ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Dunks said:
That link looks awesome, checking it out once home from work asap! :D
Click to expand...

Lots of tutorials at the bottom of the page and manuals everywhere. :p

dowie said:
No it isn't, like I said we know Russian troops and equipment are present in the area, we have evidence of these systems crossing the border. The simpler explanation is they were operated by the Russians rather than the convoluted explanation of some ad hoc rebels apparently training themselves via YouTube videos and pdfs etc... as suggested earlier.
Click to expand...

Just want to be clear, that I wasn't implying they learned themselves or anything, just want to "put it out there" that it's possible to learn, not that it would equal the same sort of training if given by proper teachers.

My personal thought on the whole thing is that whoever did it had military training whether it was served in Ukraine or Russia, conscription was ended in 2013 and got reinstated back in 2014 in Ukraine, so it's very reasonable that every adult male had military training, whatever percentage served in AD, who knows? :p
 
Minusorange said:
I guarantee the average IQ for front line soldiers is way less than that of pilots, engineers, artillery, navy, special forces
Click to expand...

Not necessarily in all those cases. As far as "front line soldiers" are concerned we have cavalry and infantry. The IQ of an average infantry soldier isn't going to be too far off that of a gunner serving in the royal artillery. For a cavalry trooper it will be higher on average than either of those two and more on a par with a sapper serving in the engineers.

Special forces are overwhelmingly selected from the combat arms and pilots are usually commissioned aside from a few SNCO pilots in the army.

As for the navy, no one is really sure as they focus on different recruitment criteria like "top or bottom?"
 
dowie said:
No it isn't
Click to expand...
Yes it is, I even explained exactly why it is in the post you selectively quoted.

The idea that Russia would send additional anti air units complete with trained/experienced Russian crews to backup rebel soldiers who already possessed and were operating the exact same anti air units is itself unlikely, the idea that a commercial airliner then flew over and got shot down by the trained/experienced Russian crews because they misidentified it while the rebel crews correctly identified it and held their fire, is implausible to the point of comedy.

We know beyond reasonable doubt that it was the damned rebels, we know beyond reasonable doubt that Russia helped them cover it up. These conspiracy theories you help proliferate about Russia doing it do nothing but reduce the likelihood that the real perpetrators will ever face justice...
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Yes it is, I even explained exactly why it is in the post you selectively quoted.

The idea that Russia would send additional anti air units complete with trained/experienced Russian crews to backup rebel soldiers who already possessed and were operating the exact same anti air units is itself unlikely, the idea that a commercial airliner then flew over and got shot down by the trained/experienced Russian crews because they misidentified it while the rebel crews correctly identified it and held their fire, is implausible to the point of comedy.

We know beyond reasonable doubt that it was the damned rebels, we know beyond reasonable doubt that Russia helped them cover it up. These conspiracy theories you help proliferate about Russia doing it do nothing but reduce the likelihood that the real perpetrators will ever face justice...
Click to expand...

No it isn't, you've selectively quoted me - the simplest explanation isn't that the rebels suddenly became able to deploy/control heavy weaponry but that the Russian troops with this particular bit of weaponry are most likely to have done it.

We already know that Russia sent these things over the border so you're perhaps adding in uncertainty that isn't there/unnecessarily claiming that something that is know to have happened isn't so plausible - that in itself is rather silly. Your reasoning there is a bit off too, the rebels have infantry, with your logic why would Russia send infantry too.... yet they're there and they're obviously useful!

The Russian soldiers are there unofficially, some are officially "on holiday" and "volunteers' others have semi-officially resigned and been deployed via the likes of Wagner group - it isn't a complete conventional army acting overtly, so yes it is entirely plausible that an air defence unit doesn't have the ideal command and control structure in place.

Frankly I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what is the simplest explanation as seemingly it isn't going to be arrived at objectively but rather it involves some rather subject views re: what is or isn't plausible including the various news sources/"facts" surrounding the situation too it seems.
 
dowie said:
No it isn't, you've selectively quoted me - the simplest explanation isn't that the rebels suddenly became able to deploy/control heavy weaponry
Click to expand...
It is, because we know it to be a proven fact that they acquired some of the weapons and started using them by themselves (it helps greatly that because they never intended to accidentally shoot down airliners that they bragged about the acquisition and initial success on social media lol).


dowie said:
but that the Russian troops with this particular bit of weaponry are most likely to have done it.
Click to expand...
Which we don't know as proven fact, just a theory which as previously explained doesn't stand up to logical/critical analysis (NB: that's not the same as saying it didn't happen, just that it's far less likely to have happened than the previously accepted theory).


dowie said:
We already know that Russia sent these things over the border
Click to expand...
No we don't, we know that Russia helped them smuggle at least one into Russia (most likely one of their own not a Russian one) to hide the evidence, but we don't have any conclusive proof any were sent into Ukraine (NB: pictures of Russian Buks near Ukraine don't count when they have been Buks positioned in that area for decades)..


dowie said:
The Russian soldiers are there unofficially, some are officially "on holiday" and "volunteers' others have semi-officially resigned and been deployed via the likes of Wagner group
Click to expand...
I have never denied the presence/involvement of Russian troops/tanks/etc in Ukraine, in fact I've referenced it, hell I got called a Russiophobe a few pages back for talking about it lol.


dowie said:
Frankly I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what is the simplest explanation
Click to expand...
I really really really don't mean to offend when I say this, but you refusing to believe/understand that the more likely/plausible/simple explanation is the more likely/plausible/simple explanation is not a disagreement, it's a failure to understand/accept. If a kid in school tells their teacher 2+2=5 that's not a disagreement it's them being wrong. I am not saying your theory isn't possible or it didn't happen, but it is factually and objectively the less likely/plausible/simple of the two.
 
ubersonic said:
I really really really don't mean to offend when I say this, but you refusing to believe/understand that the more likely/plausible/simple explanation is the more likely/plausible/simple explanation is not a disagreement, it's a failure to understand/accept. If a kid in school tells their teacher 2+2=5 that's not a disagreement it's them being wrong. I am not saying your theory isn't possible or it didn't happen, but it is factually and objectively the less likely/plausible/simple of the two.
Click to expand...

Well that is just silly, you're throwing words around like "proven fact" re: your position about the Ukrainian rebels and "we don't known that is a proven fact" re: Russian troops etc... and then coming up with some scenario where Russian troops smuggled in a launcher and then left it to the rebels to use - which makes little sense given that they're happy to supply troops otherwise, much simpler to supply both the kit and the specialist troops trained to actually use it!

I'll maintain that it is far more likely that this was Russian troops, given the evidence we have already. It is easily the simpler explanation than some ad hoc rebels deciding to play air defence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ian-military-missile-system-say-investigators

At a press conference in The Hague on Thursday, the investigators showed photo and video evidence that they said proved they had identified the specific BUK missile system responsible.

They said they had “legal and convincing evidence which will stand up in a courtroom” that the BUK system involved came from the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade based in Kursk, in western Russia.

Previously, the investigative website Bellingcat has pointed to involvement of the same brigade using open-source information.

The joint investigation team (JIT) looking into the incident is made up of Dutch prosecutors and police and others from Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine. They showed photos and video of the convoy that carried the missile system over the border from Russia to Ukraine, and a series of distinctive markings and serial numbers which they said had enabled them to trace the exact system used in the attack, and trace it to the 53rd brigade.
Click to expand...

you're welcome to believe what you like but the evidence points to Russia and that is the simpler explanation by far
 
Bit of an update to the Russia/Syria/Israel situation, the Israel’s air force chief is scheduled to arrive in Moscow today to hand over classified details on the incident for Russian experts to study. Hopefully if it's raw data and proper details on their strike plan Russia will either accept it as an unintentional accident or rule that the pilots had no other choice. Putin seems to be taking a more political stance on it than the defence ministry, also news that Syrian authorities have arrested the SAM battery crew for interrogation (fun times ahead for those guys lol).


dowie said:
Well that is just silly, you're throwing words around like "proven fact" re: your position about the Ukrainian rebels and "we don't known that is a proven fact" re: Russian troops etc...
Click to expand...
That's because we know for a proven fact that the Ukrainian rebels (russian puppets would be a better term lol) had their own Buks and that they had some success with them prior to the MH17 shootdown. By comparison we do not know for a proven fact that Russia sent them some additional Buks complete with experienced Russian crews. Though we do know that logically it wouldn't make much sense for them to do that, and if for some illogical reason they did then they would be far less likely to shoot down an airliner than the rebel crews manning their own Buks (hence the point about it being the less likely/plausible/simple explanation of events).
 
ubersonic said:
That's because we know for a proven fact that the Ukrainian rebels (russian puppets would be a better term lol) had their own Buks and that they had some success with them prior to the MH17 shootdown. By comparison we do not know for a proven fact that Russia sent them some additional Buks complete with experienced Russian crews. Though we do know that logically it wouldn't make much sense for them to do that, and if for some illogical reason they did then they would be far less likely to shoot down an airliner than the rebel crews manning their own Buks (hence the point about it being the less likely/plausible/simple explanation of events).
Click to expand...

This is what I said already that it is probably best to agree to disagree - if you're going to cherry pick evidence and claim that the evidence you favour is "proven fact" then ignore other evidence such as that posted above then there really isn't much point and neither of us is going to change our view.
 
stockhausen said:
Do you also know for a "proven fact" that any of ISIL, ISIS or Daesh were in any way at all involved in the shooting down of MH17
Click to expand...
If you're trying to use me of derailing, this is the TLDR on how it went: Somebody used a conspiracy theory relating to the MH17 shootdown to trash talk alleged Russian actions in this thread via false equivalence. I responded by pointing out that what they were saying in this thread didn't happen the way they thought (in their defence they were posting shortly before the facts around the incident had been established and I was posting shortly after so assumptions were all they had to go on) and that the conspiracy theory they were referencing was significantly less plausible/logical than the simpler more factually supported one. A second poster then started pushing the same conspiracy theory claiming incorrectly that it was just as plausible, and I tried in vain to explain to him that was factually incorrect.

I do agree it's annoying when threads divert temporarily albeit on connected discussions, however I genuinely believe that conspiracy theories should be challenged when presented, as not doing so and leaving them unchallenged is how misinformation propagates.
 
ubersonic said:
If you're trying to use me of derailing, this is the TLDR on how it went: Somebody used a conspiracy theory relating to the MH17 shootdown to trash talk alleged Russian actions in this thread via false equivalence. I responded by pointing out that what they were saying in this thread didn't happen the way they thought (in their defence they were posting shortly before the facts around the incident had been established and I was posting shortly after so assumptions were all they had to go on) and that the conspiracy theory they were referencing was significantly less plausible/logical than the simpler more factually supported one. A second poster then started pushing the same conspiracy theory claiming incorrectly that it was just as plausible, and I tried in vain to explain to him that was factually incorrect.

I do agree it's annoying when threads divert temporarily albeit on connected discussions, however I genuinely believe that conspiracy theories should be challenged when presented, as not doing so and leaving them unchallenged is how misinformation propagates.
Click to expand...

Not a conspiracy though :) I'm sure the data will be revealed when it can be.
 
S-300 systems confirmed today for Syrian military as the response to Israel's action and the downing of the IL-20. Within 2 weeks.

This was yesterday's Russian MoD briefing, which shows how they feel about the whole thing:

 
That's odd, IronWarrior. Can't see the content of your last post, yet apparently others can. Is it a picture or text in a different font or something?

qMbr9gC.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom