Most rockets in Western attacks on Syria were intercepted - Russia

[Morch]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I can understand the skepticism.  Doesn't seem so long ago that another US President announced a coalition attack on a despot with illegal weapons.  That hasn't worked out so well.

 

 

Other than there aren't any signs of invasion on the horizon (quite the opposite), no real attempts to depose current dictator, and attack carried out being on a limited scale. Syria's possession and use of chemical weapons is not a matter of debate, unless one is into RT and such.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

UN.  Similar to this.

 

Would posters bashing the UN be more happy if it had an army under its direct command, and the authority to use it?

[Thechook]

Most intercepted, fair enough but you missed the ones that achieved the objective 

[Basil B]

Once again over exaggeration...

 

UK launched 4 Tornado jets which are far larger and slower targets than the missiles launched by the US and the French, UK claims all 4 planes returned safely, and no claims by Russia or Syria to have shot them down.

 

And the US says Russia/Syria's claim to have shot down most of the missiles is rubbish because most of the missiles had hit their targets before Syria Russia launched their fist. 

[Naam]

5 minutes ago, Basil B said:

UK launched 4 Tornado jets which are far larger and slower targets than the missiles launched by the US and the French,

larger yes, slower no. cruise missile max speed 'Mach 1', Tornado max speed 'Mach 2.2.

[geriatrickid]

12 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

is bombing people really the best form of enlightenment and education?  Is that why the US has so many school shootings?

There was no bombing of people. There was a targeting of chemical munitions sites.

The Russians and Iranians were given plenty of warning to remove their people ahead of the  attack. There were no civilian casualties.

 

The attack was for show only. Assad is non plussed and the Russians and NATO are winking at each other. Even Iran is giving a sigh of relief. The Iranian general population is not pleased with the support of Assad.

[poanoi]

6 hours ago, overherebc said:

 Intercept missiles being smaller have a limited flight time so generally have to be deployed at the last minute close to the expected target and are not generally as agile as the cruise.

you got that 180 degree wrong, a sub sonic cruise missile such as the tomahawk can develop some 3 g,

while an intercept missile, depending on flavor, can develop 30-60 g

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Every time Syria begins to 'win' (as it certainly has) something 'happens' to warrant bombing."

 

That's nothing but a generalized incorrect statement. There weren't all that many airstrikes aimed directly at the Syrian regime. And these did not necessarily coincide with Syrian regime "wins".

 

"WHY would Assad do this?  what's to be gained?"

 

Here are a few options: (a) thought he could get away with it (b) rebels in question surrendered the day after the attack (c) sending a message to other rebel groups (d) signaling that he's still calling (some) shots in Syria (e) the price paid wasn't that high, really.

 

" ignore the 500,000 killed by conventional weapons but go all-out bombing over 75 alleged chemical deaths?"

 

Yeah, by all means, ignore many, if not most of them being casualties of attacks by Assad's and Russia's forces. Anything goes for a spin, it seems. Chemical weapons are specifically prohibited by a series of international agreements and law.

 

 

 

 

Same old spin from Morch. Boring.

 

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Other than there aren't any signs of invasion on the horizon (quite the opposite), no real attempts to depose current dictator, and attack carried out being on a limited scale. Syria's possession and use of chemical weapons is not a matter of debate, unless one is into RT and such.

 

IMO there will be another false flag chemical attack soon enough, then the pre-ordained response will be ramped up. And so on, and so on.....

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Don't see you (and others airing similar positions) going on about such things as the "UN" or "international law" with regard to transgressions carried out by Assad and his supporters (including Russia) during the Syrian Civil War. In fact, don't recall all  that much affront and outrage from your guys over Russia vetoing numerous UNSC resolution proposals dealing with the Syrian Civil War.

 

One of Morch's standard deflections.

[MaxYakov]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

larger yes, slower no. cruise missile max speed 'Mach 1', Tornado max speed 'Mach 2.2.

Yes, but I'd bet the Tornados weren't attacking at Mach 2.2. Maybe they were sent to protect the cruise missiles from Russian night fighter interception/shootdown? (A cruise missile escort fighter? - just jesting, of course). It does raise the question, though, as to what exactly were the roles of the Tornados?

Edited April 14, 2018 by MaxYakov

[Jdiddy]

54 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

 It does raise the question, though, as to what exactly were the roles of the Tornados?

Just testing them

 

The whole thing was a token attack live fire exercise against empty warehouses that would of had any valuable shit moved out in the days after the warning of the attack

 

US would have collected plenty of data on how their missiles dealt with the countermeasures they faced, similar with the Russians on how their military hardware dealt with the attack, improvements and modifications to electronic warfare, radars and missile software are most likely happening as we speak

 

 

[impulse]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Other than there aren't any signs of invasion on the horizon (quite the opposite), no real attempts to depose current dictator, and attack carried out being on a limited scale. Syria's possession and use of chemical weapons is not a matter of debate, unless one is into RT and such.

 

I hope you're right, that there's no escalation leading to invasion, no widening of the theater of war, and no blowback in the form of increased terrorism.  But as I recall, debating Saddam's possession of WMD was considered downright traitorous at the time.  

[overherebc]

3 hours ago, poanoi said:

you got that 180 degree wrong, a sub sonic cruise missile such as the tomahawk can develop some 3 g,

while an intercept missile, depending on flavor, can develop 30-60 g

You missed the meaning of generally.

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, chrisinth said:

Then you obviously never saw CNN presentation during Desert Storm. That went further than propaganda though, as they were transmitting live to strikes taking off for missions against Iraqi forces being watched live in Baghdad as well as in the western world. That BS is what made CNN.

 

Or the embedded media for the second one going into Iraq. That is how propaganda backfires; underestimating the enemy thinking the war is over after mass troop movements finish, not believing urban & guerrilla warfare would follow.

 

A live transmission is reporting, not propaganda.

[lannarebirth]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A live transmission is reporting, not propaganda.

 

Not necessarily, It could be one or the other or neither. I have been near the center of two different international news events and one nationally broadcast news event. News coverage of all three events was false or misleading as were the conclusions that should be drawn from the news coverage. I do not know if that was intentional or just shoddy journalism but it happens frequently.  I think the general shoddiness (intentional or not) of "legitimate" news sources is what has given rise to the increasing number of "fake" news sources.

Edited April 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[malagateddy]

Lets face facts..if for example you met a politician in a shop and he/she said " good morning " to you..would you not look at your watch to check the time??

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[poanoi]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

You missed the meaning of generally.

unless you refer to some russian hypersonic vehicles,

its not generally either, all NATO CM are the sub sonic / transonic low g variant to date,

tho that is bound to change in a few years in US case

Edited April 15, 2018 by poanoi

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

IMO there will be another false flag chemical attack soon enough, then the pre-ordained response will be ramped up. And so on, and so on.....

When you make false statements that you cannot substantiate and attempt to give yourself authority by calling it "false flag" you deserve the ridicule and contempt that follows. Why do you lie?

 

You claim there was no use of chemicals. What's your proof?  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there was no use of gas.  The only ones denying that there was gas was Syria and Russia. Even Iran  is staying quiet.

 

Here's what I know;

Syria has a history of using gas on civilians. In fact the arabs and Russia have a proven history of using poison gas. Iraq used it on Iran. Iraq also used it on Kurds. Egypt used it in Yemen. (The UN even condemned Egypt for the use.) Russia used poison gas during its occupation of Afghanistan.

 

Syria had a large  poison gas stockpile. It had promised to destroy it. The Russians said they had destroyed "known" ordinance. However, if the Syrians had it, despite their  not supposed to have it, then it is not  unreasonable to expect that there were some  inventory not destroyed.

 

 The World Health Organization said last Wednesday that approx. 500 people had been treated for "signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals"   The French and Swiss Red Cross have blood samples that show people were  exposed to poison gas. The USA now has  blood samples from victims.

 

As good as the  acting abilities  of Arabs are  for their Pallywood productions,  the images of children and adults with blueish skin, their foaming at the mouth, bloodshot eyes and respiratory distress would have been difficult to fake.

 

You are the type of person who claims that there was no genocide in Rwanda and Burundi, who would have claimed that the killing fields of  Cambodia were  fake, 

that the Bosnian concentration camps where thousands of children were starved, women raped and men executed were only holiday camps, and of course, you probably doubt that there were death camps in WWII.  The use of poison gas against civilians in Syria is no different in the moral wrong. When you lie as you do, you are complicit in crimes against humanity and genocide. You enable mass murder and you are as guilty as the Syrians who are murdering civilian non combatants.

[overherebc]

26 minutes ago, poanoi said:

unless you refer to some russian hypersonic vehicles,

its not generally either, all NATO CM are the sub sonic / transonic low g variant to date,

tho that is bound to change in a few years in US case

I was really talking about the  flight path, cruise missile can fly at 15 metres above the sea and 50 metres above land until the final target. Radar tracking won't work on the intercept at those heights due to ground clutter and if head on or directly behind the cruise doppler effect will many times mean the return signal will not be recognised by the intercept. 

No doubt they will be working around these problems as we post.

Edited April 15, 2018 by overherebc

[BobBKK]

17 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

When you make false statements that you cannot substantiate and attempt to give yourself authority by calling it "false flag" you deserve the ridicule and contempt that follows. Why do you lie?

 

You claim there was no use of chemicals. What's your proof?  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there was no use of gas.  The only ones denying that there was gas was Syria and Russia. Even Iran  is staying quiet.

 

Here's what I know;

Syria has a history of using gas on civilians. In fact the arabs and Russia have a proven history of using poison gas. Iraq used it on Iran. Iraq also used it on Kurds. Egypt used it in Yemen. (The UN even condemned Egypt for the use.) Russia used poison gas during its occupation of Afghanistan.

 

Syria had a large  poison gas stockpile. It had promised to destroy it. The Russians said they had destroyed "known" ordinance. However, if the Syrians had it, despite their  not supposed to have it, then it is not  unreasonable to expect that there were some  inventory not destroyed.

 

 The World Health Organization said last Wednesday that approx. 500 people had been treated for "signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals"   The French and Swiss Red Cross have blood samples that show people were  exposed to poison gas. The USA now has  blood samples from victims.

 

As good as the  acting abilities  of Arabs are  for their Pallywood productions,  the images of children and adults with blueish skin, their foaming at the mouth, bloodshot eyes and respiratory distress would have been difficult to fake.

 

You are the type of person who claims that there was no genocide in Rwanda and Burundi, who would have claimed that the killing fields of  Cambodia were  fake, 

that the Bosnian concentration camps where thousands of children were starved, women raped and men executed were only holiday camps, and of course, you probably doubt that there were death camps in WWII.  The use of poison gas against civilians in Syria is no different in the moral wrong. When you lie as you do, you are complicit in crimes against humanity and genocide. You enable mass murder and you are as guilty as the Syrians who are murdering civilian non combatants.

 

The other way round. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove Assad did this. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of international law.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Same old spin from Morch. Boring.

 

 

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

IMO there will be another false flag chemical attack soon enough, then the pre-ordained response will be ramped up. And so on, and so on.....

 

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

One of Morch's standard deflections.

 

These would be three one-liner "retorts" mostly made out of personal references, and non containing anything of substance. You have not demonstrated "spin", "deflections", "false flag" - saying so doesn't make it so.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Yes, but I'd bet the Tornados weren't attacking at Mach 2.2. Maybe they were sent to protect the cruise missiles from Russian night fighter interception/shootdown? (A cruise missile escort fighter? - just jesting, of course). It does raise the question, though, as to what exactly were the roles of the Tornados?

 

As far as I understand, the Tornados were used to launch Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The Tornados were escorted by Typhoons, "just in case". I'm not sure all of the latter are capable of carrying the Storm Shadow. As the Tornados are set to be phased out of service next year, there was probably also a bit of a "swan song" element here.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I hope you're right, that there's no escalation leading to invasion, no widening of the theater of war, and no blowback in the form of increased terrorism.  But as I recall, debating Saddam's possession of WMD was considered downright traitorous at the time.  

 

I hope you'll stick to reality - that the second such strike carried out during a years long civil war. The previous one did not lead to an escalation, invasion, widening of the theater of war, or terrorism blowback. Debating Saddam's possession of WMD was not considered "downright traitorous". Both Assad and Saddam possessed and used chemical weapons.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

The other way round. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove Assad did this. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of international law.

 

Allow me to doubt your expertise in the field of international law. I believe what you cite as "cornerstone" is not, actually, an integral part of most such legislation. As far as I recall, this supposed "cornerstone" does not even apply on some national level legal systems. No so much "objections" when it comes to violations of "international law" by Russia and Syria, eh?

[Grouse]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I understand, the Tornados were used to launch Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The Tornados were escorted by Typhoons, "just in case". I'm not sure all of the latter are capable of carrying the Storm Shadow. As the Tornados are set to be phased out of service next year, there was probably also a bit of a "swan song" element here.

The 4 Tornadoes and 3 Rafales were used to launch stand-off storm shadow cruise missiles (2 per aircraft). These are "bunker busting" in that they have a first  stage hollow charge warhead followed by multiple HE.

 

The French also launched 3 cruise missiles from a Frigate.

 

These strikes were highly targeted and limited. Any conspiracy theory is sunk; there was no massive attack or invasion.

 

I would be interested in opinions of what the West should do? What outcome is desirable?

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, Naam said:

larger yes, slower no. cruise missile max speed 'Mach 1', Tornado max speed 'Mach 2.2.

Storm Shadow is stand-off. Maybe 300km from target

[Naam]

2 hours ago, malagateddy said:

Lets face facts..if for example you met a politician in a shop and he/she said " good morning " to you..would you not look at your watch to check the time??

yes i would :~)

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt your expertise in the field of international law. I believe what you cite as "cornerstone" is not, actually, an integral part of most such legislation. As far as I recall, this supposed "cornerstone" does not even apply on some national level legal systems. No so much "objections" when it comes to violations of "international law" by Russia and Syria, eh?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'International Law.' I'm not aware that there's a clear definition of what 'International Law' is.

 

However, while it's true that a presumption of innocence is not a part of all national legal systems, it is an international human right according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also a tenet upheld by the International Criminal Court (ICC).