answer that. Or perhaps you are just making crap up again and don't know what you are talking about - *again*. So, answer my question - or admit you don't actually know the answer and are merely trying to make excuses for the evil ideology you support.

    55. Re:Not your problem by Issarlk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Indeed, we don't hear much about terrorist attacks on Australia for example. Karma really does exist, maybe the USA will understand at some point in the future.

    56. Re:Not your problem by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      You did not disprove my point. Also, there's a reason why they are not banned by i don't remember what treaty. IIRC the reason was exactly that they are a defensive weapons system. That's true whatever facility you're defending.

    57. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No, I just used the world old to be accurate (which is more than those rockets are - but you still die if they land where you are). They are rockets from Iran made several years ago - thus "old Iranian rockets", and unlikely to work with anything new from Russia.
      I'm not "anti-scientist" just because someone like you that just happens to work in one field pretends that something in another that has fuck all to do with science is real. It appears that you must have picked up your "kill all Muslims" shit, the kind of stuff that plays right into Bin Laden's hands, from the sort of emerging genocidal fascist in Israel that it's founders would want to shoot on sight.

    58. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if jews have not been exterminated in all countries except Israel and the USA that's because Israel exists ? You're one interesting nutcase.

    59. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (1) I don't know how the fact that some arabs are second class citizens in the occupied territories in Palestine prevents the occupied territories in Palestine from being an apartheid state. The citizens in bantustans like Gaza and the West Bank certainly have not nearly as many rights as the occupiers of Palestine, and also not as many as the Arab second class cititzens.

      (2) As soon as someone denies apartheid in the context of the occupied territories of Palestine it simply proves: a) they don't know what South African apartheid really was like, and b) they don't have the foggiest clue about the substantial Arab minority that live in the occupied territories in Palestine without full rights. If the occupied territories in Palestine really wasn't an apartheid state I'd wouldn't condemn it too, but it simply isn't even close. So stop spreading falsehoods that some other no-nothing told you without either of you checking the facts.

    60. Re:Not your problem by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that there are Bin Laden truthers who don't believe that he is dead. Curiouser and curiouser...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    61. Re:Not your problem by peragrin · · Score: 2

      actually with the way things are going islam is going to have a full on civil war between shite, and sunni muslims. Christianity did it is generally called the protestant reformation or european religious wars. and it was entirely ugly. Islam is going to have to do something similar in order to move forward. I would say give peace a chance but that is exactly what they do not want. they want to be right.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    62. Re:Not your problem by peragrin · · Score: 2

      I hate to defend them but,

      Assad, Hussien,Murbak, etc (Syria, Iraq, Egypt) where the only middle east countries where christians could actually live peacefully with muslims. It was precisely because they were violent oppressive regimes that they were able to tone down the violence between sunni and shite muslims to allow even basic freedoms for other religions.

      Without those brutal dictators, those countries are becoming unlivable for non muslim's first, and then for the local non-dominate version of islam(sunni or shite).

      We shouldn't get involved in Syria, because the whole region is going to spiral out of control.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    63. Re:Not your problem by etash · · Score: 1

      let's be realistic here. the s-300 are defensive Surface to Air missiles. Even if we accept that somehow assad would give them to hezbollah, i highly doubt that hezbollah ( or assad ) have the scientific / technological know-how to transform them to surface-to-surface missiles.

    64. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The point of the S-300 surface-to-air missiles is to enable Hezbollah to act with much greater impunity from air attack when they launch the 50000 surface-to-surface *ballistic missiles* they have.

      At the moment Hezbollah are deterred from launching the missiles at Israeli population centers because they know they would get a pounding from the Israeli Air Force as they did in 2006 (which is why Hezbollah have not attacked since).

      With the top-of-the-range S-300 Hezbollah can both launch missile attacks and commit terrorism with less risk of the IDF responding (eg. for terrorist/jihadi attacks consider the the Hezbollah bombing of civilians in Burgas, Bulgaria; and all the other attacks they have carried out around the world, eg. Georgia, India, Cyprus [foiled], Thailand [where the attackers were caught, so there is no question what was going in], several times in Buenos Aires Argentina; and Europe has been warned it can be attacked anywhere at any time by Hezbollah).

      However, even surface-to-air missiles can be dangerous in a surface-to-surface role. The US Navy has its fire-control electronics so that it can use its SAMs in an anti-ship role (eg. for causing sailor casualties and destroy delicate electronics). It would be wasteful of an S-300, but still possible to do some harm.

    65. Re: Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charlie don't surf

    66. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Your earlier posts made it very clear and now you think readers are so stupid that they will think Syria is buying stuff to give away in the middle of a very bloody and senseless no holds barred civil war instead of fighting with it? You are deliberately skewing things to push your own unrelated barrow. This "kill all Muslims" shit is exactly the sort of divide Bin Laden was pushing for (before he died - for the benefit of the poor reasoning skills of another poster here).
      Also now the "missing WMD" - WTF? Moon landing hoax next? Nobody throws away their ace in the middle of a war that means their certain execution even if they make it out the other end alive as losers.

    67. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Syrian don't need missiles to protect non-existent facilities. Israel lies - all the fsckin' time.

    68. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Neither Al Quaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood is so coherent an organization that it could pull off deceit on this scale. That they're pushing exactly the same agenda and just playing tricks is not possible.

      It happens to every religion out there, systems based on pure belief just fracture and splinter into many ultimately very different groups, and they don't agree with each other even while both claiming they stand for the same concepts x, y, z (doesn't matter which ones, they're just "great" words with different definition).

      Also, Al Quaeda wouldn't remotely be happy with the state of the Sharia (their interpretation of it) in Kosovo and Bosnia now. It so happens that these Muslims mostly decided they're Europeans and allowed to drink alcohol & watch porn, amongst many other things. They thus join the Christians, Jews and the many Non-Abrahamic religions in Europe in not giving a damn about various oppressive bits in their religion, and instead focus on being happy and allowing others to be happy as increasing experience and experimenting with Democracy would permit.
       

    69. Re:Not your problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Without US aid Israel wouldn't exist and all Jews planet wide would have been liquidated, except the ones in the US.

      Really? Citation needed.

      And hate-filled turds like you would still be unhappy because the US Jews survived.

      I'm not against Jews, although I am mildly anti-zionist. In fact, I am probably a crypto-Jew myself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    70. Re:Not your problem by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      interesting, those rockets you did see mostly do nothing as they are unguided. most of Hezbollah's rockets are primitive. But these S-300 are a sealed and canned system, can't just break into them to arm them with something else, and change their characteristics from SAM to surface-to-surface. They *could* back up an attack with newer weapons, or be used to attack civilian aircraft by surprise. Israel is getting more anxious about the converging trends of more sophisticated missiles, larger volumes of unguided missiles (some several hundred times more than six years ago), nuclear weapons development, Russia continuing to sell arms to anyone who obstructs the US/Isael agenda in the region.

    71. Re:Not your problem by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If you think this is about karma, then you fundamentally misunderstand the problem.

      The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants

      By the way, ever hear of David Hicks, or Bali? Shayden Thorne? Maybe one or two other things?

      Threat from enemy within makes anti-terrorism laws indispensable

      Decisions have consequences, even if decision makers sometimes go into denial. In the weekend edition of the Herald, Debra Jopson provided case studies of the 21 men who have been convicted of terrorism-related charges following Operation Pendennis in Sydney and Melbourne and Operation Neath in Melbourne. A large number are of Lebanese Muslim descent.

      In his address to the Sydney Institute on January 24, the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, David Irvine, pointed out that ''of the 38 people prosecuted for terrorism-related offences in Australia, 37 were Australian citizens and 34 were either born here or lived here since childhood''. Clearly home-grown terrorism is a threat in Australia.

      The breakdown of the jihadist-related terrorism prosecutions is revealing. In a paper titled Explaining Australia-Lebanon Jihadist Connections, Monash University academic Andrew Zammit broke down the statistics as at September last year. He pointed out that 20 out of 33 men prosecuted ''have been of Lebanese descent''. Moreover, ''while Lebanese-Australian Muslims make up 60 per cent of those charged over alleged jihadist activity, they constitute only 20 per cent of all Australian Muslims''

      Australia a target for 'ideological terrorist attacks'

      There is more to find if one cares to dig.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    72. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a little nitpick: S-300 does support surface targets out of the box with the regular missiles. It's probably not the best use for them though.

    73. Re:Not your problem by jon3k · · Score: 1

      How does anyone still believe this in 2013?

    74. Re:Not your problem by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Russians have a naval base in Syria. So they are just protecting their interests when they are helping the present regime. It has nothing to do with any agenda to obstruct US/Israeli interests in the region.

    75. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People want to kill Americans because they interfere in Middle Eastern affairs, and your proposal to prevent this is for America to interfere in Middle Eastern affairs?

    76. Re:Not your problem by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the problem. The ultimate goal of Al Qaida is to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 (after the fall of the Ottoman empire in World War 1) and extend Muslim rule and religion over the entire earth. Their goal is not connected with the United States and the West. However, the United States and the West will not bow to this plan, so they are an enemy to be attacked. Since you misunderstand the problem, you won't have a useful solution.

      The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    77. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your earlier posts made it very clear and now you think readers are so stupid that they will think Syria is buying stuff to give away in the middle of a very bloody and senseless no holds barred civil war instead of fighting with it? .... Nobody throws away their ace in the middle of a war that means their certain execution even if they make it out the other end alive as losers.

      Have you been living in a cave? The Israeli Air Force destroy a Russian-built, Iranian paid for and Syrian-supplied SA-17 Buk medium range surface-to-air missile complex that was being stored in Syria and transferred to Hezbollah. They destroyed it on the Lebanese border before it could cross. Everyone who has been following the facts of the war knows this. Why don't you?

      You are deliberately skewing things to push your own unrelated barrow. This "kill all Muslims" shit is exactly the sort of divide Bin Laden was pushing for (before he died - for the benefit of the poor reasoning skills of another poster here). Also now the "missing WMD" - WTF? Moon landing hoax next?

      You keep putting up this strawman despite me explicitly and repeatedly saying that I wish no harm to come to non-jihadi Muslims. The other Slashdotters can see that in all my previous posts. I don't know why you keep on with this strawman - I suppose when your understanding is so poor you think that the 50000 ballistic missiles and rockets that Iran supplied to Hezbollah are "old" (despite some of the designs only being a few years old, so they missiles were manufactured and supplied after the 2006 war), then you thought that they are too light to carry a nuclear warhead, and now you think that Syria is not supplying weapons to their ally Hezbollah despite the Israelis destroying a SA-17 battery about to move across the Lebanese border and other hits around Damascus on weapons storage facilities (guarded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a lot of whom have been killed) where Russian-built, Iranian-funded, Syrian-supplied weapons are stored for Hezbollah and are now being transferred as the situation in Syria deteriorates.

      The destruction of the SA-17 battery and the weapons depots before Hezbollah could get them is *why* Russia has said it would supply the an even more powerful S-300 Triumph battery. The Russians are hoping to tip the scales towards the Assad+Iran+Hezbollah side because they are "their" terrorists as opposed to the SLA which are "our" terrorists. It is all a mess. There is a precedent for the Russians supplying S-300s to belligerents. They installed a S-300 for years in Sukhumi, Abkhazia which is a breakaway region that is internationally recognized as a part of Georgia. The funny thing is the Russians give these very powerful weapons to separatists and then complain about events in Kosovo (not that the Russians are wrong on the last one, but it is still amusing to see their ruthlessness and utter hypocrisy).

      So, back to previous posts. We know your statement about "old" missiles is utter bollox. Your claim that the missiles are too small has been debunked but you still haven't even come up with an estimate of the throw weight of the Iranian missiles that were supplied to Hezbollah since 2006. I know you want to always argue without checking references or facts (which is why you are always so wrong), but if using Google is too hard for you how about an estimate, eh? That way you will see that your second statement about the missiles was also woefully wrong, in addition to your false statement that the Syrians are not transferring very powerful weapons to Hezbollah. Wouldn't it be so much easier and more accurate if you started arguing based on research and facts instead? then you wouldn't look like such a fact-free muppet.

    78. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      You have it the other way around. They have a base to protect the regime. They have the base so they have the option of interfering in the Mediterranean. It is a legacy of the Cold War, and Putin's mindset is still stuck in the Cold War (no suprise, he's ex-KGB and lived and breathed the Cold War for decades, it appears he can't escape the prison of his own worldview now).

    79. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that you bring up Yugoslavia. When Western troops got involved, they were generally pretty happy to let Croats and Bosniaks reclaim unlawfully occupied territory from the Serbs, but for some reason not the other way around.

      FTFY

      Serbs got bombed only after refusing to agree to the Western drafted peace treaty.
      Just because the Serbs allowed themselves to believe they are "heavenly people" and that they would not get punished for insubordination when told to STFU by directors of these bloody theatrics does not make them victims, nor absolve them of crimes committed.

    80. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter whether the territories were "unlawfully occupied" or not? Serbs were claiming that Bosnia is similarly "unlawfully occupied" by Bosniaks and Croats. And if you know anything about the history of this region, you'll soon realize that everyone has a claim on anything there, and Serbs had as much of a claim on Krajina as Bosniaks did on Bosnia, or Albanians on Kosovo: it's down to the simple fact that they have been the ethnic majority there for many decades, and the other ethnicity which laid claim to the area in question was hostile to them to the point of genocide.

      Beside that, even if it was a legitimate liberation of occupied territory, it does not excuse war crimes (targeting civilian population, ethnic cleansing etc) that was committed by Croatian army during Maslenica and Storm. In the end, they did the exact same thing that Serbs did in Bosnia before; only this time the West has pronounced from up high that they were in their right. That tells more about the moral authority of Western politicians than it does about the morality of the things on the ground.

    81. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Neither Al Quaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood is so coherent an organization that it could pull off deceit on this scale.

      They have already done it in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya. They were so successful that it can hurt the careers of college professors, politicians, and government analysts to question the Muslim Brotherhood's party line. "Progressive" websites routinely delete comments for merely mentioning that the Muslim Brotherhood exists; The Guardian's Comment Is Free is notorious for this, and Democratic websites in the US consider knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood to be a sign of Republican Party membership and therefore "trollish behaviour".

      They not only could do it. They have done it. They are still doing it. Have you noticed who the "rebels" in Syria are? And they control the levers of power to such a degree that anybody who questions their doctrine is ostracised by society.

    82. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you know anything about the history of this region, you'll soon realize that everyone has a claim on anything there, and Serbs had as much of a claim on Krajina as Bosniaks did on Bosnia, or Albanians on Kosovo: it's down to the simple fact that they have been the ethnic majority there for many decades, and the other ethnicity which laid claim to the area in question was hostile to them to the point of genocide.

      Yet ethnic Croats on Serbian territory (e.g. Vojvodina) did not start a war. Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia did, largely aided by Yugoslav army.

      While your apologetic comments about "all sides committing war crimes" is accurate, it equalizes the aggressor and the victim.
      Had Serbs not started the war ... there would be no atrocities.

    83. Re:Not your problem by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Why is wanting to be able to have some control over the Mediterranean a Cold War mindset? The Mediterranean is in Russia's yard much like the Gulf of Mexico is in the US's. Russia has been fighting to keep some control over the region for centuries already even back when the Ottoman Empire was a major threat.

      Did you seriously expect Russia to fold on its ambitions just because the Soviet Union collapsed? They may no longer have the resources and manpower advantage they used to have but they will still want to have some control over strategic areas of interest to Russia. They are still a regional power.

    84. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I am not doing apologetics. My point is not to dispute the causes of the war, but rather the conduct of Western powers intervening into it, ostensibly to prevent war crimes - which in practice they did very selectively (and, at least in Kosovo, added a few of their own). In my opinion, that removes any moral high ground they would have had otherwise.

      By the way, I wonder if you realize that your argument right now is sounding a lot like Soviet apologetics for all the murders and rapes on occupied German territory - "had Germans not started the war, there would be no atrocities", right? Except the people affected were usually not the people who started those wars, or even fought in them. Your attempt to paint them with the brush of collective guilt is not at all different from the usual justification for ethnic cleansing.

    85. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody PANIC!

      Oh, no need.

      Let's invade Chechnya!

    86. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you know anything about the history of this region, you'll soon realize that everyone has a claim on anything there, and Serbs had as much of a claim on Krajina as Bosniaks did on Bosnia, or Albanians on Kosovo: it's down to the simple fact that they have been the ethnic majority there for many decades, and the other ethnicity which laid claim to the area in question was hostile to them to the point of genocide.

      Please don't bullshit like that.

      The Serbs in Croatia declared autonomy TWO MONTHS after the first democratic elections in Croatia and started shouting "this is Serbia" at various meetings. One month later, the roads were blocked and paramilitary units were created (and those units were already slowly being armed by tanks, howitzers, mortars, etc). Attempts by Croatian police to rectify the situation and break the mutiny were met by Yugoslav army jet fighters intercepting police transport helicopters. Also, the Croatian Territorial Defence was already being disarmed in mid-1990, against the Constitution of Yugoslavia; no other TD in any of the other republics was disarmed.

      All of that was over a YEAR BEFORE the declaration of independence by Croatia, for example. Slow-scale genocide and ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs began in 1990 already; the Serbs were NOT the ethnic majority, having had 48% of the populace in the self-declared Krajina in 1991 (meaning, they were at around 45% in 1990), by 1992 they were at 92%, and by 1995 at 99.9%.

      (On a sidenote, funny thing: three centuries ago, all those Serbs were actually Vlachs, but then the Serbian Orthodox Church came along, and since you "can't" be orthodox and non-Serb...)

      So, anyway, the next four years saw an attempt to create a "Greater Serbia" (another funny thing - the same people who were with Milosevic in the nineties are now running Serbia and their president was actually in one of the Serbian paramilitary units; he was even present during the slaughter of Croatian civilians in the village of Antin, one of many hundreds of mass killings and slaughters). Literally millions of mortar and howitzer shells have been fired at Croatian cities and villages, 35 of which were razed to the ground. Later on, even the Croatian capital was hit by cluster bombs in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible.

      Overall, between 230.000 and 270.000 people have been expelled from their homes and/or killed 1990-1995 just in the so-called Krajina region alone. There was an extra 500-550.000 people fleeing for their life from other parts of the country that were under attack.

      Do you know what "winning the lotto" meant in Croatia? It meant that your home got hit by a mortar shell 7 times. Do you know what "bowling" meant? It meant that a tank drove through right your house and tore all the walls down. Do you know what it's like to have 50 kids in school class (instead of the usual 25-30) in three shifts (instead of two), kids with no parents, kids with no homes, kids who became mute and lost their hair from stress, kids who had no food and were eating grass and roasted rats before they had to evacuate or die?

      Then comes along 1995 and 200.000 people flee the so-called Krajina BEFORE Operation Storm begins. Why? Because fuck, if you've spent the last four years as a terrorist trying to kill Croatian civilians and destroy Croatian cities, and have been living on an occupied part of the territory of an internationally-recognized Country, and that occupied territory had its phone lines, currency and all income linked to a country 500 km away (with no shared borders!), a country that started three wars in four years (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia; at that point, the fourth war in Kosovo and genocide of ethnic Albanians was yet to begin), you're sure as hell going to flee. To this point, I haven't met online a single Serb that was actually expelled from Croatia by the Croatian army in 1995. Not a single one. There have been some liars, but they all cracked after I asked soldiers from which brigade told

    87. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      saying that I wish no harm to come to non-jihadi Muslims

      Your nazi shit about putting all Muslims in camps so they can be watched to find that minority of criminals comes to mind. What is most amusing is when you called me racist when I quoted your own terrible words right back at you with only the name of the group to be picked on changed, and that was right after some text saying that was purely to illustrate how disgusting the things you are calling for are - and there is no way you could possibly be so stupid as to miss that yet you pretend to be since it was more convenient to so so. Calling me racist for throwing your own words back at you? Clearly you have no shame and anything goes since you've gone into full wartime propaganda mode. If you're going to shove such white supremacy bullshit in my face I'm not going to keep quiet and let you corrupt the gullible here with your slime.

    88. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You keep harping about the origin of the conflict as if it somehow excuses the war crimes and ethnic cleansing if "they started first".

      Your claims of no war crimes during Storm are bullshit. And the reason why Serbs were fleeing the area in advance was not because they were all murderous criminals who partook in genocide of Croats before. It was because they knew full well what Croatian forces did to Serb civilian populations in captured areas during Bosnian War.

    89. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Your nazi shit about putting all Muslims in camps so they can be watched to find that minority of criminals comes to mind.

      I have never, ever said that. You are slandering me with made up shit.

      What is most amusing is when you called me racist when I quoted your own terrible words right back at you with only the name of the group to be picked on changed, and that was right after some text saying that was purely to illustrate how disgusting the things you are calling for are - and there is no way you could possibly be so stupid as to miss that yet you pretend to be since it was more convenient to so so. Calling me racist for throwing your own words back at you? Clearly you have no shame and anything goes since you've gone into full wartime propaganda mode. If you're going to shove such white supremacy bullshit in my face I'm not going to keep quiet and let you corrupt the gullible here with your slime.

      The funny thing is that the quote you posted was from someone else, not me. But you are so retarded you didn't even notice you had made this mistake.

      So, can you answer my question about the missiles? since you made three false statements about them.

    90. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again - stop the bullshit. Nobody said there weren't any crimes, but most of them happened AFTER the operation, when the army had been pulled back, and the entire area was a gigantic space of nothingness without almost any people present, much less police forces.

      You have no fucking idea what was going on here. None whatsoever. But you are so quick to call 1995 names and say absolutely nothing about 1990-1995.

      People fled because they were terrorist criminals who spent the last four years plundering and destroying the homes and possessions of over three quarter of a million people, not to say anything about mass murders and rapes.

      From your Wikipedia link:

      "The military operation also allowed Croatian authorities access to areas where, as of March 2012, a total of 144 mass and 1,200 individual graves have been discovered, in which a total of 3,809 Croatian civilians and military personnel were buried."

      That's only a small part of war crimes 1990-1995, you ignorant fuckwit, two orders of magnitude larger just on that territory alone.

    91. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You have no fucking idea what was going on here. None whatsoever. But you are so quick to call 1995 names and say absolutely nothing about 1990-1995.

      I'm talking about 1995 because that was the part that was glanced over by the same Western authorities who cracked down on what preceded it. You don't need to tell people about Srebrenica, because it was publicized on every corner. But ask them to name a couple of Bosniak or Croat war criminals, and they go "huh".

      Simply put, this conversation was not intended as Serbs vs Croats (or vs wherever), despite you clearly trying to move it into that direction. That's not the fucking point. Get over it.

      People fled because they were terrorist criminals who spent the last four years plundering and destroying the homes and possessions of over three quarter of a million people, not to say anything about mass murders and rapes

      Every single civilian in Krajina was a terrorist criminal? Right. Once again you're basically saying that they've got what they deserved, and a good thing too. Your attempts to justify ethnic cleansing are disgusting.

    92. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There. Was. No. Ethnic. Cleansing.

      The terrorists *left on their own*, because they were guilty of numerous horrible crimes and the ethnic cleansing of 930.000 civilians (780.000 located internally, 150.000 had to be transported to European countries because there was no more room and food).

      What, you think they'd all stay along after shooting at the army (after shooting at civilians for four years), and then see if they'll somehow magically not end up in jail if they don't die in combat in the first place? And they're going to leave their families all alone? Fuck no. They fled.

    93. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No that quoted hate text was from you from the post directly above it so that's an especially stupid lie.
      Also the missile question is mindless since they come from very different sources and are of very different ages - incompatibility you idiot - it's not like loading a .303 cartridge into a gun of the same size. Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs. Your parents really would be disgusted with you if they read your posts on this site.

    94. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's very convenient, indeed, when you label an entire ethnicity as "terrorists", and then go on to say that therefore there was no ethnic cleansing. After all, they were just terrorists, right? Or were only the ones that actually died in the invasion terrorists? You know, like Americans handle those things in AfPak - if you're a victim of a drone strike and you're male, then you must have been a terrorist, because only terrorists get killed by drones.

      Oh, and drop that bullshit about "they left on their own", it's exactly what Serbs said was going in Kosovo, too - surprise surprise, you kill one guy, and suddenly thousands more run away "on their own". That's exactly what we call ethnic cleansing.

    95. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of them, no. In 1995, the local terrorists had over 40k armed troops (plus god knows how many armed "civilians" without uniforms) and a total of about 100k people went through the paramilitary over the course of five years. Their wives and children usually weren't terrorists, of course, but considering how my uncle lost his leg and half his intestines when a "peaceful" Serbian grandma invited him over for some booze and then blew herself and half my uncle up with a hand grenade, well... Things aren't as simple as you think they are.

      So what's your idea? We should have said "y'know, even though you created almost a million refugees in this country, destroyed their homes and plundered their possessions, literally slaughtered thousands, detonated a dam that would have killed about fifty thousand more people had you been more competent and a certain mr. Mark Nicholas Gray hadn't saved the day, even though you spent four years shelling cities and civilian targets and further murdering people, even though "your" country had the first and only concentration camps in Europe after WWII, even though you violated every ceasefire, even though you split our country in half before Maslenica, and even though you occupied 30% of the territory and destroyed our economy entirely, let's now make peace and all is well, live long and prosper"?

      Ethnic cleansing is systematic and planned. There was none in 1995 when the occupied territories were LIBERATED (not "invaded", you dimwit) and everyone left on their own or had been forced to leave at gunpoint by terrorists. In contrast, 1990-1995 (which you STILL haven't said anything about!) was attempted genocide on top of ethnic cleansing, all in the name of Greater Serbia. Nothing about over 1000 dead children in Sarajevo, either, huh, or about those two girls killed by Serbian snipers at an anti-war rally? Nothing about 80 dead civilians (included in the Storm civilian tally) that were ran over by Serbian tanks that fled to Bosnia? Nothing about shelling Dubrovnik "so it can be rebuilt to be even older and prettier"? Nothing about the same people who ran Serbian politics in the nineties being in charge again? The MoD who catapulted his political career by stating "for every dead Serb we will kill a hundred muslims"? The president who swore an oath to Greater Serbia and rampaged as a paramilitary volunteer? No? Doesn't matter, huh?

      As for Kosovo - you don't know shit about that either. You have no idea what was going on there in the eighties, you have no idea what was going on in the nineties, you have no idea what happened to native Albanians in Albania in 1912. - in general, you have no fucking clue about anything. You read an article or two and you think you know everything about everything, and then some, halfway across the world.

      I'll be nice to you and wish that you never experience war or send anyone into battle as cannon fodder, armed with a hunting rifle against tanks and fighter jets.

    96. Re:Not your problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I have repeatedly mentioned Srebrenica in my earlier posts in this thread, and I have also mentioned Sarajevo. You are being willfully blind to that, though, because you clearly have an ax to grind here.

      I know that things aren't "as simple as that". What I know is that Yugoslavian wars were a bloody mess that started largely due to Serbian nationalism and irredentism, but which have seen the revival of extreme ethnonationalist ideologies on all sides of that conflict (except possibly for Slovenia), and war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide were carried by all of them, though Serbian forces were more violent than others.

      I also know that just as Serbian politicians were selling the story of "Greater Serbia", Croatian politicians were trying to find some glory in past exploits of Ustashe. You guys were all fucked up, and don't you dare justify your side by claiming that others were even worse, and therefore anything goes. It doesn't work like that. The only way you can have lasting peace is if true reconciliation is achieved, and for that everyone must admit their crimes and confirm that they were unacceptable. Serbs were forced to do so at a gunpoint, but no-one did so for the rest, which is very unfortunate - and which is why we'll likely see more blood in the future.

    97. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      No that quoted hate text was from you from the post directly above it so that's an especially stupid lie.

      No you fool, I have never ever advocated putting Muslims in camps. It is a disgusting and repulsive idea. It is clear either you are incompetent and misattributing (very likely) or you are in the business of fabricating (a typical tactic of low-intelligence leftists, which all evidence points you to being). Stop with the false slander. If we were in the same country you would be slapped with a lawsuit because of your falsehoods - yes, I *know* I have never advocated putting Muslims in camps. So stop being evil. Then end does not justify the means (only socialists, communists and Islamists seem to think that).

      Also the missile question is mindless since they come from very different sources and are of very different ages - incompatibility you idiot - it's not like loading a .303 cartridge into a gun of the same size. Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

      Absolute bullshit. Warheads can be adapted for different missiles you idiot. Man alive you are stupid! The reason why cartridges don't work in different guns is that it is not generally worth the effort to re-bore a firearm. Warheads and other complex missile components are routinely re-engineered for different systems. For example, the Harpoon anti-ship missile was re-engineered into the SLAM, a surface-attack missile. Nuclear warheads get migrated to different bodies all the time. The nuclear cores are reprocessed and can be used to build new warheads.

      Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

      You couldn't answer. In fact, you are so stupid you couldn't even google to find out simple things like this:
      http://missilethreat.com/missiles-of-the-world/
      Look at all the huge payloads on the Iranian missiles. Plus, for the short ranges from Lebanon to Israel you can increase the throw weight hugely. To bad wikipedia is too complicated for you to use. Otherwise you would have discovered that Iran has already supplied "hundreds" of M-600 ballistic missiles and attempted to supply Fatah-110 missiles to Hezbollah (fortunately the Israelis are busy destroying the WMD platforms to the racist genocide against Israelis you desperately want to support cannot be carried out):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-110

      since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.

      You lose again. The mass of the US M62 170 kiloton-yield MIRV warhead is 253 pounds / 115 kg. The mass of a M56 is 600 pounds / 272 kg and has a yield of 1.2 MT. So if you follow the references I gave you will see that the Iranian missiles can easily carry even a crude nuclear warhead to Israel. Notice also the range of the Shahab-3. With smaller warheads the two dozen Iranian missiles based in Venezuela may be able to hit the southern USA.

      I gave you a chance to prove you knew anything at all, or could even work Google and wikipedia. But you can't. I've also destroyed your arguments about "old Iranian missiles" being used by Hezbollah not being able to reach Israel with a nuclear weapon. All your arguments have failed (as in other threats), because they are based on your opinion and not on facts (and it turns out your opinions are formed from your weak lines of reasoning; trying to assert that nuclear warheads would not fit on on different missile bodies based on an analogy of a rifle - how stooopid is that!). Your apologies for the genocidal inten

    98. Re:Not your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an axe to grind. I have an uncle with a missing leg and a colostomy bag, and I have a missing father, who was last seen in a concentration camp in Serbia (meanwhile, the Serbs are oh-so-happy to spew propaganda and lies about Serbia not participating in the war; they also have no knowledge of dozens of concentration camps that existed there). I also don't have a house, because it got blown away by a 250kg bomb dropped from a Serbian fighter jet four months after the "Yugoslav" army "officially" "withdrew" from Croatia. Thankfully, a rescue team managed to dig through the rubble before my mother, sister and I ran out of oxygen in the buried basement.

      Funny that you should mention Slovenia, because they solved their problem by literally erasing the Serbs from all official records; more than 25k people ceased to exist in any and all of the systems. That was after they had blown up over 30 enemy tanks and downed 6 helicopters. Luckily for them, the terrain in Slovenia is suited for guerilla warfare and a huge army convoy from Serbia broke down too far away, so they had no choice but to leave the Slovenes alone and concentrate on Croatia and Bosnia instead.

      If you want reconciliation, you have to educate the Serbs so they learn and accept the truth. Otherwise, they'll still elect people like their current president, who only a year ago claimed that Vukovar is a Serbian city and negated Srebrenica entirely (plus "officially" upped the figure of Serbian refugees in 1995 to 300k, and it won't take long until that's gone up to 500k; in your lifetime, you'll hear about 1M - I'm not shitting you, that's how things work and have worked since 1389). Imagine what would happen if in the sixties Germany was oblivious about what was going on in WWII and their entire leadership was former Hitler's staff (yay Godwin's law)... Because that's exactly what's been happening for the past twenty years - full, complete and utter negation and denial.

      And no, you cannot, in any way, shape or form, put a sign of equality between the agressor and the victim. You just can't. If I break into your house, take it over, kill some of your family and expel the others, steal your valuables, burn your garage to the ground, and then you finally get a gun, liberate your house so your family can move back in, and finally kill me while I was pointing a gun at you, nobody in this world can say "well, they were all to blame and mr. shutdown is a criminal".

    99. Re:Not your problem by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I wish no harm to come to non-jihadi Muslims.

      Does that apply to both of them?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    100. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Lol. very good.

      But yes, we need to defend our *existing* laws/Constitutions and values; kinetic action is only needed for those no laws can't reach [eg. the increasing incidents of violent immigrants who refuse to recognize the judiciary and sovereignty of the countries they move to].

    101. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If there's anyone who's made it this far (which I very mush doubt), all they have to do is look SplashMyBandit's posting history to find his horrible little pogrom plan.

    102. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you didn't mistake me replying to someone else's text? I have no plans for a progrom - so stop the slander. And yes, people are friending me and replying all the time - people can see you trying to excuse the weapons that Hezbollah and Iran intend to use in their *stated* genocidal plans. Just give up, you have failed (although you can't seem to grok that no matter how many facts I present to you).

    103. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The article was about Syria you one track white supremicist dipshit.

    104. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Lol. Another fail! I'm partially of native minority race of a non-US country. It's so funny to watch you. You have *zero* facts, and the statements you make are trivially debunked (as I have done). So, lacking anything else you make show your true colors as an anti-white racist. Funny thing is, I'm part native. What a loser you are. Like I said, you clearly have below average IQ. If only you would understand this you might listen long enough to learn some facts from people who know (instead of the insane falsehoods you splurt out, eg. the utterly counter-factual stupidity you displayed about Iranian missiles). No wonder you are so angry with the World, you haven't yet worked out that the problem local problem is your attitude. Chill bro.

    105. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Given your background you should know better than to fall for such propaganda then. Those bastards pushing it don't think much of you and don't even think much about their fellow citizens of Israel with the same ethnicity and faith, they just use this divisive "kill all Muslims" bullshit to stir up the sort of populist blame of the "other" that the founders of Israel escaped from. As their political power in Israel has waned they've just got more noisy. Ignore them. They are full of nothing but hate and racism. You don't have to regurgitate the crap that they can't get the people they want to vote for them to believe any more.
      It's funny how a call to stop spreading hate is given a label of "angry with the World", and to top that very stupid mistake off you make a comment about IQ - look at your own words and you will see how anger has impeded your judgement to the point where they appear to have been written by someone vastly less intelligent than you must be.

    106. Re:Not your problem by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Sorry, from your response it is very clear you are a racist.

    107. Re:Not your problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Obviously not. Your earlier post with your "solution" that looked horribly familiar shows the problem lies with you and not the messenger that keeps on telling you to think about what you have written and to warn off children before you corrupt them. Since this has all been about your lies you've got nothing but insults thrown in the dark and know nothing at all about me. Outline your "solution" to anyone over 70 and you will see recognition in their eyes of the slime you are turning into.

    108. Re:Not your problem by oldCoder · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look up the Second Congo War , you'll see we've entirely skipped a genocide of at least 3 million in Africa. Maybe 5 million.

      --

      I18N == Intergalacticization
  2. Netanyahu to Visit Putin, Discuss S-300 Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Netanyahu to Visit Putin, Discuss S-300 Sale
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167922#.UY7gcnDlN0M

  3. The Real Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He is meeting with Putin because Putin has told him that any more Israeli strikes will have him land S 300PMs, I believe that's the one, the next day in Syria.

      Since he said that there have been no more strikes.

    1. Re:The Real Reason by Xest · · Score: 1

      Does Israel care about S-300s? They seemed pretty ineffective against Israel's strike on Syria's covert nuclear programme a few years ago.

      It seems Israel already knows perfectly well how to render them ineffective anyway.

  4. So, umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do these S-300s run Linux or something?

    1. Re:So, umm... by JustOK · · Score: 2

      imagine a beowulf cluster of them

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:So, umm... by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

      Maybe they run MSVS (Modulnaya Sistema Vooruzhennyh Sil - Modular Armed Forces System). I hadn't tried it but it is somewhere in my collection. Full Disclosure and Disclaimer: It was on rutracker.org so I do not disclose any Russian state secrets not disclosed earlier.

    3. Re:So, umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saving yourself from the cyanide treatment yeh?

  5. Why is this on Slashdot? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

    They make MILITARY news sites for this sort of thing.

    Hey, much love on my part for modern weapons tech, but on Slashdot this is clutter.

    Any techies who are interested know how to keep track of such events.

    Anyone interested also knows any missile systems sold to Syria can be countered by standoff weapons launched from outside Syrian airspace in most cases. Extended range JDAMs and Spice kits mean expensive anti-aircraft missiles would have to be used against small, relatively inexpensive, "smart bombs".

    Those can also be used to destroy Syrian aircraft in their shelters as well as SAM sites.

    http://defense-update.com/20130505_israeli-standoff-attack-capability-against-terrorists.html

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

      This is on Slashdot because it is profitable for them to post troll stories. You might notice that the stories that get the most replies have either a political, religious, or the current all-time favorite: the patent-related slant to whip the unsuspecting into a reading/posting frenzy generating ad revenue.

      Contrast the FUD stories with the few articles posted about hard science, and sadly they typically get about 5% of the replies as say an Apple/MS/Samsung/Google patent troll-the-readership type story. As a Ferengi would say, there's just no profit in that. I'm sure this business model is somehow described in some way among the 285 Rules of Acquisition, but I digress.

      Like it or not, Slashdot has degenerated into using the same trolling and scare tactics that is business as usual in the main stream media. The same thing happened to Ars Technica and countless other sites that started off as legitimate community-driven, hobbyist type sites that became popular, then sold off to Big Money. Tell me I'm wrong. (And to be honest, I'd do the same damn thing because, well, I'm just greedy like that.)

      I suspect the spelling and grammar errors in the titles and summaries are mostly intentional as well. NOBODY is that lazy and incompetent.

    2. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      It is on Slashdot because it falls under the 'stuff that matters' category.

    3. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DICE new motto: News for eyeballs, stuff that sells ads!

    4. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is news for nerds. You specifically add to the conversation by adding useful knowledge in the matter for non military nerds, and provide a source for additional information.

      And get off my lawn.

    5. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Only if you have investments in the arms trade...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Or care about ongoing oppression.

    7. Re: Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These were 3D printed right?

    8. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Look, it's strictly business. Make peace more profitable than war, and there will be peace.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by poity · · Score: 1

      Tinder for 900+ reply flame thread

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    10. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You know, no matter how many irrelevant non-nerd articles appear on this site, someone is going to take your stance that "oh it's relevant in some off-the-wall way, missiles are technology, now TAKE THAT!" This news is the kind of crap I'd expect from mainstream media politics and has zero relevance to Slashdot.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      According to The Wiki depending on the model S-300 missiles have up to 120 mile range. I don't think glide bombs go that far.

    12. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's a smartphone involved - S-300 Missile Defense on a smartphone. Patents could be involved, you know.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    13. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Look, it's strictly business. Make peace more profitable than war, and there will be peace.

      Nope. Syria has spiraled into an Islamic sectarian conflict. The Shia Iranians are backing their man (Assad, who is secular) against a coalition of Sunni Muslim nations (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Al Qaeda in Syria "Al Nusra", and the US Obama Administration who is pro-Sunni for the reasons outlined here: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-lost-his-big-muslim-brotherhood-gamble/).

      The "military industrial complex" meme you trot out without doing any analysis of what is really going on in Syria is a typical move by those on the political far Left (who want to dismantle capitalism). Stop parroting nonsense and look at the facts on the ground and Syria and the reasons why each side is fighting *in their own words*. By deflecting a true assessment of what is going on in Syria you inadvertently support Al Qaeda/Al Nusra. Stop it please.

    14. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Dude, the S-300 is the "supercomputer" of the SAM world. The US has the Patriot and the USSR/Russia as the S-300/S-400 system. Some people are interested in this and it is appropriate for Slashdot. If you don't like it, then skip the fscking article. Despite what your mommy still tells you, the world does not revolve around *you*.

    15. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Hah, listen to you! talking about parroting...'political far left'? You're a hoot, you know that? You are a smooth talker I'll give you that. Could even write a few pro war editorials for the Times there..

      You really think these people do all of this for free? War is a business, buddy. A dirty business... If you're swimming in it, I wouldn't expect you to notice.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither JDAM nor the upcoming SDB2 have enough range against S-300

    17. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      You are right, there are sellers who make a lot of money selling arms from guys that want to buy them. What is significant is not the suppliers of arms. They don't create demand (as was your assertion), they merely satisfy it. The cause of the conflict is not the suppliers, it is the Sunni-Shia civil war that is playing out in the Middle East. No, the mainstream media doesn't cast their news reports in those terms, but that is part of what is going on with the "Arab Spring". The other part is the restoration of the Caliphate (which Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are quite open about, if you care to listen to what they say without going through the sanitization by the Western media).

      You really think these people do all of this for free? War is a business, buddy. A dirty business... If you're swimming in it, I wouldn't expect you to notice.

      You are right again. However you have to follow the money back to the source. What is the source? Saudi, Qatari and Iranian petrodollars for the most part, with some US taxpayer dollars in for good measure while the US thinks it can tame the beast of Islamism (pro-tip: you can't, ask the pro-Islamist Ambassador Stevens just how well it works out; or any of the Muslims killed by other Muslims in sectarian violence on this list: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ where *20851* fatal attacks have been carried out across the globe by Islamists since 2001-9-11 "9/11").

      You are a smooth talker I'll give you that.

      I could take that as a soft ad-hominem, but I'll take it as a compliment instead. Cheers, and to your good health!

      Could even write a few pro war editorials for the Times there.

      That's a parochialism. Which "Times" are you talking about, there are so many around the globe? perhaps the quite-leftist New York Times, no not likely; maybe the Times of London, yes? Well, I wouldn't know, I try to read from a wide spectrum of news sources (with known left and right biases), but the Times is unremarkable for its reporting so I don't visit it often.

    18. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yup, just like I said, the standard reply: "oh it's relevant in some off-the-wall way, missiles are technology, now TAKE THAT!"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you noticed the byline of the site, in case you had trouble finding it the byline is "News for Nerds". It may be about information technology, but not exclusively so. News about missiles is news for nerds. You may not like it, but as I said, the World does not revolve around you (well, it does from your own perspective, but not from any of the other twenty million site visitors). So you may not think it is relevant, but perhaps that is because you are not one of us. Time to find some tar and feathers ...

    20. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This news is the kind of crap I'd expect from mainstream media politics and has zero relevance to Slashdot.

      Yeah, and you and Slashdot are delicate snowflakes, too. Fuck you choad; go run over to Kuro5shin and be Rusty's bitch.

    21. Re: Why is this on Slashdot? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      .. and paid for with Bitcoins.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. If Syria got these by purnima · · Score: 1

    they would turn them into surface to surface targeting rebel donkey carts transporting CIA supplied surface to air missiles come surface to surface missiles that in turn target government donkey carts. In general the only things that will blow up are innocent Syrian kids and donkeys.

    1. Re:If Syria got these by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Only our friends from Israel could use Iron Dome rockets (US$40000 each) to target pieces of Palestinian water plumbing filled with fertilizer - and consider it profitable :-)

    2. Re:If Syria got these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yor friends from Israel measure the benefit of intercepting military grade "water plumbing filled with fertilizer" (seriously, look up "Grad" and "Fajr 5") by comparing the cost of interceptors with the value of protected targets. Now here is a question to you, my amerikan friend: if you had means of intercepting the four planes of 9/11 with the price tag of one billion dollars, would in your enlightened opinion, the 3000+ lives saved worth paying the price? It looks that Jews are not that cheap when it comes to saving lives of their civilians, despite the associated price tag.

    3. Re:If Syria got these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to using a multi-billion dollar budget (TSA, etc.) against pressure cookers filled with gunpowder?

    4. Re:If Syria got these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently most of them aren't filled with *anything* these days, but yeah, they are at best weaponised bottle rockets that stand almost no chance of hurting anyone given that they have an effective warning system that lets people get to cover.

    5. Re:If Syria got these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... I didn't realize that an empty "bottle rocket" could have enough kinetic energy to totally trash my friend's house and fill the remains with shrapnel holes (luckily he and his family got into the internal shelter room in time). I'll have to review my physics textbooks again.

  7. Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu going to the Black Sea town of Sochi early next week for talks with President Vladimir Putin, it seems they may have something to talk about.

    Well that's not surprising, they have been practically pleading with the Russians not to go ahead with these sales. Usually the Israelis are pretty defiant but they have been unusually spooked at the prospect of S-300s sales to Syria.

    1. Re:Talking... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Usually the Israelis are pretty defiant but they have been unusually spooked

      Unusual? How quickly we forget the cold war. Nations are standing back and watching Syria because in my youth Syria was to the east what Israel was to the west, nobody wants to be seen to be militarily supporting one side or the other since that risks dragging everyone into a much broader conflict. Both sides of the old "east/west"political divide want to contain the fighting within the borders of Syria much more than they want to their "dog" to win. This is why Israeli strikes on Syria and arms supplies to either side in Syria spook everyone.

      UN voting patterns on subjects concerning Syria and Israel still more or less follows the patterns established during the cold war. Saddam was politically simple by comparison, he was our loose cannon and the old "red team" of nations didn't mind us taking him out, Gadaffi was dead the minute the revolt erupted, he had no powerful friends left, much less an influential voting block in the UN watching his back.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean, actually somebody challenges their god-given right to drop bombs on other nations ?

    3. Re:Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinarily I could see Russia pushing to go ahead with the SAM deal, because Russia like the USSR is historically short on hard currency. But since they've been showing a good net on natural gas, break even on basic foods, I'm guessing Putin wants some leverage for other reasons. For that matter, although it might not help them all that much in the long run, they have a big hammer in the threat to let loose with some of their diamonds and gold. They could destroy the diamond market, and wreak damage to world financials with the gold. Last I looked Israel economy is more sensitive than most to those two things.

    4. Re:Talking... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      UN voting patterns on subjects concerning Syria and Israel still more or less follows the patterns established during the cold war.

      It does this because the Red-Green Alliance of the Cold War is still active. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has joined with 'Non-Aligned States' to form a voting bloc that supports either Islamist or ex-communist causes. Because it is one-vote-per-country democracy in the UN (that is, mob rule), this system invented in the Cold War still works to the advantage of Islamists and communists - that is why you see the voting patterns you do, even two decades after the collapse of the Soviet socialist system.

      This system is slightly off topic, but explains this "Cold War" voting bloc very quickly. I hope it is enlightening to you (and shows you why the United Nations no longer works towards its founding purpose):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

    5. Re:Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, actually somebody challenges their god-given right to drop bombs on other nations ?

      I meant only that normally the Israelis counter any suggestion of hostilities with a "let them come" attitude because they figure that they can defeat anybody in the region with their right hand tied behind their collective back. Their cold war victories have made them arrogant which makes it odd to watch them pleading with the Kremlin... in public. And stranger yet it is right wing icon Netanyahu who is doing the pleading. As for their right to bomb everybody else at will, sooner or later they will be taught a painful lesson in that department, they know that and postponing that moment is probably the reason why they are now pleading with Putin. One thing is for sure Almaz could not have hoped for better publicity, "Even the Israelis were so scared of the S300 that they went to Putin, put on their best puppy dog eyes and with great difficulty managed a: Pretty please?!?".

    6. Re:Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually the Israelis are pretty defiant but they have been unusually spooked

      Unusual? How quickly we forget the cold war. Nations are standing back and watching Syria because in my youth Syria was to the east what Israel was to the west, nobody wants to be seen to be militarily supporting one side or the other since that risks dragging everyone into a much broader conflict. Both sides of the old "east/west"political divide want to contain the fighting within the borders of Syria much more than they want to their "dog" to win. This is why Israeli strikes on Syria and arms supplies to either side in Syria spook everyone.

      UN voting patterns on subjects concerning Syria and Israel still more or less follows the patterns established during the cold war. Saddam was politically simple by comparison, he was our loose cannon and the old "red team" of nations didn't mind us taking him out, Gadaffi was dead the minute the revolt erupted, he had no powerful friends left, much less an influential voting block in the UN watching his back.

      Whoosh!

    7. Re:Talking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and shows you why the United Nations no longer works towards its founding purpose)

      To understand how far the UN has gone from its founding purpose, just reread the first few sections of its charter. The teal deer version is that states are to stay at peace with each other and are not allowed to interfere in each others' internal politics or to use an internal matter as justification for war. This means that all Communist acts of political incitement and spreading revolution were in violation of the UN charter, and the US-led counterreactions were also illegal. The admission of the Arab League was the unwise addition of a bloc of 22 states all in standing violation of the UN charter by their refusal to recognize Israel's existence, let alone its territorial integrity as the sole legal owner of the West Bank since the 1994 treaty. Obama's war on Libya was as much an unwarranted war of aggression in violation of the UN charter as was Bush's war on Iraq, and so is his proxy war against Syria, and so is the Saudi and Iranian support for proxy wars around the world that nobody is going to be held responsible for anytime soon. The UN itself appoints officials to not be neutral arbiters but to codify the war propaganda of aggressor states in official UN findings that can then be claimed to be international law, leading to such incidents as the UN's "highly respected" and "authoritative" human rights official Richard Falk praising the Boston Marathon bombing as a righteous act of resistance against oppression.

      The Republicans had the right idea about the UN: cut its funding until it starts behaving by its own rules. It would help if the US was an advocate for these rules rather than another willful breaker of them.

  8. Gotta sell 'em something by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    It's the only way to keep the war going.. peace would be a real disaster in this business.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. But not Great Old Ones by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

    I may have read to much H.P. Lovecraft and Charlie Stross, but when I first read the headline, my initial reading was that Russia would be given shoggoths to Syria. That would have been interesting. It will be interesting to see if any deal does go through, and the fact that Syria wants these is interesting given that the rebels have had little access to aircraft. Syria probably wants it to help prevent intervention in the ongoing civil war.

    1. Re:But not Great Old Ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * deter ?

    2. Re:But not Great Old Ones by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well it should certainly help them prevent Turkish and Israeli overflights of their territory. Not to mention aerial bombardments.

  10. RE by ralphlaurena · · Score: 1

    yes I think so they would turn them into surface to surface targeting rebel donkey carts transporting CIA supplied surface to air missiles come surface to surface missiles that in turn target government donkey carts. In general the only things that will blow up are innocent Syrian kids and donkeys.

  11. Oh Dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin and Netanyahu (for non-Isrealie speak 'net in yahoo') have something other than sex to talk about .... Lovely !

  12. We are intervening by deanklear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ny-times-scrubs-mention-of-cia-arming-syrian-rebels/5302360

    Despite public claims on behalf of the White House that no weapons are being sent to the rebels, reports that the CIA has been doing precisely that have been circulating for months, including a recent story about CIA spies smuggling 14 stinger missiles into Syria so rebels could defend themselves with ground to air technology.

    The New York Times admitted in a June 21 report that the CIA was "steering" arms to Syrian rebels from the Turkish border, but claimed the weapons were paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The New York Times' decision to alter the wording of the article is another example of how NATO-aligned media outlets are concerned about overemphasizing western support for the rebels given their involvement in terrorist attacks and other acts of brutality.

    I'd recommend against adding racism to your obvious ignorance, however. Even though that feeling is dependent on the possibility that you have a sense of human dignity, which is certainly slim.

    1. Re:We are intervening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're the Good Guys In White Hats, as are the Islamist 'rebels' we're giving weapons to. The Russians are the Bad Guys In Black Hats, like the Syrians our Islamist friends are attacking.

      And, you know, what could possibly go wrong?

  13. LOL old systems? by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    How about once the Syrians and that's a big if they ever get them up and running, they don't want Stealth fighters making mincemeat out of their so called technological advantage or the newest systems falling into CIA hands to be dissected and a new generation jamming pod being developed.

  14. A Passing Thought... by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    Might this not be an opportune time for the US to stop living up to its image overseas as a big, blundering, international bully and just let the locals fend for themselves?

    With a millions of Islamic loonies on their doorstep, and their own disasters in Afghanistan and Chechnya to remind them, one would think that the Russians would have better sense than to keep exacerbating and encouraging Middle-Eastern instability.

    No, I suppose both powers' energy and defense industries are more important than anybody else's self-determination.

    Economic and political pragmatism trumps idealism every time.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:A Passing Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians are merely helping their Arabs against your Arabs. You know, YOUR Arabs are funding the nastiest Islamic terror of all - the Sunni/Wahabist terror. The Wahabists have been making war in the Caucasus, in New York and in Boston recently.

      Chechnya alone would justify the Russians to equip both Syria and Iran with nuclear weapons and threatening to nuke out the Saudis. Russia is actually stupidly pacifist in reacting to the destruction of their allies by the Saudi-financed Terror.

      Always good to see who the Bedfellows of the Jews are. For minuscule advantage the Jews collaborate with Wahabist Terrorism. I can't wait to hear their whining when the Wahabists turn against the Jews one day and massacre quite a few of that "smart nation". Smart my ass, the Jews are the dumbest people that ever lived on earth, otherwise they would aim for long-term peace instead of short-term gain. But hey, they are money-changers, what do you expect ??

    2. Re: A Passing Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel in fact did sign peace deals with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. The latter have since backed down, and the former are considering it.

    3. Re:A Passing Thought... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if we don't get involved people will complain about how we're standing by while people are slaughtered. Of course if we DO get involved people (many of them the SAME people) will flip out if a single civilian dies by the hands of our soldiers and start screaming about how our soldiers are murderers. It's a no-win situation, but on the whole the balance clearly favors letting them kill each other.

      I for one would like to see us completely avoid getting involved except for working (both politically and if needed militarily) to keep the issue contained to Syria.

    4. Re:A Passing Thought... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      don't know about the rest of your message but the Wahabi are sure a nasty bunch

    5. Re:A Passing Thought... by tibman · · Score: 1

      I'd say the Shiite are more "ours" than Sunni. Just look at Iraq.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    6. Re:A Passing Thought... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Russia doesn't have a problems with Shia Islamic loonies on their doorstep. It has a good relationship with Iran, trade and otherwise. It has an okay relationship with Azerbaijan, the other Shiite country in the region (though that one is firmly in the Turkish sphere of influence). Its problems with militant Islam are mainly with Wahhabi/Salafi extremist forms of it, and those are coming from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Coincidentally, they happen to be exactly the countries which Iran is heavily opposed to, and also the ones that are engaged in the proxy war in Syria on rebel side.

      So, geopolitically, Russia would actually have a lot to gain from helping establish Iran as a regional superpower on Middle East, dominating over the neighboring Sunni states (and taking over the Shia majority / Sunni ruled ones like Iraq or Bahrain). Diminishing the influence of Turkey would also be helpful, seeing how the latter is the biggest blocker to a stronger Russian naval presence in Mediterranean.

    7. Re:A Passing Thought... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      How have the Jews collaborated with Wahabbi terrorism? The US collaborates and arms Wahabbis but Israel does not. Israel was careful to bomb sites that are useful to Hezbollah (who are Shia, not Sunni Wahabbis). So, it has to be said that your post is not only stupidly racist, it is also ignorantly false. No wonder you posted as an AC - I'd be ashamed of putting such falsehoods on the Web too.

    8. Re:A Passing Thought... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      Might this not be an opportune time for the US to stop living up to its image overseas as a big, blundering, international bully and just let the locals fend for themselves?

      Won't work. Look at history, in 1914 the US stayed neutral in World War I until someone came out and sank on of their ships. The World didn;t seek war with Hitler, but it came to them. In World War II the US was officially neutral (although did a lot of business in arms) until the Japanese came and pounded Pearl Harbour. The US didn't seek the war in Korea, the North Koreans did. The US didn't seek war in Vietnam, the Communist Vietnamese did. Th World didn't seek war with the Warsaw Pact, but the conflict by proxy was there. The US didn't seek war in Lebanon, the Islamists did. The US didn't seek war in the Middle East, the Iraqis invaded Kuwait. The US did seek war in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 (Saddam did not sponsor the 9/11 attackers, but he did support other terrorist groups; and the Taliban were hosting Al Qaeda).

      So you see, the historical facts show your premise is false. If the US persues a path of appeasement and disengagement trouble will still find it out - it just won't be on terms advantageous to the US when it comes. Your proposed solution of sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich will do nothing to dispel the hyenas that are circling.

    9. Re:A Passing Thought... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah but they make an excellent hot sauce.

      Mmm... Wahabi peas.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:A Passing Thought... by peragrin · · Score: 0

      That's simple. We have to stop pretending we are the worlds police force and only super power, since we no longer can finically afford to be either.

      The USA is in fiscal default. As a country we have been living so far beyond our means for the last 40 years that the credit card bill will have to be paid by Generation X's great grand children.

      That is how far we have fallen. We stop pretending to keep the peace and let some one else step up. If no one else does the world will descend into violence and people will remember fondly the good old days when the USA kept the peace between nations.

      take the long view. the USA really really needs to let it go.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:A Passing Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RMS Lusitania was a legitimate military target. It had a cargo of munitions, and was in a war zone on the way to Great Britain, a bellingerent in the war. "Look at history, in 1914 the US stayed neutral in World War I until someone came out and sank on of their ships." would be better written as "the US stayed neutral until the moment at which they came up withan idea of how to sell the war to the US public."

      Philipp

    12. Re:A Passing Thought... by Ragnarr · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm always impressed by the Public's willingness to engage in conflict when ya'll don't fight these wars and don't understand what's involved in them. But hey, that's why we have a professional military right? They're just 'other people' who do what we tell them. Just remember, this isn't a video game.

    13. Re:A Passing Thought... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      Well, the military often understands what the public does not. Some of the public do understand why some wars need to be fought. The rest of the people either don't know, don't care or have a wrong understanding. These sheep don't matter in the decision making process.

      Just remember, this isn't a video game.

      That's true. Life should not be thrown away. However, it is also "not a video game" in the sense that there really are evil people who really do want to kill you just because you don't follow their crazy ideology (eg. Islam). The last Pew survey estimated the number of people worldwide that want to do this at 25% of the global Muslim population (which means around 400 million people want to kill you because they think Allah told them they had to). Life is not a video game. If a jihadi kills you then you and your family don't get to respawn. You have to defend the one life you have against the hatred of that evil ideology. Think about it.

    14. Re:A Passing Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a country we have been living so far beyond our means for the last 40 years that the credit card bill will have to be paid by Generation X's great grand children.

      Not saying you're incorrect, but have you examined many of the EU member nation's GDP to debt ratio? Have you taken a look (oh, sorry, you can't) at China's opaque stock markets?

      Yeah, I'm not worried. It's all a bunch of horse shit. I keep waiting for China to "call in our debt" *snicker*.

      take the long view. the USA really really needs to let it go.

      Yeah, you're an idiot. The world is based on perception and fiat currency... full stop. I'm not worried.

    15. Re:A Passing Thought... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Beauty. Good thing I'd already swallowed the mouthful of coffee.

  15. Are they aligned? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The recent bomb attack in Turkey near the Syrian border had as its target civilians who belong to the same group as Syrians government. They are ANTI the syrian rebels who are now in their town.

    There is no such thing as a "Muslim", while to the outside world Islam tends to be presented as one faith (against the world), internally their are many divisions some of which are based on simply which region you are from. And those regions have little to do with todays borders.

    The real danger so far is not so much ONE country falling into civil war, but it inevitably spreading as groups outside the first country taking sides and for it then to spread until it is warlord against warlord.

    Only the British ever really managed to contain it with their moto of: 'Don't fight or we will kill you'. Remove the "evil" dictator who is supressing the groups and you soon find yourself with out of control groups willing to spend the next 1000 years fighting each other of patches of sand.

    Pretty much as Europe was btw until finally after WW2 the EU was formed because constant war was to costly to business. And we in the EU with over half a century of peace still hate each others guts and universally resent the institution that has given us over half a century of peace.

    As Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Are they aligned? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only the British ever really managed to contain it with their moto of: 'Don't fight or we will kill you'. Remove the "evil" dictator who is supressing the groups and you soon find yourself with out of control groups willing to spend the next 1000 years fighting each other of patches of sand.

      Think about why this is. Look at the Qur'an and hadiths. Mohammed had Muslims not under his direct control killed (burned them alive in the unauthorized mosque they built without his permission, he discovered it when they asked him to come and bless it). This set the example for all Muslims that sectarian warfare is not only ok, it is mandatory to fight against other apostates, which are other Muslims. That's why when people say if Islam ruled the world there would be peace. That is false, besides the violent jihad against non-Muslims, and the severe oppression of Muslims, there would also be endless sectarian warfare. This shows up in the bloody statistics of Muslims killed every day by Muslims of another sect and in the fighting of Sunni vs Shia in Syria:
      http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

      Most of the West never knows or cares about the colossal amount of violence that wracks all of the Muslim World. It is the political ideology of *Islam* that is driving this constant violence. Islam is not a religion of peace as the ignorant or taqiyya-practicing liars tell you. Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology of oppression, exploitation and violence. It is against all the human rights we hold dear. Don't let the liars fool you. Oppose Islamicization of the West.

  16. Credit by dammy · · Score: 1

    So does this mean Syrian credit is now crap with Russia? If they are selling older systems that very few (or no one more likely) is willing to buy to Syria but not the ones in high demand, it sounds like Russia has just gave Syria junk bond rating of paying off it's debts.

  17. How Does Syria Pay? by oldCoder · · Score: 1

    Syria must be seriously broke by now. In comparison to Syria, Israel's economy is doing fantastically well. I think the only payment Syria could make would be to let the Russians have military bases on Syrian soil, and expand Russian naval presence on the Mediterranean.

    On Deep Background:

    A Russian ship is currently visiting Israel, which has many ex-Russian citizens.

    Russia has also received title to a large tract of land in downtown Jerusalem, purchased in previous centuries by the Russian Orthodox Church.

    The most effective way for Obama to help the Syrian rebels might be to persuade Netanyahu to announce support for the Assad regime, and that the Assads are actually (but secretly) a Jewish family.

    --

    I18N == Intergalacticization