Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Options
1…111112114116117…123

Comments

  • Options
    #3392
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    We still waiting for US intelligence Soleimani was planning attacks in days and weeks. No specifics still.

    They have none, and even if they did its kinda hard to believe anything from the US after WMDs in Iraq, they're like the boy who cried wolf...


  • Options
    #3393
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Gatling wrote: »
    Using a tragedy to attack Iran,

    It happened they launched a few missiles in a supposed massive attack ,hit a few tents and shot down an airliner that had only taken off from an Iranian civilian airport .

    What happened to the precision strikes if they couldn't tell the difference between a 737 and a fighter jet no wonder they couldn't hit anything but tents

    A tent? To me it looks like a building?

    To fire a missile 900 miles away and land inside the US base, that a precision weapon. They did it at night, not in the day.

    499606.png

    499605.png


  • Options
    #3394
    Elmer Blooker
    Registered Users Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

    This is a journal paper that was written by a US officer. It advocates the utility of psychopaths as combat soldiers. They are fearless and happy to kill enemies, while non-psychopaths experience fear and a reticence to kill.
    Explains why jihadist psychopaths were 'employed' to do the dirty work to oust Assad and bring ... democracy to Syria.
    To fire a missile 900 miles away and land inside the US base, that a precision weapon.
    Why didn't the US intercept the missiles? It would have been some propaganda coup to show up how superior their technology is.


  • Options
    #3395
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    A tent? To me it looks like a building?

    To fire a missile 900 miles away and land inside the US base, that a precision weapon.

    499606.png

    499605.png

    That is indeed a rigid structure building. Most of the hangers were fabric on metal frame affairs. The missiles seemed to have accurately hit the infrastructure of the base, hitting both kinds of structures and whatever they contained.


  • Options
    #3396
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    alastair wrote: »
    That is indeed a rigid structure building. Most of the hangers were fabric on metal frame affairs. The missiles seemed to have accurately hit the infrastructure of the base, hitting both kinds of structures and whatever they contained.

    I think the US are not releasing all the destruction photos. They're some blocked out parts on the map that got hit by strikes. This looks huge to be a tent.  The tent is not an appropriate thing to say here. They are actually makeshift hangers used for helicopters and small aircraft. They're not economically cheap to manufacture, probably cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to make. 

    These are tents- makeshift hangars Iran took out too. They hit three- there was 5 there before the strike.

    499607.png

    499608.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3397
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I think the US are not releasing all the destruction photos. They're some blocked out parts on the map that got hit by strikes. This looks huge to be a tent.  The tent is not an appropriate thing to say here. They are actually makeshift hangers used for helicopters and small aircraft. They're not economically cheap to manufacture, probably cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to make. 

    Hundreds of thousands more than likely.


  • Options
    #3398
    LillySV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    A tent? To me it looks like a building?

    To fire a missile 900 miles away and land inside the US base, that a precision weapon. They did it at night, not in the day.

    499606.png

    499605.png

    The Us most likely killed Soleimani While sitting in a gaming chair in Nevada ... pretty impressive


  • Options
    #3399
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,622 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Beasty wrote: »
    In fact, please use the other (new) thread for all further discussion of the crashed airliner. There is no point in running conversations on the same topic in parallel

    However the warnings in this thread apply equally over there

    Thanks
    :rolleyes:

    and the bizarre thing is some of you are posting in both threads about this

    15 posts moved over


  • Options
    #3400
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Fonny122 wrote: »
    It's the latest in a line of cult like group think being pushed by and on Trump supporters. By parroting this, or "fake news" (even in response literal direct quotes and video of Trump), or the "npc" meme, or "deep state" in response to all the things Trump has ruined within his own administration, it gives them an easy line to parrot without having to think about it in any real way whatsoever, or engage in any discussion over it. It's no different to "la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la!"

    That really is all there is to it, and it is telling that it is so much more prevalent in the less articulate or educated (on current matters) elements of his base. In non cult terms, it translates to "I cannot defend this position so I will actively choose to ignore it".

    No it’s just a reference to all the posters in here defending a criminal medieval regime because they don’t like Trump. Lefties and progressives basically. The very people who would be hated and actively persecuted under an Islamic regime. The very people who would say nothing it it was a right on Democrat president in office ordering the drone strikes. And they call me the hypocrite. Ha.


  • Options
    #3401
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    LillySV wrote: »
    The Us most likely killed Soleimani While sitting in a gaming chair in Nevada ... pretty impressive

    The Iranians have similar capabilities.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_129


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3402
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,598 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I think the US are not releasing all the destruction photos. They're some blocked out parts on the map that got hit by strikes. This looks huge to be a tent.  The tent is not an appropriate thing to say here. They are actually makeshift hangers used for helicopters and small aircraft. They're not economically cheap to manufacture, probably cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to make. 

    These are tents- makeshift hangars Iran took out too. They hit three- there was 5 there before the strike.

    499607.png

    499608.png
    Relatively expensive. For the US military the cost is insignificant. It is likely that the cost of the missiles used by Iran in the attack is a more significant cost to Iran due to their economic issues.


  • Options
    #3403
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    pearcider wrote: »
    No it’s just a reference to all the posters in here defending a criminal medieval regime because they don’t like Donald trump. Lefties and progressives basically. The very people who would be hated and actively persecuted under an Islamic regime.

    Except nobody here is actually defending the regime at all. Figment of your imagination.


  • Options
    #3404
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    LillySV wrote: »
    The Us most likely killed Soleimani While sitting in a gaming chair in Nevada ... pretty impressive

    Read the drone that killed Solemani lifted off from this base. Was the drone pilot working from there? Iranians went after some constructions and equipment inside the base. I don't think we got the full picture of what they struck inside the base and US not going to tell us. 


  • Options
    #3405
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    alastair wrote: »
    The Iranians have similar capabilities.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_129

    Yeah the Iranians are a match for the Americans. This gets funnier and funnier.


  • Options
    #3406
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    alastair wrote: »
    Except nobody here is actually defending the regime at all. Figment of your imagination.

    Plenty of people wishing the Iranians well and defending them at every turn. Sure you’re over in the other thread saying there’s no evidence they killed 1500 protesting civilians they only killed 300 says you what’s the big deal. FFS


  • Options
    #3407
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pearcider wrote: »
    Yeah the Iranians are a match for the Americans. This gets funnier and funnier.

    Again, you utterly fail to understand what someone is saying.

    Did he say they were a match? No. Earlier, did someone say that America's mistake gave Iran carte blanche to blow up an airliner? No.

    But you think that's what people said. It's bizarre.


  • Options
    #3408
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Read the drone that killed Solemani lifted off from this base. Was the drone pilot working from there? Iranians went after some constructions and equipment inside the base.

    American drone pilots are based in America and some in the UK and yes they can fly anywhere in the world sitting on a nice gaming chair while drinking mugs of coffee
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #3409
    Curious_Case
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Curious_Case


    Gatling wrote: »
    What happened to the precision strikes if they couldn't tell the difference between a 737 and a fighter jet no wonder they couldn't hit anything but tents

    The tents they hit were on a US base that they targeted from hundreds of miles away. Ergo, they hit their target.

    I recall hearing that 15 out of 17 missiles aimed at THAT base were on target and I believe the general consensus is that they performed impressively.

    The anti-aircraft (defence) systems would be completely independent of the gtg missile guidance system used to target the US bases and I'm sure they have programmable parameters regarding target detection, target verification, target acquisition and gta missile deployment so human error would be my best guess as to how the plane may have been struck.


  • Options
    #3410
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    pearcider wrote: »
    Yeah the Iranians are a match for the Americans. This gets funnier and funnier.

    If you can park your hissy fit and wild accusations, you’d recognise that this does the same job as the predator drone. Remotely controlled missile platform controlled by an operator in a remote location via satellite.


  • Options
    #3411
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    pearcider wrote: »
    Plenty of people wishing the Iranians well and defending them at every turn. Sure you’re over in the other thread saying there’s no evidence they killed 1500 protesting civilians they only killed 300 says you what’s the big deal. FFS

    They were quite entitled to retaliate for the assassination of their general. Any country would. And no - there is no evidence to support the singular report that’s out of whack with all NGO reports.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3412
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Elmer Blooker wrote: »
    Explains why jihadist psychopaths were 'employed' to do the dirty work to oust Assad and bring ... democracy to Syria.

    Why didn't the US intercept the missiles? It would have been some propaganda coup to show up how superior their technology is.


    Been wondering that myself.


    Raised it here yesterday but other a lot of post from our resident military experts of the "look over there instead" distract variety nobody seems to know.
    It`s not as if the US didn`t know where and when these missiles were aimed and didn`t has plenty of time to prepare to intercept, yet nothing from the US claiming they intercepted any or why not.


    Very very strange.


  • Options
    #3413
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Curious_Case wrote: »
    The tents they hit were on a US base that they targeted from hundreds of miles away. Ergo, they hit their target.

    I recall hearing that 15 out of 17 missiles aimed at THAT base were on target and I believe the general consensus is that they performed impressively.

    The anti-aircraft (defence) systems would be completely independent of the gtg missile guidance system used to target the US bases and I'm sure they have programmable parameters regarding target detection, target verification, target acquisition and gta missile deployment so human error would be my best guess as to how the plane may have been struck.

    Pentagon confirmed 16 missiles launched- 12 struck the target- 4 failed/missed.

    4 fails/or misses- we don't know if this took place outside the base or inside the base?
    Missing inside the base- still means all 16 missiles made it to the target position?


  • Options
    #3414
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Been wondering that myself.


    Raised it here yesterday but other a lot of post from our resident military experts of the "look over there instead" distract variety nobody seems to know.
    It`s not as if the US didn`t know where and when these missiles were aimed and didn`t has plenty of time to prepare to intercept, yet nothing from the US claiming they intercepted any or why not.


    Very very strange.

    Not really. Would Iran have much intel regarding how well the US systems defend?

    If you're only losing some buildings, why give away information about your defence capabilities.


  • Options
    #3415
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Been wondering that myself.


    Raised it here yesterday but other a lot of post from our resident military experts of the "look over there instead" distract variety nobody seems to know.
    It`s not as if the US didn`t know where and when these missiles were aimed and didn`t has plenty of time to prepare to intercept, yet nothing from the US claiming they intercepted any or why not.


    Very very strange.

    The only DoD source that I’ve seen comment on the interception of the missiles said they didn’t try to intercept them. I’m doubtful that’s the case. De-escalation choreography is one thing, but just sitting back to be hit by missiles is stretching it. I believe their system let them down again. The local countermeasures certainly did nothing useful.


  • Options
    #3416
    Curious_Case
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Curious_Case


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Been wondering that myself.


    Raised it here yesterday but other a lot of post from our resident military experts of the "look over there instead" distract variety nobody seems to know.
    It`s not as if the US didn`t know where and when these missiles were aimed and didn`t has plenty of time to prepare to intercept, yet nothing from the US claiming they intercepted any or why not.


    Very very strange.

    It seems to tie in with the idea that the Iranians were given a "free shot" at a low density, uninhabited target so intercepting missiles might have been considered "not part of the agreement".

    Also, the US may have preferred to observe what they were dealing with rather than risk showing their hand regarding the efficacy of their defence systems.


  • Options
    #3417
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Pentagon confirmed 16 missiles launched- 12 struck the target- 4 failed/missed.

    4 fails/or misses- we don't know if this took place outside the base or inside the base?
    Missing inside the base- still means all 16 missiles made it to the target position?


    More worry for the US is if they did fail to intercept, was a comment today from the Iranian military that the missiles were of an older variety and not as efficient as their newest.


  • Options
    #3418
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Curious_Case wrote: »

    I recall hearing that 15 out of 17 missiles aimed at THAT base were on target and I believe the general consensus is that they performed impressively.

    10 out of 30 missiles ,the base is a fairly large complex and yet they hit a few tents



    No not impressed at all newbie
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #3419
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Gatling wrote: »
    10 out of 30 missiles ,the base is a fairly large complex and yet they hit a few tents



    No not impressed at all newbie

    Iran didn’t fire 30 missiles. You can keep repeating this canard. It doesn’t get any cleverer. The base is massive, and all indications are that the missiles hit only the infrastructural part of the base, destroying various types of structures.


  • Options
    #3420
    Curious_Case
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Curious_Case


    Gatling wrote: »
    No not impressed at all newbie

    I'm new to boards alright.

    Have you been around long?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3421
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Curious_Case wrote: »
    It seems to tie in with the idea that the Iranians were given a "free shot" at a low density, uninhabited target so intercepting missiles might have been considered "not part of the agreement".

    Also, the US may have preferred to observe what they were dealing with rather than risk showing their hand regarding the efficacy of their defence systems.


    I would find that even more curious tbh.

    I could see if the US failed to intercept they would say that alright, but would not intercepting them be more productive in that it would have discouraged the Iranians from launching at other bases in the future, and even give Trump a better get out on his if you hit our bases we will hit back.


    Just don`t buy it, and find it even more curious no US journalist has asked why none were intercepted.


Advertisement