Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia warns the US of serious consequences


seeder

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You're working on a ton of assumptions here. 

Why would you assume we would have heard more and more reports about it? The media has been horrific in their coverage of the events over there especially if you're only taking in western media. 

Why would you assume the airfield has no fuel pumps? The US warned Russia the attack was coming plenty in advance for them to have warned Assad and for the Syrians to have moved some fuel resources into bunkers or just a couple miles down the road. 

Ditto for munitions. 

Crew quarters? You mean tents , we are talking about the military afterall. 

 

 

 

Somewhere around half the missiles launched actually hit the base (23 i think). That base has 41 bunkers like this one Image result for syrian aircraft unharmed after us missile

 

That means that even if every one of those missiles that hit the base hit a bunker there are still 18 above ground bunkers that based on simple math could not have been hit by a missile , although i do concede they could have been damaged collaterally. Thats just the above ground ones built to store aircraft and does not include below ground bunkers or other munitions bunkers. 

 

Maybe we didn't hit every one of those structures because only 20 or so had AIRCRAFT in them?  The Tomahawk is a long proven accurate weapon, Farmer.  It strikes within meters of it's target, not miles.  You're thinking of Kaliber missiles.  The idea that 20 or more of a salvo of Tomakawks would miss by miles is ridiculous.  The decision not to crater the runways was sound.  No use spending millions to do damage that can be corrected with a guy on a bulldozer in a day.  

As to Russia "warning us", they can go pound sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, and then said:

Maybe we didn't hit every one of those structures because only 20 or so had AIRCRAFT in them?  The Tomahawk is a long proven accurate weapon, Farmer.  It strikes within meters of it's target, not miles.  You're thinking of Kaliber missiles.  The idea that 20 or more of a salvo of Tomakawks would miss by miles is ridiculous.  The decision not to crater the runways was sound.  No use spending millions to do damage that can be corrected with a guy on a bulldozer in a day.  

As to Russia "warning us", they can go pound sand.

The 23 number comes from Russian media so im not married to it, but i trust them as much as the administration or the US media at this point.

IDK what Russia can do should we cross that "red line" but I definitely can sympathize with the sentiment.  Imagine the outrage if the Russians did in Israel what we're doing in Syria. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

....

Why would you assume the airfield has no fuel pumps? The US warned Russia the attack was coming plenty in advance for them to have warned Assad and for the Syrians to have moved some fuel resources into bunkers or just a couple miles down the road. 

Ditto for munitions. 

Crew quarters? You mean tents , we are talking about the military afterall. 

Farmer77, a Mig-29 takes almost 5000 litres to fully fuel. The fuel farms on that airfield would have contained many tens of thousands of litres... you can hardly just form a bucket chain and put them "somewhere safe". And if you DID ... how would you pump it into the aircraft tanks afterwards ? 

Fitting bombs and missiles onto a jet aircraft requires special trollies and tools... and electric charging points with specialist cables. 

Whilst your moving all of THAT lot to a "safe place", perhaps you have a spare pocket we could fit the ATC radio and radar systems into as well ? 

But not to worry... once the US missiles have finished, you can re-install it all again. 

Or CAN you ? The US can launch those missiles from submarines at very short notice, and you'll never see them coming. DARE you re-quip the airbase ? Because NEXT time, the US may not remember to pre-warn the Russians ! :D 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The 23 number comes from Russian media so im not married to it, but i trust them as much as the administration or the US media at this point.

IDK what Russia can do should we cross that "red line" but I definitely can sympathize with the sentiment.  Imagine the outrage if the Russians did in Israel what we're doing in Syria. 

ROFL... let then TRY :P 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

ROFL... let then TRY :P 

Im not sure what to make of that. I mean we're arming terrorists , launching missiles with no investigation , have somewhere near 1000 troops on foreign soil of a sovereign nation which considers us invaders and poses no national security threat to our nation and have devolved to the point that killing children while violating international law has actually increased the presidents approval ratings. 

And your response basically boils down to 'might makes right' without any apparent internal examination of the situation at hand.

Normally i'd type GO MURCA after a rant like that but I see youre in the UK , whats the UK equivalent for that?  Hey on that note for future policy discussions do you guys have a colloquialism for "dude hold my beer" ? :D

 

I tried to soften it a bit at the end but seem to be failing at that today. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hardly characterise it as ".. launching missiles with no investigation .." @Farmer77 :) , nor is there any credible evidence of "..killing children.." (what would children be doing on a military airbase, which had been given several days advance notice of the attack ?? ). 

Could you advise me which "international laws" had been violated ? Specifically ? 

Now, down to the more IMPORTANT issues.... 

I don't know what the phrase "Go Murca" means... could you explain it for future reference ? (I'm guessing it's kind-of a distortion of "go America" ? Perhaps a sort of satire on jingoism ? )

As for.. "dude.. hold my beer"... I'm not entirely sure, but it kinda SOUNDS like the ".. hold my jacket" idiom that used to be popular ? (e.g..... I'm going to thump that guy.. could you hold my jacket until I get back ? ). I don't think it's so popular these days ? 

Incidentally, is that a dismantled Syrian military air-traffic control system in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me ? :P 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

I'd hardly characterise it as ".. launching missiles with no investigation .." @Farmer77 :) , nor is there any credible evidence of "..killing children.." (what would children be doing on a military airbase, which had been given several days advance notice of the attack ?? ). 

Could you advise me which "international laws" had been violated ? Specifically ? 

Now, down to the more IMPORTANT issues.... 

I don't know what the phrase "Go Murca" means... could you explain it for future reference ? (I'm guessing it's kind-of a distortion of "go America" ? Perhaps a sort of satire on jingoism ? )

As for.. "dude.. hold my beer"... I'm not entirely sure, but it kinda SOUNDS like the ".. hold my jacket" idiom that used to be popular ? (e.g..... I'm going to thump that guy.. could you hold my jacket until I get back ? ). I don't think it's so popular these days ? 

Incidentally, is that a dismantled Syrian military air-traffic control system in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me ? :P 

LOL Go Murca is mocking the "redneck" monosyllabic nationalists which have weirdly gained a measure of popularity here in recent years, try saying it in an angry southern US accent while drinking a cheap beer and it comes together. 

As for dude hold my beer a lifetime in emergency services has taught me that almost all gruesome injuries (ok maybe not all)  start with someone drinking alcohol and then getting a "great idea" then proclaiming "dude hold my beer" right before "watch this" and then "call 911". :lol: 

I think we've entered a stage in American society where our national and foreign policies can be summed up as "dude hold my beer policy" 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL Go Murca is mocking the "redneck" monosyllabic nationalists which have weirdly gained a measure of popularity here in recent years, try saying it in an angry southern US accent while drinking a cheap beer and it comes together. 

As for dude hold my beer a lifetime in emergency services has taught me that almost all gruesome injuries (ok maybe not all)  start with someone drinking alcohol and then getting a "great idea" then proclaiming "dude hold my beer" right before "watch this" and then "call 911". :lol: 

I think we've entered a stage in American society where our national and foreign policies can be summed up as "dude hold my beer policy" 

 

The politicians may or may not be idiots, farmer, but the military are professionals.  And I'd prefer a "redneck" watching my back in today's world to 10 like you,

 don't even know if they trust their own country over an enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, and then said:

The politicians may or may not be idiots, farmer, but the military are professionals.  And I'd prefer a "redneck" watching my back in today's world to 10 like you,

 don't even know if they trust their own country over an enemy.

Government amigo, dont know if i trust my own government over an enemy, not my country.  That is simply being a vigilant citizen and paying attention , my patriotic duty as laid out by our founding fathers. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I'd hardly characterise it as ".. launching missiles with no investigation .."

I would. You don't believe he'd have had time for the Intelligence Services to thoroughly investigate the porported attack and assess all the evidence and weight up the probability as to Assad's culpability and then allow Congress to properly debate it and for the whole democratic process to ... oh wait, he didn't bother about that bit did he. :blush:  Anyway, all that in about a day and a half? 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/04/2017 at 9:05 PM, RoofGardener said:

I've "got" that you are defensive, rude, and incapable of debating. Was there anything else I am under your orders to "get", Oh Great Authority ? :P 

 

:lol:

Take me on then.....Im smarter than you. Evidently.  I will, as I did before ....run circles around you

despite mourning a death in my family... I will tell you now.....If Im a ten..on forums....you are about a zero.... but thats being kind of course....seeder does that....I will make you look a fool on every post you make.

heck....I just might haunt you on every post you make...regardless of the forum subject. YOU WILL regret taking me on. Ive just made a special case for you...

so.... heres to your downfall...do your best   :tu:

and I will do better than you... people like you come and go,,,, you are not the first.....no doubt you wont be the last

usually because people like you get their ass kicked... and Im waiting to kick your ass

so come on bigboy....take me on..I will enjoy this...

what DO you have to say on world affairs and in this instance,,,,Russia?  Lets do it?

 

or if youre not up to it.....then run away little boy....fast as your legs can take you

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:unsure: 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, seeder said:

 

:lol:

Take me on then.....Im smarter than you. Evidently.  I will, as I did before ....run circles around you

........

What a peculiar fellow :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL Go Murca is mocking the "redneck" monosyllabic nationalists which have weirdly gained a measure of popularity here in recent years, try saying it in an angry southern US accent while drinking a cheap beer and it comes together. 

As for dude hold my beer a lifetime in emergency services has taught me that almost all gruesome injuries (ok maybe not all)  start with someone drinking alcohol and then getting a "great idea" then proclaiming "dude hold my beer" right before "watch this" and then "call 911". :lol: 

I think we've entered a stage in American society where our national and foreign policies can be summed up as "dude hold my beer policy" 

 

I love it ! :D 

Meanwhile... any update on those violations of international law ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

What a peculiar fellow :blink:

 

right now Im grieving

But...I will be back....just for people like you

and moronic posts such as yours....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I would. You don't believe he'd have had time for the Intelligence Services to thoroughly investigate the porported attack and assess all the evidence and weight up the probability as to Assad's culpability and then allow Congress to properly debate it and for the whole democratic process to ... oh wait, he didn't bother about that bit did he. :blush:  Anyway, all that in about a day and a half? 

Weeeell.... that depends, doesn't it ? Satellite imagery and radar tapes can be analysed VERY quickly; certainly within the 3 days that elapsed between the Sarin gas attack and the attack on the airbase.  And the President IS allowed to make attacks without the prior approval of Congress ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I love it ! :D 

Meanwhile... any update on those violations of international law ? 

Here's a pretty basic rundown of why the US broke international law with its strike on Syria : 

Syria missile strike: Did the Trump administration break the law?

 

Now I recognize that it doesnt matter because of the golden rule (he who has the gold rules) and because taking out Assad is part of a larger agenda so no other nations outside of Russia are going to make noise about it. It still doesnt make it right though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the opinion of one academic in Australia. And yet curiously... all he really says is that the airstrike was not sanctioned under international law. 

He then extrapolated that to suggest that - in his opinion - it was "illegal" .. but here's the thing. 

The issue of "legality vs illegality" is decided by one body only: the International Court of Justice. Groups of nations can create mutually binding treaties that create "trans-national" law.. but that is, in effect, a voluntary agreement. Only the ICJ (an organ of the UN) comes even close to defining "International Law". 

Iran, Russia, and a bunch of other Bad Actors have publicly declared the attack as being contrary to "International Law". But here's the thing.... 

NON of them have referred the issue to the ICJ. They have pranced and preened in front of the cameras. But they haven't referred it to the ICJ. Which means THEY don't really believe it is "illegal", despite their media pronouncements. They are hypocrites who try and hide their own moral culpability (especially Russia) behind a smokescreen of bull**** !

Or do you disagree ? :) 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

That is the opinion of one academic in Australia. And yet curiously... all he really says is that the airstrike was not sanctioned under international law. 

He then extrapolated that to suggest that - in his opinion - it was "illegal" .. but here's the thing. 

The issue of "legality vs illegality" is decided by one body only: the International Court of Justice. Groups of nations can create mutually binding treaties that create "trans-national" law.. but that is, in effect, a voluntary agreement. Only the ICJ (an organ of the UN) comes even close to defining "International Law". 

Iran, Russia, and a bunch of other Bad Actors have publicly declared the attack as being contrary to "International Law". But here's the thing.... 

NON of them have referred the issue to the ICJ. They have pranced and preened in front of the cameras. But they haven't referred it to the ICJ. Which means THEY don't really believe it is "illegal", despite their media pronouncements. They are hypocrites who try and hide their own moral culpability (especially Russia) behind a smokescreen of bull**** !

Yeah thats not surprising the Russians backed out of the International Criminal Court in 2013 because of its refusal to investigate bombings in Syria : Russia to withdraw from International Criminal Court amid calls for Syria air strikes investigation and the OPCW has just recently showed its blatant bias in this mess OPCW lacks transparency and lucidity on Syria chemical incident’ 

So they believe, and maybe rightly so, that the game is fixed in favor of the west. Cuz as I said above he who has the gold rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL.... the Russians ? They never EVER ratified the ICJ agreement ANYWAY. 

And the OPCW ? Have they declared that the attack on the airbase was "against international law" ? (which is the question currently in hand). 

I mean... @Farmer77 .. you are siding with Syria, Russia and Iran ... on the issue of "International Law" ? Are you entirely comfortable with that position ? :blink:

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoofGardener said:

ROFL.... the Russians ? They never EVER ratified the ICJ agreement ANYWAY. 

And the OPCW ? Have they declared that the attack on the airbase was "against international law" ? (which is the question currently in hand). 

I mean... @Farmer77 .. you are siding with Syria, Russia and Iran ... on the issue of "International Law" ? Are you entirely comfortable with that position ? 

No im not a legal scholar by any means. However I cant wrap my brain around how ANY of what we're doing over there is legal under international law. 

Arming terrorists, invading a sovereign nation without provocation and then unilaterally attacking a nation which not only didnt threaten or harm us , it didnt even threaten or harm an ally and its still undetermined if they are even the ones who did the chemical attack at all : UN commission on Syria not ruling out various sources of ‘chemical agent release’ in Idlib

Can you honestly look at all of that and believe its legal?  

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess there is a difference between "Legal" and "Ethical". 

it is only "illegal" if the ICJ says it is ! And here's the thing... of all the signatories to the ICJ.. including many that would LOVE to embarrass America (or all Kuffir, for that matter), not ONE of them has referred the Syrian situation to the ICJ ? 

So.. right here, right now, you are incorrect to accuse the USA of flaunting International Law over Syria. 

Just don't ask me about Ethics. 

(a county nextht to Susseth, apparently  ? :D )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.