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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
They are rockets from Iran made several years ago - thus "old Iranian rockets", and unlikely to work with anything new from Russia.
Those are *new* rockets you ijit. Clearly you don't know jack about munitions.
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.
False. The same strawman you keep trotting out. I believe in killing *jihadis*. When identified. Before they murder civilians. Non-jihadi Muslims should not have a hair on their head touched. We can defeat them by supporting the US Constitution and the UN Declaration Human Rights (note: but not the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which is pro-Sharia and opposes the UN Declaration of Human Rights). So, you can repeat your slander all you want - but it doesn't make you falicious arguments true or lend your personal opinions any scientific meri .
from the sort of emerging genocidal fascist in Israel that it's founders would want to shoot on sight.
Blah Blah. Yeah, we already know you are a racist anti-Semite from your other posts. No need to repeat your racist statements - we haven't forgotten.
So, how about you answer my perfectly scientifically simple question about the throw weight of the 50000 Iranian missiles that Hezbollah claims to have. Ya know, the ones you tried to downplay as "old" because they were manufactured a few years ago (lol), at least within the last five years or so (after new bunkers were made for them after the 2006 Lebanon War). So, what is the throw weight of the flavours of Iranian-supplied missiles? you will see they are not only enough to carry even a crude nuke or chemical weapons (you know, the "missing" Iraqi WMD that were shipped to Syria before the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and have been used by the Al Qaeda rebels against their own civilians in Syria for propaganda purposes in the last fortnight). You can't answer without calling in Google to try mask your ignorance. Why don't you admit that you have failed *again*, and made a false statement *again* because if you had known anything about the subject (ballistic missiles) you simply wouldn't have made the ridiculously false statement you did based on the known data of Iranian rockets supplied to evil Hezbollah (who I came into contact with a a neutral tourist in Lebanon, and I'm guessing you have not even been there yet still think you know more than someone who has been there; that's simply another fail to add to your litani [see what I did there, lol, if you'd been in-country you would get it]).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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*.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
1) You'll note the wiki site you mention specifically calls them Greeks. The Roman Empire's elite was two elites, the ethnic and linguistic Greeks who dominated the East, and the ethnic and Linguistic Latins who dominated the West. In modern history books the Greeks are always called Greek, and the Latins are always called Roman. The wiki article you cite doesn't call them Romans, it calls them Greeks. There's usually a footnote pointing out that the Byzantine Greeks considered themselves the true Romans, but that doesn't change the vocabulary used by actual historians writing in English.
Your use of "modern history" books is dangerous because you don't seem to understand the simplification they made. For example, we call the Eastern Roman Empire the "Byzantine Empire" yet that was not their name for it. It is used by "modern history" books to signify the distinction between the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Notice they are both *Roman* Empires? that is what made your argument silly. The Byzantines called themselves "Romaioi" Romans because they saw themselves as the inheritors of an unbroken political line from Romulus and Remus (yes, they also inherited the line of Alexander, that that was long broken by them, the *Romans*). Yes, they migrated from a Latin speaking elite over Greek speaking masses to a Greek speaking elite over Greek speaking masses. You seem to ignore the fact that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire the Eastern Roman Empire started charting its own course. This leads you to think that the end product without thinking about the thousand year *Roman* journey that came before it. Because the Romaioi saw themselves as ethnic Greeks in the *Roman* empire they are *Roman*. That makes your argument incorrect based on the statements of the Romaioi themselves.
However, let us pretend that you were correct. My original argument still stands. The advent of Islam obliterates all cultures that it is able to dominate. It does not do it instantaneously, but it starts an inexorable process over time (the Islamic "Milestones" process, which the West has now started on). Some cultures have been able to resist this (eg. the Spanish Reconquesta), but they are rare. I could not imagine how someone like yourself could ignore the clear historical precedent and is not concerned about the danger to Enlightenment Civilization (which is currently putting up no resistance to creeping cultural jihad).
2) If you actually admire Ataturk you should not bring up the destruction of the ethnic Greeks of Western Anatolia. That was an integral part of one of his major accomplishments, getting the Republic of Turkey international recognition as an independent ethnic Turkish nation-state. Without the population exchange between Greece and Turkey there is no secular Turkish state.
In a region where national identity is tied up in religion, anybody who is nationalist is by definition terrible for religious freedom. Depending on the specific circumstances he can be worse for religious freedom then actual religious police. If you don't believe me compare the religious demographics of the last Ottoman census in Anatolia to those of the secular Turkish Republic.
Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Again you make the same fallacious argument. Just because Ataturk made mistakes does not absolve the Caliphate he dismantled of its horrific history. They are both bad (and Ataturk was less bad by far). But at least we can agree that Turkey is terrible for religious freedom. Nationalism is not the cause (eg. the US is high on the nationalism scale but are secular). The reason that Turkey is bad for religious freedom is because of the doctrines in Islam that prohibit Muslims from being ruled over by non-Muslims as a permanent state of affairs. You have just admitted by point in the case of Turkey. Ask yourself, is Turkey getting more or less secular? what are the reasons Erdogan says he is doing what he is doing?
Slashdot Mirror
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
They are rockets from Iran made several years ago - thus "old Iranian rockets", and unlikely to work with anything new from Russia.
Those are *new* rockets you ijit. Clearly you don't know jack about munitions.
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.
False. The same strawman you keep trotting out. I believe in killing *jihadis*. When identified. Before they murder civilians. Non-jihadi Muslims should not have a hair on their head touched. We can defeat them by supporting the US Constitution and the UN Declaration Human Rights (note: but not the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which is pro-Sharia and opposes the UN Declaration of Human Rights). So, you can repeat your slander all you want - but it doesn't make you falicious arguments true or lend your personal opinions any scientific meri .
from the sort of emerging genocidal fascist in Israel that it's founders would want to shoot on sight.
Blah Blah. Yeah, we already know you are a racist anti-Semite from your other posts. No need to repeat your racist statements - we haven't forgotten.
So, how about you answer my perfectly scientifically simple question about the throw weight of the 50000 Iranian missiles that Hezbollah claims to have. Ya know, the ones you tried to downplay as "old" because they were manufactured a few years ago (lol), at least within the last five years or so (after new bunkers were made for them after the 2006 Lebanon War). So, what is the throw weight of the flavours of Iranian-supplied missiles? you will see they are not only enough to carry even a crude nuke or chemical weapons (you know, the "missing" Iraqi WMD that were shipped to Syria before the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and have been used by the Al Qaeda rebels against their own civilians in Syria for propaganda purposes in the last fortnight). You can't answer without calling in Google to try mask your ignorance. Why don't you admit that you have failed *again*, and made a false statement *again* because if you had known anything about the subject (ballistic missiles) you simply wouldn't have made the ridiculously false statement you did based on the known data of Iranian rockets supplied to evil Hezbollah (who I came into contact with a a neutral tourist in Lebanon, and I'm guessing you have not even been there yet still think you know more than someone who has been there; that's simply another fail to add to your litani [see what I did there, lol, if you'd been in-country you would get it]).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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*.
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.
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).
Racist.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
1) You'll note the wiki site you mention specifically calls them Greeks. The Roman Empire's elite was two elites, the ethnic and linguistic Greeks who dominated the East, and the ethnic and Linguistic Latins who dominated the West. In modern history books the Greeks are always called Greek, and the Latins are always called Roman. The wiki article you cite doesn't call them Romans, it calls them Greeks. There's usually a footnote pointing out that the Byzantine Greeks considered themselves the true Romans, but that doesn't change the vocabulary used by actual historians writing in English.
Your use of "modern history" books is dangerous because you don't seem to understand the simplification they made. For example, we call the Eastern Roman Empire the "Byzantine Empire" yet that was not their name for it. It is used by "modern history" books to signify the distinction between the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Notice they are both *Roman* Empires? that is what made your argument silly. The Byzantines called themselves "Romaioi" Romans because they saw themselves as the inheritors of an unbroken political line from Romulus and Remus (yes, they also inherited the line of Alexander, that that was long broken by them, the *Romans*). Yes, they migrated from a Latin speaking elite over Greek speaking masses to a Greek speaking elite over Greek speaking masses. You seem to ignore the fact that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire the Eastern Roman Empire started charting its own course. This leads you to think that the end product without thinking about the thousand year *Roman* journey that came before it. Because the Romaioi saw themselves as ethnic Greeks in the *Roman* empire they are *Roman*. That makes your argument incorrect based on the statements of the Romaioi themselves.
However, let us pretend that you were correct. My original argument still stands. The advent of Islam obliterates all cultures that it is able to dominate. It does not do it instantaneously, but it starts an inexorable process over time (the Islamic "Milestones" process, which the West has now started on). Some cultures have been able to resist this (eg. the Spanish Reconquesta), but they are rare. I could not imagine how someone like yourself could ignore the clear historical precedent and is not concerned about the danger to Enlightenment Civilization (which is currently putting up no resistance to creeping cultural jihad).
2) If you actually admire Ataturk you should not bring up the destruction of the ethnic Greeks of Western Anatolia. That was an integral part of one of his major accomplishments, getting the Republic of Turkey international recognition as an independent ethnic Turkish nation-state. Without the population exchange between Greece and Turkey there is no secular Turkish state. In a region where national identity is tied up in religion, anybody who is nationalist is by definition terrible for religious freedom. Depending on the specific circumstances he can be worse for religious freedom then actual religious police. If you don't believe me compare the religious demographics of the last Ottoman census in Anatolia to those of the secular Turkish Republic.
Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Again you make the same fallacious argument. Just because Ataturk made mistakes does not absolve the Caliphate he dismantled of its horrific history. They are both bad (and Ataturk was less bad by far). But at least we can agree that Turkey is terrible for religious freedom. Nationalism is not the cause (eg. the US is high on the nationalism scale but are secular). The reason that Turkey is bad for religious freedom is because of the doctrines in Islam that prohibit Muslims from being ruled over by non-Muslims as a permanent state of affairs. You have just admitted by point in the case of Turkey. Ask yourself, is Turkey getting more or less secular? what are the reasons Erdogan says he is doing what he is doing?