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."
Netanyahu to Visit Putin, Discuss S-300 Sale
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167922#.UY7gcnDlN0M
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.
Do these S-300s run Linux or something?
Just like genocide!
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."
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.
because various groups in Syria don't arm those that attack other nations?
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!”
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.
S-300 is an intrinsically defensive weapon system...
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
wholesale shoes
it can back up an offensive strike; it can shoot down civilian craft
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.
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
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ny-times-scrubs-mention-of-cia-arming-syrian-rebels/5302360
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.
What is wrong with you? No compassion whatsoever?
Just make sure the beach is safe to surf...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
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
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.
But.... this is Charlie's beach!
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
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
You mean, actually somebody challenges their god-given right to drop bombs on other nations ?
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.'"
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Racist.
"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"
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).
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
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!”
[...] no-nothing [...]
That's something, isn't it?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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
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
How does anyone still believe this in 2013?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No that quoted hate text was from you from the post directly above it so that's an especially stupid lie. .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.
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
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.
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.
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
Does that apply to both of them?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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].
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.
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).
The article was about Syria you one track white supremicist dipshit.
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.
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.
Sorry, from your response it is very clear you are a racist.
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.
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
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