Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,522
where is the UN report, what's taking them.
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
It truly is beggars belief. Yes, he'll have heard it all before it took place. But what a public image to set.
Last edited:
you've clearly got no idea how the world works or you're trying really hard to troll.... but the idea that that many civilians were killed as the result of being caught up in cross fire or from the fall out of smart bombs is ridiculous
so now you're claiming a figure 1/10th of your previous figure
the US and UK haven't killed hundreds of thousands of people
you're looking at a figure showing people killed, you're then making the assumption that these deaths are somehow the result of the UK/US... you even mentioned France in the previous post, a country not even involved in Iraq - you don't really have a clue
Here's an article that I found quite interesting about the supposed evidence that the US has of the chemical attack coming from the Assad regime. Apparently, it has similarities with the evidence that was provided for WMDs in Iraq.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I take everything in the article as gospel, but it's food for thought.
As for people talking about logic, it would be pretty foolish of Assad to give the US a legitimate and legal excuse to join the war.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I take everything in the article as gospel, but it's food for thought.
As for people talking about logic, it would be pretty foolish of Assad to give the US a legitimate and legal excuse to join the war.
Last edited:
If I were a cynical man, I might even suggest that the news agency got it wrong.
He's more likely checking on the increase of his stock that's going to rise with all the extra weapons sales the American arms market will get as a result of this strike. Tomahawks don't come cheap!
Just a thought.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
Just wondering, can Russians intercept the tomahawks fired from NATO ships?? Is that seen as illegal?
They could yes, however it would require them to deploy additional hardware to Syria, as for legal I have no idea how that would work with country A shooting down missiles in country B's airspace fired unlawfully at country B by country C.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
not really surely?
Russians have their fleet quite close to Syria`s waters... I am pretty sure they have capabilities that would intercept missiles such as tomahawks.
Yes they could, but generally they would need planes between the US missile ships and Syria which I don't believe they have at the moment
*EDIT*
Derp, I completely forgot while mentally focusing on Russia, Syria have modern variants of the MiG 25 which have radar capable of engaging tomahawks and missiles capable of destroying them. The question at this point though would be if Syria has the ability to maintain interceptor patrols 24/7.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 61
CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran' in 1988 under Ronald Reagan
http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html
Could the CIA of helped rebels carry out chemical weapon attacks? just another false flag.
http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html
Could the CIA of helped rebels carry out chemical weapon attacks? just another false flag.
Intercept a single Tomahawk, yes I think the Russians and Syrians could probably manage that. Intercepting multiple Tomahawks would be another matter. I'm pretty sure doing so would perversely be considered an act of aggression by Russia by the US. The Syrian MiGs are too busy napalming Syrian teenagers to do anything.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
I thought tomahawks are low level flying missiles... practically sea-level?
Even if they are not, Russian ships have S-300/S-400 systems built into them... Surely S-300/S-400 can intercept a missile flying at 550mph if it can intercept ballistic missiles flying at ridiculous speeds.
Last edited:
Yes but only if the tomahawks are going past them, otherwise the S-300/400 missiles would run out of fuel before catching up. It's the same way that an S-300 couldn't shoot down an SR-71 by itself it would have needed a MiG-25 or a radar position to relay the approach info as it's missiles couldn't catch a moving SR-71.
The 40N6 used by the S400 is very fast (11x the speed of a tomahawk) but it only has a 250mi range in which to catch the tomahawk if chasing it, and the sea the ships are all in is very big so they won't exactly be close
Epic fail
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
Yes but only if the tomahawks are going past them, otherwise the S-300/400 missiles would run out of fuel before catching up. It's the same way that an S-300 couldn't shoot down an SR-71 by itself it would have needed a MiG-25 or a radar position to relay the approach info as it's missiles couldn't catch a moving SR-71.
The 40N6 used by the S400 is very fast (11x the speed of a tomahawk) but it only has a 250mi range in which to catch the tomahawk if chasing it, and the sea the ships are all in is very big so they won't exactly be close
Epic fail
If you look at the coast of Syria, from Turkey to Israel it is about 1000 miles... So that means 4 Russian ships could completely close the air space of syria`s coast.
I dont think you even need S-300/S-400 to take out tomahawks... Units like TOR/Pantsir/Tunguska will be more than enough to take out a flying overhead tomahawk.
Last edited:
True I guess, the Slava class ship they sent there should arrive in <10 days which is good/bad as it means the US can't do jack after that but on the other had it gives them a deadline to start firing by.
That one ship is capable of downing 64 tomahawks and also has extensive anti air, anti ship and anti submarine offense/defense, would be funny if they got it there then decided as it was old they were selling it to Syria ^^ (Slava class was the precursor to the Kirov class).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
The question is, do the Russians have the balls to go that far as to shooting down US tomahawks?
They certainly do have the ability to do so.
She wasn't anti-western, to say so just highlights your lack of impartiality on your view of things. She was asked if she would be willing to prosecute NATO soldiers for war crimes and she said yes, not that she was actually trying to prosecute NATO soldiers in Kosovo.
Why would someone be willing to prosecute NATO soldiers for war crimes in Kosovo when there weren't any war crimes committed by NATO soldiers? Political naivety at best.
That's the point, she wasn't prosecuting NATO forces because there weren't war crimes committed by NATO. But if there had been, she would have prosecuted because it was her job to do so. She said herself, if she wasn't willing to prosecute she had no business being in the job.