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."
Just like genocide!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).