Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

Chrongen

Discodog wrote: »

The sad thing is that your good old Trots, like Corbyn, had a communist ideology. The new crowd can't even say that the Russian system is better because it's even more corrupt & capitalist than the West.

What's wrong with the Communists?
They were all rounded up an dumped into Buchenwald along with the Jews.
The "scumbag" commies regrouped inside and saved 1100 Jewish children.

Good bunch of lads.

Doctors room ghost

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gatling does not want to know he looks at the world around him through John Rambo eyes.

Have you a LINK!! Ha ha

irishproduce

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

found this yesterday, pretty strange

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgl271A6LgQ

wtf

Cheerful Spring

Western Government are sending millions of dollars to the White Helmets, so is any wonder they keeping the charade going and pretending they are humanitarians.

Chrongen

gandalf wrote: »

Just waiting for the Vlad fan club to post a link to Swiss Tony saying "faking news is like making love to a beautiful woman..."

Why don't you post something mature?

Stop being a kid.

Your input would then be more respected.

Franz Von Peppercorn

American troops used chemical weapons in Fallujah.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq?__twitter_impression=true

gandalf

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

American troops used chemical weapons in Fallujah.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq?__twitter_impression=true

Is that prohibited by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?

Also Russia used White Phosphorus extensively in the Chechen wars and apparently in Syria as well.

Kermit.de.frog

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

American troops used chemical weapons in Fallujah.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq?__twitter_impression=true

But freedom.

kumate_champ07

Israel has used White Phosphorus on many occasions, but they get a free pass

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

No not according to Russia, Damascus was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the middle east, all religions basically got along, the west got involved and stirred up religious tensions

Oh look how original low post and supporting and liked by the usual suspects whenever one of them is challenged on thread

Gatling

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

Israel has used White Phosphorus on many occasions, but they get a free pass

Most modern militaries use white phosphorus for one reason or another

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

People marching and protesting

But you claimed it was something else

The Free Syrian army started the uprising there no freedom loving democratic fighters joining them. They were a group funded by outside powers to destabilise Syria.

prinzeugen

What were the Syrians shooting at last night? Seen videos of missiles going off but to high altitude?

Cruise missiles fly at extreme low level not at 10,000ft which is where the Syrian air defences were aiming.

kumate_champ07

Gatling wrote: »

Most modern militaries use white phosphorus for one reason or another

as smoke cover, not as a deadly weapon. its already been proven that they used it illegally

Gatling

prinzeugen wrote: »

What were the Syrians shooting at last night? Seen videos of missiles going off but to high altitude?

Cruise missiles fly at extreme low level not at 10,000ft which is were the Syrian air defences were aiming.

They missed everything they shot at.

I get the feeling the Americans were already sitting having a coffe and a smoke by the time the anti aircraft missles were fired .

Then came the Israelis and they missed them too

Gatling

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

as smoke cover,

Yes not a weapon thought

gandalf

prinzeugen wrote: »

What were the Syrians shooting at last night? Seen videos of missiles going off but to high altitude?

Cruise missiles fly at extreme low level not at 10,000ft which is where the Syrian air defences were aiming.

They had to do something for the optics afterall the Russians did fcuk all to protect them when push came to shove.

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

Had Russia used the S-400 things would be an awful lot worse today,

Excuses , excuses,and more excuses

Maybe they might have more success against an airbus A380

kumate_champ07

Gatling wrote: »

Yes not a weapon thought

??

its used as a chemical weapon by Israel

"When used properly in open areas, white phosphorus munitions are not illegal, but the Human Rights Watch report concludes that the IDF repeatedly exploded it unlawfully over populated neighborhoods, killing and wounding civilians and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital. "

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

gandalf

BlackWitch wrote: »

Had Russia used the S-400 things would be an awful lot worse today, there was some agreement to hit some cowsheds and Russia doesn't shoot back, the growler would have taken everything down, simple fact.

Lol the S400, it's vapourware. Syria getting bombed by Isreal, the US, the UK and France and it's so called ally Russia let them all sail right in there and attack with impunity.

gandalf

20mg wrote: »

Imagine your shock when your allies jump into vans drive off and shout Good luck with the Americans.

Yep because the Russia seems to only be able to engage with civilian targets like hospitals or a few lads with AK's on flat bed trucks and not comparable military forces

Vladimir Poontang

And if Russia had hit back you lot would be calling Putin an aggressive lunatic hell-bent on starting WW3

kumate_champ07

20mg wrote: »

Like dropping it as smoke or firing it as tracers ? I imagine you are sending the Russians and Syrians a stiff letter ?

I can't take you seriously

gandalf

Apparently Russia have good new weapons they just don't want to use them :rolleyes:

What's the point being an ally if a country with your troops, planes, missiles and boats based in that country if you aren't prepared to lift a finger to defend them. We've been "treated" to repeated rants by the Putin cheerleaders on this forum for months on how if the US and any other country attacked Syria their planes would be destroyed, ships would be sank and we'd have nuclear armageddon and we have seen the reality. A magnificent display of military cowardice by the Russians allowing munitions reign down on their ally.

Now the best response is "we let them bomb a few sheds" ROFLOL!

gandalf

BlackWitch wrote: »

I'm saying there was a deal done, both had to save face, take out the cowsheds and then stop!

Russia sold out their ally. Israel, the US, the UK and France can bomb them with no consequences? Some friend they are.

donegaLroad

Gatling

donegaLroad wrote: »

Pre russian involvement

Post russian involvement

Gonad

gandalf wrote: »

Apparently Russia have good new weapons they just don't want to use them :rolleyes:

What's the point being an ally if a country with your troops, planes, missiles and boats based in that country if you aren't prepared to lift a finger to defend them. We've been "treated" to repeated rants by the Putin cheerleaders on this forum for months on how if the US and any other country attacked Syria their planes would be destroyed, ships would be sank and we'd have nuclear armageddon and we have seen the reality. A magnificent display of military cowardice by the Russians allowing munitions reign down on their ally.

Now the best response is "we let them bomb a few sheds" ROFLOL!

Be careful what you wish for

Mate of mine is in the Russian army . Said they have some serious **** there ready to go. But they’re just keeping all the good men on the bench. Then BOOM , bobs the uncle Mary’s your aunty .

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

At least you have balls showing up after my WOOP-ASS post,

Jenova lol

They don't have it yet ..

American weapons already being actively tested Vs claims of what russia has ,
Keyword Claimed

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

Had Russia used the S-400 things would be an awful lot worse today, there was some agreement to hit some cowsheds and Russia doesn't shoot back, the growler would have taken everything down, simple fact.

How? The S-400 would struggle with a cruise missile flying at 50-500ft regardless of what Russia claims.

A fighter with "look down shoot down" radar would be a better choice.

gandalf

Gonad wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for

Mate of mine is in the Russian army . Said they have some serious **** there ready to go. But they’re just keeping all the good men on the bench. Then BOOM , bobs the uncle Mary’s your aunty .

All talk and no trousers!

nacho libre

gandalf wrote: »

Apparently Russia have good new weapons they just don't want to use them :rolleyes:

What's the point being an ally if a country with your troops, planes, missiles and boats based in that country if you aren't prepared to lift a finger to defend them. We've been "treated" to repeated rants by the Putin cheerleaders on this forum for months on how if the US and any other country attacked Syria their planes would be destroyed, ships would be sank and we'd have nuclear armageddon and we have seen the reality. A magnificent display of military cowardice by the Russians allowing munitions reign down on their ally.

The S400 could not intercept all the missiles fired, but it has the capability to intercept at least some of them, the fact that none were intercepted, indicates Russia wanted to avoid escalation by doing nothing. They did not respond when a 150 Russian mercenaries were killed in Deir Ezzor by US forces, so they were not going to respond this time either. The public utterances were empty threats for a domestic audience

America, likewise, limited their strikes to specifc targets due to the risk of Russian personnel being killed. Dunford and Mathis admitted as much in their statement. Both sides don't want world war 3. Except for nutcases like Bolton. Who luckily did not get his way.

prinzeugen

Gonad wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for

Mate of mine is in the Russian army . Said they have some serious **** there ready to go. But they’re just keeping all the good men on the bench. Then BOOM , bobs the uncle Mary’s your aunty .

I think your mate is talking gonads. Russia is still 20+ years behind the west in military technology.

Had Russia retaliated, Putin would have been giving a kick in the gonads and that is why he did not bother.

piplip87

Well done to the UK, France and the UK.

500,000 People killed and 7 millions displaced due to Assad and the Russians.

I notice the usual suspect calling out this bombing but yet these suspects where very quiet when Assad was killing innocents and when Russia was bombing the place

Skylinehead

BlackWitch wrote: »

Russia has an awful lot of firsts, sputnik as an example

Didn't we have people on this thread claiming that Soviet atrocities weren't Russia? Can't have it both ways!

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

Russia has an awful lot of firsts, sputnik as an example, have you read any of the links on my previous post?, Russia on a budget has checkmated the US, inform yourself of reality.

Claims by Russia. I follow military aviation closely and all the talk from Russia is of planned stuff, most of it is faked like the Iranian "stealth" plane.

None of it is in service. Its all propaganda to make them look good.

Like the famous MiG-25. Could kill any NATO plane they claimed.

Guy defects to Japan in one and the west find out it is a heap of crap.

So no. I know in reality that Russian claims are a load of gonads.

Kermit.de.frog

BlackWitch wrote: »

Russia has an awful lot of firsts, sputnik as an example, have you read any of the links on my previous post?, Russia on a budget has checkmated the US, inform yourself of reality.

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

have you heard of the SU-57?

Prototype jet what about it

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

Whatever you follow, I'd stop now if I were you, have you heard of the SU-57?

Oh the 2 planes? The ones thats engines keep going bang and have a heat signature hotter than the sun?

Lol!

As I said. 20+ years behind the west.

Gatling

prinzeugen wrote: »

Oh the 2 planes? The ones thats engines keep going bang and have a heat signature hotter than the sun?

Lol!

As I said. 20+ years behind the west.

Remember the American 747 fitted with an airborne directed energy weapon about 10 years ago

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

The F-22 came face to face with Russia's top fighter and was at a major disadvantage
http://uk.businessinsider.com/f-22-su-35-intercept-syria-us-major-disadvantage-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

Enjoy the read.........

Thats because of the rules of engagement in peacetime. Read the link you posted.

In a real shooting match, 99% of air warfare would be done from a distance.

Its called fire and forget. Dogfighting does not and would not happen.

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

It's called the E-4, what about it?

No that's an airborne command post .


I'm taking about the 747 fitted with a laser that could shoot down missles .

While russia are supposedly talking about it .

The Americans went and did it and used it in an airborne platform successfully ,

Gatling

BlackWitch wrote: »

That was a concept, never worked, they're trying again,

America did it and have moved on to better weapons systems

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

You mustn't have read my post about the Russians satellite killing capability and how Russia has out flanked the US's superior technology, which is easily disabled, they'd be flying blind as a bat.

Edit:
Great Russian minds got together and invented modern asymmetrical warfare, the pentagon are now aware, they didn't listen before!

I dont read Russian propaganda sorry although had a few giggles watching RT last night.

Anyway this was done yonks ago.

Are these the Pew pew Dr Evil "lazers"?

Kermit.de.frog

BlackWitch wrote: »

RUSSIA NAMES NEW WEAPONS AND CLAIMS IT HAS SURPASSED U.S. IN LASER WARFARE
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-names-new-weapons-surpassed-us-laser-warfare-857782

prinzeugen

BlackWitch wrote: »

Ohh your back, wait till I row back, I'm getting confused who said what.

Edit:
Your well OWNED!, no further action necessary.

The whole Russian "lazer" thing was discussed here years ago.

Someone in Moscow has been watching to much James Bond or Austin Powers!

StringerBell

So from reading some of the posts over the last couple of pages I gather that rather then come to an arrangement with regards to targets etc (which seems pretty certain) what people wanted to see was Russia to retaliate on behalf of Syria, shoot down all the missiles sent by the US or attack the source of the missiles and escalate the situation further?

To what end?

StringerBell

StringerBell wrote: »

So from reading some of the posts over the last couple of pages I gather that rather then come to an arrangement with regards to targets etc (which seems pretty certain) what people wanted to see was Russia to retaliate on behalf of Syria, shoot down all the missiles sent by the US or attack the source of the missiles and escalate the situation further?

To what end?

It's more enjoyable to accuse Russia of escalation than it is to call them cowards.

Kermit.de.frog

Any maps of Russian bases around the US?