OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
They drop the value of our Bonds 50 cents and we are through,....Like Donald, they enjoy leverage.
Russian jet shot down by Turkey
- Thread starter natro.hydro
- Start date
They drop the value of our Bonds 50 cents and we are through,....Like Donald, they enjoy leverage.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Uhm, newsflash,....NATO fucked with Putin. By way of Turkey.
texasjack
Well-Known Member
Russia crossed into Turkey intentionally. They were well within their legal rights to shoot it down. Just like Russia shot down our spy plane in the 60s. It may seem pointless or callous but this is why we have borders. Respect them or pay the consequences. I suspect Russia will avoid Turkish airspace from now on.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Awe wrong looks like they shot them down in syrian air space but again who do you believe, for some reason and for all the lies americans have said i put my money on Putin
this is how it turns out Turkey's attempt to send a signal to Russia to stop bombing the Turkmen will backfire badly. that is what its really about turkmen gettin killed and russia killing them as they enter Syria Via Turkey
By senselessly killing the Russian pilots after they ejected from the downed plane, the Turkmen rebels proved there is nothing "moderate" about them. They have basically stamped their own death certificate.
While Russia will not dirrectly confront Turkey because it is part of NATO, there will be no stopping them from tripling down on the Turkmen rebels in Syria.
So, Erdogan: if you were really concerned about the lives of Turkish minority in Syria, you f'd up badly
What I mean by that is the attempt to yet again demonize Russia for merely reacting to problems that the United States and it's allies have created, funded, and fostered to achieve their regional goals; this includes ISIS itself.
Now we're supposed to see things as the U.S. and France begging for Russian cooperation yet they fiercely, prior to the Paris tragedy, refused to cooperate when Russia decided to take decisive action.
I find it stomach turning that the powers that be want us, the American citizens, who foolishly continue to allow their growth in power at the expense of our liberties to side with these so called 'moderate rebels' and 'freedom fighters'. Since when should we side with the likes of Al Qaeda?
American, French, and global citizens should wake up. These power plays wreckless... And for the supposed justification of National Security I feel profoundly less safe.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Russia ain't gonna do shit.
Russia needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Russia
Russia needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Russia
texasjack
Well-Known Member
I think you mean Putin puts his money on you, Comrade
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Knuckle-headed posting this is. Putin is throwing mud about to see if anything sticks. Dude, he's posturing because his hand is empty. For instance:
Putin says the US reason for funding this crisis is for oil. This in the face of a world wide glut of oil that is pushing prices down to the point that US oil companies are finding it hard to make money any more. Why would the US interested in the last spurt of oil from a beleaguered Islamist splinter state -- to the point that they would covertly arm them in spite of their attacks in France and other places in the world? This bit of cast mud isn't sticking anywhere.
Putin says the US is arming ISIS and everybody else that opposes Assad. Good sitcom material but not even close to the truth. ISIS is funded and originally was sponsored by Arab Gulf political players, not the US. There is no reason for a covert US arms deal with ISIS. Please do better than cite Putin, who has trouble saying good morning without double speak. In the diatribe you posted, Putin said this: They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid.
True, that bit about mercenaries. One thing mercenaries don't do is commit suicide bombings. Mercenaries make money by making others dead. There is little profit in suicide. ISIS isn't a mercenary organization. Another bit of mud that doesn't stick.
About the only area where you and Putin make sense is the no fly zone -- there will be none. The US has no interest or need to commit its air power to hold the skies in that area. ISIS, or better named, Daesh, is casting its last throw of the dice in a desperate gamble to keep its supply lines open. To me, this is a sign of the end, not the beginning of this conflict. War always get the most ugly in the last days of conflict, which is what we are seeing now. Imperial Japan had its Kamikazes, the Nazis had child soldiers and Daesh launched deadly suicide attacks on France. I'm not saying it will end tomorrow, perhaps the end is a year away or maybe two but Daesh is contained, supplies are being cut off and nearly everybody now wants them dead.
Russia, Iran, Turkey are all fighting for position when the end of this conflict is reached. That's what this battle for air space is about.
I don't expect 2A will give me a clear answer but I'll ask it anyway: Without Russian support, Assad would already be history. What is Russia's interest in propping up Assad?
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
Dude you should be fucking proud lol
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
Dude you should be fucking proud lol
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Congrats, you found a tool to help you with punctuation. Its nonsense, but at least its readable.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It`s not about airspace, Russia has air superiority no matter where it goes. You are not witnessing a Russian assault, you are seeing a Russian assist. If you saw a Russian assault/attack, it`s already too late.
You people ignore the fact that everyone involved knows what that plane was doing. If he wanted to break airspace, he could declared an emergency, get in, do the deed,...this guy in the plane was stabbed in the back just like Putin says. It was a single plane, not an air-wing shit ya pants.
texasjack
Well-Known Member
^this motherfucker
You want to play this game? Pretty much every atrocity on earth was done with an AK47. Therefore Russia caused Pol Pot
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Yo Tex,....Everyone knew what that plane was doing. even the guy who fired on it. It was no mystery, just showed up flight/threat, they even knew how much longer it could loiter before leaving. The only thing they didn`t know was where the plane would splash.
texasjack
Well-Known Member
I just want to fly the bomber over Moscow to show the populace our new plane. That's all. No harm intended. Okay?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Obama wants to meet Putin tomorrow,...How much says Obama talks Turkey ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Moscow is several hundred miles over the border. Turkey saved an ISIS target, prolly knew who was at it, and Obama says it was legit. Maybe you missed the time Putin stopped a US Naval strike that was eminent without firing a shot and leaving Barry with a black eye. Black eyes matter.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
I see the truth hurts now doesn't it ??? it appears your stuck in the world of NATO is more superior there fore know one can touch them
Its this brain washing that has cost you the war on Iraq , afganistan and even today in Syria
truth is Russia has more friends there then all of Nato countries involved
what Russia has done so far USA the super power have not come close in over a year being there ..
so with all that said for sure both countries do not want to clash but be aware that USA is not as powerful as they claim to be either
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today...
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Yo texas Many analysts have called Russia militarily weak, with some pointing specifically to its shortcomings in air and naval forces in Syria. But based on Russia’s battlefield performance so far, this assessment seems off: To the contrary, Russia has shown that it has the capability and capacity (not to mention willingness) to employ its conventional forces to achieve limited political objectives.
What also strikes me is Russia carries out more sorties in 1 day then Nato does in 1 month add this all up and who is making a difference ??
Can Russia sustain this level of air campaign? Maybe. Almost none of our NATO allies could match what Russia has done so far in the skies. This was an unfortunate lesson of both NATO air campaigns in Kosovo and Libya.
Russia’s navy has been called “more rust than ready.” But Russia is, impressively, both retrofitting older vessels and procuring newer ones. And the navy has unveiled a significant capability: Its Caspian Sea corvettes and frigates can fire cruise missiles at targets over 900 miles away. This is a previously unknown capability.
To put things in perspective, the two variants of the U.S. Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom and Independence, are substantially larger at roughly 2,900 tons and 3,100 tons respectively—but they do not possess any cruise missile or similar power projection capability.
This was, therefore, a major revelation. It sent the West a strong message, even prompting one commentator to suggest that the Russian Caspian Sea fleet is a game-changer. With small, inexpensive, technologically simple and easily produced ships, the Russian navy is displaying a unique capability and is highlighting the results of its naval modernization efforts, much of which are unknown.
Observers have also cast doubt on the notion that the Russian navy, and specifically the Black Sea Fleet, can sustain prolonged operations. But over the last three years, there has been a steady wagon train of ships delivering supplies to Assad’s forces via Latakia and Tartus, and it shows no signs of waning.
With a greater commitment on the part of Russian ground and air forces, the West should expect Russia to augment its naval logistical capacities to meet the changing demand from the pro-Assad coalition partners, and by all accounts it is doing just that.
In fact, the Black Sea Fleet has proven invaluable for Russia and its Syrian partners. The Black Sea Fleet’s flagship, the guided missile cruiser Moskva, and an accompanying number of surface combatants have deployed off of Syria to provide air and missile defense from the Mediterranean.
The criticism is that these are older vessels with aging technologies. Compared to many NATO vessels this is true, but they are more than adequate for the job they have been deployed for. Moreover, their employment portends both a Russian capability and an intent aligned to achieving Russian limited foreign policy objectives. Thus they represent a significant threat that cannot be dismissed by NATO naval planners.
By all accounts, the Russians have been building up their navy over the last few years, which seems to align with their stated and demonstrated foreign policy objectives. Time will surely tell, but until we have evidence that acollapse of the Russian navy is actually imminent, we should be careful about throwing around rash predictions that don’t reflect reality.
What also strikes me is Russia carries out more sorties in 1 day then Nato does in 1 month add this all up and who is making a difference ??
Can Russia sustain this level of air campaign? Maybe. Almost none of our NATO allies could match what Russia has done so far in the skies. This was an unfortunate lesson of both NATO air campaigns in Kosovo and Libya.
Russia’s navy has been called “more rust than ready.” But Russia is, impressively, both retrofitting older vessels and procuring newer ones. And the navy has unveiled a significant capability: Its Caspian Sea corvettes and frigates can fire cruise missiles at targets over 900 miles away. This is a previously unknown capability.
To put things in perspective, the two variants of the U.S. Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom and Independence, are substantially larger at roughly 2,900 tons and 3,100 tons respectively—but they do not possess any cruise missile or similar power projection capability.
This was, therefore, a major revelation. It sent the West a strong message, even prompting one commentator to suggest that the Russian Caspian Sea fleet is a game-changer. With small, inexpensive, technologically simple and easily produced ships, the Russian navy is displaying a unique capability and is highlighting the results of its naval modernization efforts, much of which are unknown.
Observers have also cast doubt on the notion that the Russian navy, and specifically the Black Sea Fleet, can sustain prolonged operations. But over the last three years, there has been a steady wagon train of ships delivering supplies to Assad’s forces via Latakia and Tartus, and it shows no signs of waning.
With a greater commitment on the part of Russian ground and air forces, the West should expect Russia to augment its naval logistical capacities to meet the changing demand from the pro-Assad coalition partners, and by all accounts it is doing just that.
In fact, the Black Sea Fleet has proven invaluable for Russia and its Syrian partners. The Black Sea Fleet’s flagship, the guided missile cruiser Moskva, and an accompanying number of surface combatants have deployed off of Syria to provide air and missile defense from the Mediterranean.
The criticism is that these are older vessels with aging technologies. Compared to many NATO vessels this is true, but they are more than adequate for the job they have been deployed for. Moreover, their employment portends both a Russian capability and an intent aligned to achieving Russian limited foreign policy objectives. Thus they represent a significant threat that cannot be dismissed by NATO naval planners.
By all accounts, the Russians have been building up their navy over the last few years, which seems to align with their stated and demonstrated foreign policy objectives. Time will surely tell, but until we have evidence that acollapse of the Russian navy is actually imminent, we should be careful about throwing around rash predictions that don’t reflect reality.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
would hate to tell you that new plane would not make it a mile in before it would be shot down