February 15, 2014
Real Or Propaganda? New Weapons To Syrian Mercenaries
I am not sure what to think about this Wall Street Journal piece. Its alternative headline is Saudis Agree to Place Large Holes in El Al Planes at Some Future Date:
AMMAN, Jordan—Washington's Arab allies, disappointed with Syria peace talks, have agreed to provide rebels there with more sophisticated weaponry, including shoulder-fired missiles that can take down jets, according to Western and Arab diplomats and opposition figures.
Saudi Arabia has offered to give the opposition for the first time Chinese man-portable air defense systems, or Manpads, and antitank guided missiles from Russia, according to an Arab diplomat and several opposition figures with knowledge of the efforts.
I am unsure if this is just scaremongering or real. I doubt that the United States, which largely controls the weapons flow at least to south Syria, as well as its waging tail Israel would ever agree to such. All weapons in Syria can change hands in unpredictable ways.
The U.S. pays and thereby probably believes to control the mercenaries on the ground:
The U.S. for its part has stepped up financial support, handing over millions of dollars in new aid to pay fighters' salaries, said rebel commanders who received some of the money.
It is dubious that the rather loose string of being a replaceable money source gives much control at all.
The Israeli and U.S. plan is to create a buffer zone in the South to enable a further Israeli land grab in the Golan. That is the reason why Israel is supplying and supporting the fighters there.
There are now new threats from Obama to "apply new pressure" on Syria because the second round of the Geneva II talks ended inconclusive. That "new pressure" will be the new weapon supplies. But the WSJ piece makes clears these new supplies have nothing to do with the Geneva II round but were planned much earlier:
Rebel leaders say they met with U.S. and Saudi intelligence agents, among others, in Jordan on Jan. 30 as the first round of Syrian peace talks in Geneva came to a close. That is when wealthy Gulf States offered the more sophisticated weapons.
The U.S. is not letting up from its "regime change" aim. I have long favored some action in Jordan and Turkey to discourage those countries from their support roles for the mercenaries and insurgents. One wonders why the Syrian services seem unable to provide such. Could Russia help?
Posted by b on February 15, 2014 at 11:32 AM | Permalink
Until KSA -- the chief rebel funder - is made to pay a serious price for its activities the war will go on. Were Russian threats to bomb KSA just a bluff?
Posted by: Vollin | Feb 15, 2014 12:18:47 PM | 1
I don't know if this is Real or Propaganda but things are getting worrisome again in Syria. Russian diplomats are whispering about a planned invasion by the US-France. This is the second article I've read in the last week about Russian sources saying a war may still be on the cards.
Another article which I can't find, mentioned that the US military rejected the first attack on Syria because they were afraid of Assad using his chemical stockpiles. Now that the US is pushing for the Chemical Weapons to be out of Syria by end of March, Russian figures suspect that a new war option will be on the table.
The above link mentions US-France are planning a joint attack on Syria. That matches up with Hollande's trip to Washington two days ago and all the rosy talk of a "new relationship" between US and France.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 15, 2014 12:47:24 PM | 2
Obama also met with Jordan's King Abdullah yesterday for talks on Syria. While on Wednesday, National Security Advisor Susan Rice met Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef. Even Netanyahu is arriving in 2 weeks in the US for talks with Obama. Start of March Obama is visiting the Saudi King in Riyadh.
That is alot more activity than normal. All before the the last chemical weapons shipment leaves Syria.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 15, 2014 12:58:09 PM | 3
Sophisticated guided weapons were delivered to terrorists several times already, new shipment wont change anything.
Speaking of direct military attack, the only possibility would be a bombing campaign, which wont achieve much either. There wont be boots on the ground. Even bombing would create serious consequences for the attackers, therefore the max what will happen is few "surgical strikes", i.e. what Israel is already doing.
Israhell land-grab is happening as we speak, they already expanded "buffer zone" and build a fence. The cancer could spread further if situation escalates, and unfortunately Syria cant do much against it. UN is silent, and US will veto any resolution against further Israhells occupation anyway.
Posted by: Harry | Feb 15, 2014 1:30:09 PM | 4
interesting how the usa has more money and time dedicated to faraway places then it does to its own people... what that says about the leadership of the usa is the usa is f*d. at this point whether they have been bought out and paid for by another country seems to matter very little. there focus is elsewhere then with the citizens of their own country trying to live on food stamps, or whatever is left when that is taken away from them.. i guess this is why it's so important that everyone has a gun.. they can just shoot themselves when everything has been poisoned.
Posted by: james | Feb 15, 2014 2:06:22 PM | 5
BTW about threats, Russia could announce they'll deliver S-400 if bombing campaign against Syria is about to start. To Syria and to Iran, now that would make things interesting, not only ZUSA would forget bombing, they would sweat profusely too :)
Posted by: Harry | Feb 15, 2014 2:23:11 PM | 6
Not if the missiles are fired by US intelligence operatives and only them.
Nothing being gifted to rebels but "diplomatic sources" would still say so as a cover, transparent as it may be. If the whole thing isn't bluff and blowed out of proportions.
After all these things have been used before; the chinese design is probably based on a russian version, it shouldn't be cutting edge and SAAF can be (and has been) provided with ways around them. We'll see.
As for striking Jordan, Turkey (or Saudi) it hasn't been done because then the US and allies would invoke security pacts/NATO commitments to escalate their intervention in Syria. Or so I'm assuming.
Posted by: Habib | Feb 15, 2014 2:35:11 PM | 7
Things do not look good. Obama's one-on-one meetings with Hollande and Abdullah, both critical allies for any U.S. military action in Syria, added to the several-times-a-week front page color photos in the NYT (no story, just the picture) of dead or injured children pulled from bomb rubble in Aleppo (the subliminal caption reads: "See, evil exists in the world; and where evil exists, the United States will strike with a righteous vengeance") are ill omens.
If Obama goes ahead with a military campaign, there will be significant electoral consequences. The Democratic Party will fracture. But if Boehner can legislate in the House with Democrat votes, Obama can govern in the White House with hawkish Republican support. Once again voters will be treated as P.T. Barnum's archetypal sucker.
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Feb 15, 2014 2:39:10 PM | 8
"I have long favored some action in Jordan and Turkey to discourage those countries from their support roles for the mercenaries and insurgents. One wonders why the Syrian services seem unable to provide such. Could Russia help?"
Traditionally Iranians used to have very long mustaches as a sign of 'virility'. So a lot of Iranian Shahs had very long mustaches which were shaped like a long horn.
So when one tries to say that a person has no strength of his own and is only standing on his feet with the total protection of someone else, in Persian one uses an expression which roughly translates as: "He sits on the tip of the horn of the 'mustache' of that other guy"
Countries such as Jordan and KSA have no strength of their own and they only hang on the tip of the horn of uncle Sam's 'mustache'.
Therefore it is really hard to slap them without hitting USA in the face.
Countries like Iran and especially Syria are in no position to do a thing like that to Jordan or KSA. If Syrian air force so much as approach the Jordanian or KSA air space, IMO, they will find uncle Sam standing in its way. If Iran tries to do something like that again US will immediately intervene to protect "the security of its allies".
Any country which would entertain the idea of some sort of military-like action against KSA or Jordan should be of a strength that the USA would hesitate to openly intervene. The only country which would come close to that description would be Russia. But even Russia will have to consider and accept the consequences of an open "cold war" perhaps worse than the 60's if it decides to take some sort of action against KSA or Jordan (and IMO a "cold war" would be a best case scenario, the outcome maybe even worse).
I don't think that Putin is quite ready for such an outcome.
By the way, what sort of "action" are you thinking about?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Feb 15, 2014 2:39:27 PM | 9
"Therefore it is really hard to slap them without hitting USA in the face."
this is exactly true, Pirouz. And also very much the case of Turkey even though as a State it is leagues ahead of Saudi and Jordan.
What Putin could have done is arming Syria to the teeth to deter all these countries. But Russia is a much weaker country than the Soviet Union was and is still in a phase of recovery. And there is the Israel factor, that is if you provide powerful arms that may target Israel's Jews it's as if you pointed your guns on NYC.
Perhaps in the future Russia will re-establish itself as Syria's security guarantor to the a level the Soviets once provided in the past.
We'll have to wait and see I suppose, but sometimes it seems we're heading in that direction.
Posted by: Habib | Feb 15, 2014 2:54:11 PM | 10
Re MANPADS I read somewhere that the US had a plan to track & lock MANPADS to prevent undesirable use. Another was to give them a finite shelf life, I think, so they could not be used after a certain date. Seems foolhardy to challenge the tech-savvy of the world's hackers and geeks with these kinds of measures, but maybe the experiment is being tried in Syria.
Posted by: China Hand | Feb 15, 2014 3:00:11 PM | 11
"The U.S. is not letting up from its "regime change" aim."
Until the American war criminals are treated as such - and that includes every one in BOTH parties, the journalists, think-tankers, etc - by the rest of the world this is not going to stop.
It's been 13 years of incessant and needless death and destruction since the false flag that started this whole shebang and not one single thing has changed vis a vis the United States' war of aggression against - seemingly - the entire planet. Everyone has to realize that nothing will change until the US is treated as the pariah state it should be and this means calling the War on Terror what it really is: the American War of Aggression against the entire world.
I joke about the term "shitzkrieg" but each new campaign - i.e, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela - should correctly be viewed as another front in the overall American war of aggression.
There has been no none zero zip zilch demonstrated evidence by anyone in the American elite over this time period giving two sh!tes about laws, treaties, morality, humanity or any terms which I'm sure they consider "quaint".
Believe me as a person of conscience who while enduring the 8 years of the Bush presidency looked at even the most slightly positive development as a sign that things were changing for the better, I like many have truly have come to understand that these psychotic war criminals - which we now know for demonstrated fact includes Obama, Clinton and all the rest - will never stop unless forced and that talks, conferences, negotiations, etc are only charades - cf. the fascist apartheid state of Israel and its ongoing genocide of the Palestinians - meant to temporarily placate the rubes (read: us people of conscience).
It is hard coming to the the realization that we are truly dealing with the criminally insane who do not heed or care about rationality, reason, logic or life itself but it after all this time it seems to be the truth.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Feb 15, 2014 3:12:50 PM | 12
Colm O'Tool is right because the Russian National security council has been meeting to discuss Syria last Friday as divulged by russian news agencies.On Thursday there was a huge gathering in Moscow,thousand of militaries and politicians,academics,foreign diplomats,civil servants for a remembrance of the Afghan War,the official guest being the Syrian Ambassador who delivered a speech on the danger of Takfiris/al qaeda confronted then by the USSR,confronted today by Syria.
Posted by: Nobody | Feb 15, 2014 3:13:37 PM | 13
Assad has the majority of Syrians behind him,which, at the end of the day is worth more than any so called game changing weapons, they are well aware of the consequences of his downfall, Sharia law enforced by thugs wielding swords who would cut your head off if they caught you smoking or listening to music, fortunately he seems to be winning but if things did turn pear shaped, the Iranians and Hez have not played all their cards, remember this is all about Iran, they are the ultimate target, and they know it.
Posted by: harrylaw | Feb 15, 2014 3:57:58 PM | 14
Pirouz, you're completely correct @9 about US moustache. But it wouldn't be a 'cold war' it would be hot and spread throughout the whole region. Russia knows that and is proceeding very cautiously. The one thing the Russians could do is provide S-400s, but even that is fraught with risk in that US could start bombing before they would become operational, on some pretense or another, as JSorrentine says, US regime doesn't give a shit about laws, treaties, etc. I think we'll see a US/French attack on Syria by March. Russia demonstrated with Libya their ability to underestimate the ruthlessness of US regime, but I don't think they have a 'winning' strategy figured out in Syria. They're possibly considering further arming SAA, but I doubt they'll do it.
Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 15, 2014 4:04:50 PM | 15
harry, I think the reason the Russians haven't insisted on elections in Geneva I or II is because Alawite and Shia have fled the country, so Assad's voter base would not be able to vote. Despite that, I see upcoming election as possible victory for Assad, although the West will declare any elections as illegitimate, and keep demanding regime change. Movement toward war is happening as we speak.
Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 15, 2014 4:14:27 PM | 16
Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)
Every revolution in history has had its counter-revolution. Most recently, internal and external forces allied, as they did in Egypt, to abort the January 2011 revolution.
But the Muslim Brotherhood failed to abort this latest revolution on June 30, 2013, and they will continue to fail because those who have rebelled against them have learned the lessons of the past. Their consciousness has deepened with organization and unity.
Thirty-four million youth, men, and women went out into the streets and squares. They were determined to topple the religious government, under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as stand up to all who supported the Brotherhood them at home and abroad .
They wanted to expel all who would use religion for economic and political gain and to oust Morsi. The will of the people was and is more powerful than the military, the police, and any religious or economic weapons. Here is the lesson of human history: There is no principle higher than truth and sincerity in the quest for freedom, justice and dignity.
During its rule, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to divide the people into believers and heretics, but it failed. There were many believers (in Islam) in the anti-Morsi crowds. The power of the millions was like the sea that protects itself with its own strength, and its tremendous waves swept away the jinn and the ghosts.
Muslim Brotherhood militias killed young men and women, but the multitudes in the streets, in the neighborhoods and in the countryside kept growing. They were not afraid of the bullets, they did not retreat one step, but kept advancing until they toppled the regime.
The revolutionaries turned to the national army and the army responded. The police, also, served the people and not the regime.
The age of jinn, spirits and nonsense has ended. The light of knowledge, truth, love and creativity are increasing day by day.
And yet, there are imperialists and Americans who claim that this was not a revolution that demands a new legitimate regime, but merely a crisis, or a coup against democracy.
On July 5, I watched a group of American men on CNN threatening to cut off aid to the revolutionary Egyptian people. And I laughed out loud. I hope that they cut off this aid! Since the time of Anwar Sadat in the 1970s, this aid has destroyed our political and economic life. This aid helps the U.S. more than anyone else. This aid goes directly into the pockets of the ruling class and corrupts it. This aid has strengthened American-Israeli colonial rule in our lands. All that the Egyptian people have gained from this aid is more poverty and humiliation.
Democracy is about more than elections. Legitimacy means more than the ballot box, it means the power of the people.
We Egyptians need a new constitution that will realize the principles of the revolution: equality for all without distinction of sex, religion or class. This we must do first, not just rush to presidential and parliamentary elections. We should not put the cart before the horse. We must not repeat mistakes.
We need a communal, revolutionary leadership and not a single leader.
This is a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat or protest movement or outraged uprising. It is a revolution that will continue until all of its goals are realized.
Nawal El Saadawi is an internationally renowned Egyptian writer who’s writing has influenced five generations of women and men in Egypt and other Arab countries, and paved the way for dissidence, rebellion and revolution. For more than four decades she has suffered under Egyptian political and religious authorities, which has led to imprisonment, exile, death threats and court trials.
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 5:29:32 PM | 17
presidents voter base is the syrian people be they alawite christian or sunni
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 5:42:10 PM | 18
'Saudi Arabia has offered to give the opposition for the first time Chinese man-portable air defense systems, or Manpads, and antitank guided missiles from Russia, according to an Arab diplomat and several opposition figures with knowledge of the efforts.;'
so at some point saudi miscreants can get the blame on china or russia when planes get shot down.
memo to china/russia: dont sell weapons to the sons of the desert: they may come back with interest!
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 5:45:06 PM | 19
now we know why Obama is NOT at the olympics.....planning another war on syria
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 5:49:55 PM | 20
Al Lonergan : "COMPANY IN BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW GETS CONTRACT TO DESTROY CHEMICAL WEAPONS!
The Syrian state news agency SANA reported on Tuesday 11th last that the European Union had illegally released some Syrian assets frozen by the EU states and that they had placed them in the credit fund of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to fund the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons.
On Friday 14th Reuters reported that the, Nobel Peace Prize winning, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had announced the awarding of contracts to two European companies for the destruction of some of Syria’s Chemical weapons, one of the two companies awarded the contract was the French based multinational Veolia.
Veolia has itself long been involved in illegal activities by way of providing waste management and transport services to illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, occupied Palestine. So effectively the EU and the OPCW are using Syrian money to add to the profits of a French multinational which should have been excluded from receiving any such contract given that its current and past activities in occupied Palestinian have been in breach of several important international conventions and laws. But let’s face it when it comes to Israel occupied Palestine and the occupied Syrian Golan international law never applies.
So effectively the Syrian state is paying a company to destroy its chemical weapons and this company makes illegal profit from the supply of services to illegal settlement for and on behalf of a state which itself occupies part of Syria. BTW France never contributed a cent to the OPCW fund."
SANA Article: http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/02/11/527535.htm
Reuters Article: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/14/syria-crisis-chemical-idUKL5N0LJ18I20140214
Veolia Information: Here
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/veolia-feeling-pressure-launches-attack-israel-boycott-movement here http://www.ipsc.ie/campaigns/veolia/1003-2 and here www.workers.org/articles/2014/02/12/workers-activists-fighting-veolia-hold-international-conference/
Issues related to international law here: http://www.ipsc.ie/campaigns/veolia/veolia-and-breaches-of-international-law
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 6:03:06 PM | 21
a moment of american Glasnost: 'Beautiful Olympics'
As Putin walked out, escorted by about a dozen security officers, Valerie Ireland called out, "Beautiful Olympics!" Putin stopped, turned around and came back to where Ireland was.
"He said thank you and shook my hand," said Ireland, who had just happened to be at USA House on Friday afternoon.
"I think this is a really beautiful Olympics. I think it kind of got a raw deal in the press," said Ireland, who is originally from New York but is now living in Nairobi. "This is a beautiful Olympics, and the Russians have been so gracious. I just wanted him to know, and I think he appreciated it."
Fox news decided too much openness is a bad thing and left this out
Posted by: brian | Feb 15, 2014 6:25:53 PM | 22
You can never be sure what the US will do, but I think an attack on Syria is unlikely for the following reasons:
1) I recall after much fanfare how the US was embarrassed after the Brits withdrew support. Hollande, the most unpopular French leader since Louis the 16th, is a poor substitute.
2) I also remember John Kerry touting an "incredibly small" attack.
3) I recall Jeffery Feltman running to Tehran trying to assure them a US attack would be insignificant if they promised not to hit back: at that point they were just looking for a way to climb down. I guess SL Khamenei told him to get lost.
4) Which brings us to the chemical weapons agreement. I don't think the US was deterred in the slightest by Syria's chemical weapons. They would have been unusable anyway. Putin gave Obama the ladder to climb down that the Iranians refused him.
5) Lastly, take note of what the response to a US attack would have been. In short, Hezbollah would have fired missiles on Israel from Syrian territory...and if Israel attacked Lebanon, then from Lebanon as well. Sooner or later, the Israelis would have asked the US to call it off, a replay of 2006 on a much grander scale.
This alone would have given the US pause, even assuming that...
6) The Russian fleet would not have data linked with the Syrian armed forces to provide them with real time awareness of all US activity, even after their radars were destroyed. No one can no for sure if the Russians would have done this, but they deliberately brought the capability to do just that to the area. I don't know if the US wanted to gamble that they were just bluffing.
Posted by: Lysander | Feb 15, 2014 6:39:21 PM | 23
I can't believe the cynicism on this site, I mean the President interrupted his golf game at Palm Springs resort to deal with the Syrian civil war. ;)
Posted by: heath | Feb 15, 2014 6:46:29 PM | 24
i liked what one of the commentators said in response to that article you posted..
"This piece is naive and hyperbolic. Saadawi really beleives that nearly half the Egyptian population took to the streets. Is she sure the number wasn’t 80 million, no maybe even 110 million?
From the time Mubarak was removed the military has been all over this so-called revolution. Revolutions are not comprised of bellicose self-important rantings in the streets, however liberating those might feel to long-repressed populations. A revolution by definition overturns the power structures in a society, and Egypt’s elite are still absolutely and fully entrenched, and they’re not going anywhere.
Saadawi has long lived in a fantasy Egypt of her own creation. I would like to ask her how she proposes that her pretend-unified left is going to live in the same country now as the very numerous Brotherhood supporters."
Posted by: james | Feb 15, 2014 10:50:13 PM | 26
I don't think the US needs to attack militarily. Obama will use the tools at his disposal to try to kill two birds in one shot.
a) militarize the non-alqaeda rebels in South of Syria with the help of Jordan and Israel in order to threaten the capital Damascus, now that the rest of the country is impregnable
a) work ways to squeeze all financial transactions that are feeding the Syrian Government, thus cutting any life line possible through Iran or Lebanon.
b) squeeze in the same time the financial transactions that benefit Al_Qaeeda by pressuring Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to crack down on 'charities' that are financing al Qaeda and affiliates, thus re-inforcing indirectly the non al qaeda fighters.
A long process that may fail if the Syrian army is able to deal with the looming threat from the south.
Syria’s Southern Spring Offensive
Posted by: Virgile | Feb 15, 2014 11:19:04 PM | 27
Posted by: Lysander | Feb 15, 2014 6:39:21 PM | 23
I think you're right. And it's probably even better than you imagine.
An infrequent commenter posted this link to an address by Putin about Russia's Aerospace Defense capabilities, here, a few weeks ago.
It's worth remembering that, in military circles, Defense is a polite way of saying Offense. Or to put it another way, it's difficult to repel attackers if you lack the ability to attack them.
In the second paragraph of the Kremlin article, Putin makes reference to 'a military type exercise' in the Med, in September. In early September there were MSM reports of a US-Zion missile interceptor test in the Med. At the same time there were rumours that Russia had intercepted some US missiles headed for Syria. Putin says the 'exercise' was a test of Russia's defense system. So if Russia detected and intercepted some US missiles in September it did so FROM RUSSIA. There was a report at either StopNATO or Voltairenet a few weeks ago that Russia has removed its combat ships from the fleet guarding Syria.
My interpretation of this mixture of 'ifs' is that Russia, having "sent Obama a message" that it can keep a protective eye on Syria from Russia, has underlined its commitment and its confidence.
The Yankees have got a Superpower myth to preserve and protect. The last thing they're going to do is put it at risk by angering Russia over a pissy little country like Syria, which they've pretty much wrecked already.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 16, 2014 12:09:18 AM | 28
Bill supporting God-given Greater Israel comes to New Mexico
I have empathy with one commentator there who said "
I keep wanting to fast forward all this insanity to see how it ends."
But it never ends.
Posted by: DM | Feb 16, 2014 1:33:30 AM | 30
When the Vampire are feeding on the Chattel and Sheeple, and Black Blood is Pulsing in Great Gouts on their Steaming Flanks, Who can say which Vampire is ZUSA, or KSA or ZFR, They all look the Same when They're Feeding.
Predicted defanging of Syria was just pretext for the invasion of the Persian Empire. You must realize these are Oil and Gas Wars, between extra-national financial mafiosa cartels, using our last remaining life savings to fuel, arm and fund their various 'rebellions'.
Iran has more crown jewels than QoE and KSA combined, and more gold bullion. They have more oil and gas reserves than any other MENA country besides KSA and QTR, and they are the closest to the India and Chinese oil and gas demand. And Iran refuses to join the fractional reserve, fiat toilet paper charade. This is the Neo-Liberal's Final Battle.
Think Vampire. Supply and Demand. Greatest Supply, allied with Greatest Demand, wins all the New Silver Sheqels, real ones, not toilet paper. Remembering Carlin, "They don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you."
We are their Chattel and Sheeple. "More useless mouths to feed."
This war will not be televised. Haven't you noticed the web closing in? On to Tehran!
Posted by: Chip Nikh | Feb 16, 2014 3:27:46 AM | 31
I seem to recall MoAs host stating in 2009 on the day O'Babaorum Muganga was inaugurated that he was a Manchurian Candidate, a Bush Doppelganger, a Black Menem.
I seem to recall everyone being upset and dismayed that MoAs host would state that. Hope and Change, lida. O'Baba almost immediately proved our MoA host correct. He's a NeoLiberal Globalist. They all are. Every last one of them, Nancy, Harry, John, the bunch.
I also seem to recall MoAs host correctly discerning in 2008 that the entire shitfest meltdown of Lehman et al was completely fraudulent and synthetic debt swaps, that had no Public component or manifest moral reason to bail out, and should be simply written off.
I seem to recall everyone being upset and dismayed about what that would do to their 401k.
Instead, the Great Bailout has created the largest Non-State Public-Financed Mafia in human history, and bubbles are popping all over the globe ... not the champagne kind.
Might as well just pop some popcorn and laugh at the Sunday talking heads tomorrow.
Posted by: Chip Nikh | Feb 16, 2014 4:05:19 AM | 32
Chip, I wish you were right:
"...This is the Neo-Liberal's Final Battle..."
It won't be; every time neoliberal globalization has stumbled TPTB have circled their wagons and doubled down in the ongoing "shitzkrieg". As Tom Perkins excellent book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", made very clear, is the war for empire prefers debt as its "instrument of power" while making it clear that assassination of world leaders is OK too. We're talking about a ruthless psychopathic gang that will never give up their quest for worldwide fascism.
Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 16, 2014 4:29:15 AM | 33
One of the pupils who survived the explosion at that suicide teachers class the other day, [obviously an intellectual, since he had the sense to sit at the back] was asked what happened? He replied "the teacher said, now pay attention class, I'm only going to show you this once" then Kabooooom. You know I think there might well be a God.
Posted by: harrylaw | Feb 16, 2014 5:41:23 AM | 34
@28: The topic of this passage is the Voronezh early warning system. It did prove its effectiveness, indeed. I doubt the Russians intercepted the missiles.
Posted by: g_h | Feb 16, 2014 6:28:23 AM | 35
1. "The topic of this passage is the Voronezh early warning system." Agreed.
2. "It did prove its effectiveness, indeed." How?
3. "I doubt the Russians intercepted the missiles." You are not alone.
Re My How response to your 2.
I am arguing that an early warning system is pointless unless it includes a response mechanism which can achieve a specified, timely, objective (ie neutralising a threat) as soon as the threat is detected. Imo, mere detection (aka a blip on a radar screen) is not proof of the effectiveness of a complete E-W system.
I'm quite happy for us handball this to each other until one persuades the other.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 16, 2014 7:47:13 AM | 36
Yup, it just never ends and keeps getting better:
Prospect of Spanish Citizenship Appeals to Descendants of Jews Expelled in 1492.
A Spanish initiative that would offer citizenship to Sephardic Jews as a gesture of conciliation for Spain’s expulsion of Jews during the Inquisition has set off a flurry of interest in Israel.
Under the draft bill, Spain would offer citizenship to anyone, Jewish or not, whose Sephardic origins can be certified. The bill would also remove some existing requirements that include the need for applicants to renounce their current citizenship.
Well, I'm glad Spain has nothing better to worry about other than the victimhood of the Jews from 5+ centuries ago. Funny how the true and more numerous victims of the events of 1492 and following - cough Columbus cough - don't seem to get a mention, huh?
Nope, let's just make sure the Jews are recompensed b/c y'know they're not doing well enough as it is in most countries.
As an American whose government is run by traitorous Zionist scum many of who openly pledge allegiance to the apartheid genocidal state of Israel all I can say to Spain is: Enjoy your dual Israeli-Spanish citizens, effing idiots!!!
Posted by: JSorrentine | Feb 16, 2014 10:42:22 AM | 38
brian brian brian.... the links! ;)
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 10:53:13 AM | 39
Chip @32: "He's a NeoLiberal Globalist. They all are. Every last one of them, Nancy, Harry, John, the bunch."
No doubt in my mind your're correct.
Posted by: ben | Feb 16, 2014 12:12:04 PM | 40
This short paragraph in "The world this week" section of The Economist resumes bluntly who are considered good terrorists (backed by the CIA, KSA, Zionists, etc.) and the bad guys:
"Al-Quaeda's leadership announced that it was cutting links to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Greater Syria), better known as ISIS, an extreme jihadist group fighting in both Syria and neigbouring Iraq. The group had repeatedly disobeyed al-Quaeda's chief, Ayman Zawahiri, defying his order to leave Syria, where Jabhat al-Nusra, another affiliate of al-Quaeda, is also fighting."
Posted by: greg | Feb 16, 2014 2:00:44 PM | 41
Saudi Arabia getting 15,000 anti-tank TOWS from Raytheon, doesn't need to get them from Russia. Bernard, does China export MANPADs? This article looks more like psyops to declare Assad's allies arming opposition.
Posted by: China Hand | Feb 16, 2014 2:02:29 PM | 42
@JSorrentine #29: Nazis had their Hitler Jugend, I guess now Zionist abomination is thus raising Zionist Youth, or TZVN TZE'IRUT...
Posted by: ProPeace | Feb 16, 2014 2:17:36 PM | 43
Obama: "What I do believe, is that the US-French alliance has never been stronger, and the levels of cooperation that we’re seeing across a whole range of issues is much deeper than it was, I think, five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago."
This is true perhaps, and also true that the French government approval ratings have never been lower. And the correlation between the two things is direct. Do deeply unpopular Obama and deeply unpopular Hollande really believe they'll be able to launch and even more deeply unpopular war on Syria? After already having tried it once?
According to Bhadrakumar, Obama believes that the Syrian/Russian agreement on chemical weapons was not a bold concession to world peace and a gracious attempt to allow the US to save face, but instead a sign of weakness. Obama believes it was a sign that, should the US should make the same threatening motions again, that they can extract further concessions from the Russians and from Syria. Does anyone believe that had the US not backed down that the results would NOT have been a regional conflagration? Perhaps Obama ought to re-read (or read) "the Boy Who Cried Wolf".
Obama had better wake up from his dreaming. The US is fighting for some vague, media driven concept of its "national security" interests in places most Americans couldn't point to on a map while their opponents are fighting for their families, their neighbors, and their countries. Certainly the Syrian people know they have no other options than to fight, fight, fight or face pure anarchy and fanatic rule as in Libya. The Russians are certainly now thinking that it would be better to fight the Americans in Syria that to fight them in the Ukraine. The Iranians know that their safety is absolutely inseparable from Syria's and Lebanon's. And the giant China sits watching this all - knowing that they are last on the list. Has Obama forgotten that they also sent their warships into the Mediterranean?
Bhadrakumar again: "Russia magnified the problem initially in order to sensitize the western public opinion, but, ironically, it may now turn out to be the perfect alibi for Obama to order drone strikes on Syria. Drone strikes are ‘cost effective’, dramatic, and create just the opening to escalate into a bigger intervention at a point of choosing."
I'm sorry but I'm rolling on the floor. Drone strikes? The resistance could have a field day shooting down US drones with every means at their disposal - including direct Russian intervention - and what could the US say? Can you imagine the laughter roaring across the globe as Obama made somber eulogies about the "sacrifice" made by America's remote controlled planes? Does Obama think for a second that the destruction of these expensive trinkets would cause anything in the American public anything other than a fit of schadenfreude? Does he envision, perhaps, patriotic Americans wearing little grey ribbons that say "support our radio-controlled toys"?
Insane. If Obama and Kerry are crazy enough to start round 2 in Syria, then they surely have as much of a concept as what lies in store for them as the crummy neocons had when they told the world that the Iraq invasion would be a "cake-walk."
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 2:22:08 PM | 44
McCain urges Syria military intervention
During a press conference on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said there is no military solution for the crisis in Syria.
“The crisis in Syria is a crisis. The circumstances on the ground are horrific that is why we have to bring the parties together to try to compel them towards a negotiated political settlement because there isn’t a military solution here,” Carney said.
Posted by: ProPeace | Feb 16, 2014 2:26:02 PM | 45
@Chip Nikh #32: Some crucial changes has taken place in the US foreign policy after November 2012, you need some catching up - read Thierry Meyssan on "great purge" and "pact with Putin", and also Gordon Duff on "bifurcation".
Only "useful idiots" and "agents provocateurs" want Obama to fall now - because then the only alternative would be the despicable evil of Romney, Bush, PNAC, Clinton, Petreaus cabal.
Posted by: ProPeace | Feb 16, 2014 2:38:05 PM | 46
I think it proved its effectiveness "effectively" by doing what it had been made for: by detecting the missile launch(es). That's what the article says. This alone might serve as a warning to USrael: We might be far away but we can see what you're doing.
If there were anything resembling an S-300 or so capability, the Russians wouldn't allow Latakia be bombed by the Zionists.
Posted by: g_h | Feb 16, 2014 3:08:42 PM | 47
Nothing lay in store for the neocons. Iraq was a cakewalk for them. Not for the Iraqis. Not for the troops killed in Iraq. Not for anyone but the neocons. Syria is a cakewalk for Obama and Kerry. They are nihilists and care not one whit about the suffering they are causing there ... nor in Palestine, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Yemen, nor in Libya, nor in Ukraine, nor in Somalia ... Their continued malfeasance is an indictment of us American people, that we allow these criminal sociopaths freedom of action, that they are not all behind bars. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate should be in the Big House, not the White House.
Posted by: john francis lee | Feb 16, 2014 3:21:54 PM | 48
Good article in alalam:
Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:28 PM
Rethinking Russia and Iran's support for Bashar Assad
In the second round of Geneva II talks, the government agreed to a temporary ceasefire in Homs, and a lifting of the blockade, in order to allow citizens to flee if they wish, and to allow some aid and provisions to enter for those who remain. Immediately following this concession on the part of the government, the United States and its allies attempted to push a Chapter 7 resolution through the U.N. Security Council. Under the auspices of enforcing this agreement with the Syrian government, the resolution would have placed nearly the entire blame for the conflict and subsequent atrocities on the...[Syrian Goverment], and could have paved the way for direct military intervention, via R2P, to “change the balance of power on the ground.”
Russia and China declared this proposal dead on arrival, with Lavrov accusing the United States of obstructing the peace process in Syria through their continued insistence that the only acceptable end to the conflict is al-Assad’s departure, and through their continuing to raise the prospects of military intervention.
One cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu:
In March of 2012 the United Nations became involved in trying to broker a peace deal in Syria. Between March and June, the UN peace envoy Kofi Annan served as an intermediary between the government and the opposition and successfully brokered a number of ceasefires and concessions from the warring sides. These efforts were in part hampered by the [so-called] FSA and [so-called]SNC’s lack of control over the civilian militias, which made ceasefires difficult to enforce.
However, Annan came to see that the primary driver of continued conflict in Syria were outside powers, particularly the United States, insisting that the only acceptable outcome to the conflict was al-Assad’s immediate departure—that this should be a precondition to any negotiated settlement—all the while keeping alive...[militants']hopes for a military intervention...[through] Libya to ensure a regime change if negotiations failed.
In June of 2012, Annan drafted the Geneva Communique which enshrined the concessions the parties had agreed to in the previous negotiations and laid out a roadmap for a Syria-driven process of reconciliation.
Importantly, while the Communique did obligate the government to transfer executive authority to an interim transitional body, it did not bar President al-Assad from taking part in that body, nor did it bar him from future participation in the government or elections.
Moreover, it was equivocal in assigning blame for the conflict, although it made it clear that the government as the more robust actor has a greater responsibility in helping restore order. Annan then had the primary international stakeholders in the Syrian conflict sign onto this agreement (strangely, absent Iran)—what most fail to understand is that it was they, not the government or the...[militants], who were its intended target. The purpose was to get the international community to stop interfering with negotiations or perpetuating the conflict.
However, the very next day after signing onto the Communique, the United States and its allies attempted to push a Chapter 7 resolution through the UNSC which, in defiance of the Communique placed the blame for the conflict squarely on the al-Assad regime, and could have laid the groundwork for a military intervention if the conditions of the resolution were not sufficiently and expediently met.
... UN peace envoy Kofi Annan was outraged by this move, which he saw to be a betrayal of the agreement Western powers had just signed—and the move which ultimately killed the negotiations process.
Following the failed bid in the UN, and angry Susan Rice proclaimed that the US and...EU and regional allies would have to “work around” the United Nations, henceforth, to get the outcome they wanted (it is worth noting that most of these regional allies are monarchies, often repressive; accordingly, their supposed desire to bring “democracy” to Syria is immediately questionable).
Thereafter, these parties began to fund, arm, provision, and train rebel militias—and as in the case of Libya, most of these resources ended up in the hands of bad actors who flooded Syria precisely in response to this influx of assets and the potential for Libya-style “regime change.”
Buoyed by the renewed prospect of international intervention, and the new influx of resources and fighters which began to tip the tide in the...[militant] favor in certain areas, the [so-called] SNC and FSA outright refused further negotiations or ceasefires unless and until al-Assad resigned—parroting the position of their foreign backers.
Following this surge in foreign aid and fighters, the situation in Syria rapidly deteriorated. The UN was forced to withdraw its observers, and Annan resigned from his position in disgust...
Since then, the United Nations has repeatedly called upon the US and its allies to stop arming and funding the opposition on the grounds that it will only prolong the conflict and make any eventual settlement more difficult to enforce (especially given the opposition’s lack of control over these arms or over the...[militants], as evidenced most dramatically by the civil-war-within-a-civil-war taking place in Northern Syria). These...[urgent calls] have fallen on deaf ears.
It is a false-equivalence to claim, as ...[militant] apologists want to suggest, that Russia and Iran are doing the “same thing” in providing weapons, supplies and money to the al-Assad regime. There is an important legal and philosophical difference in supporting a government in quelling a foreign-backed uprising as compared to said foreign powers funding and provisioning non-state actors against a government.
There is another asymmetry insofar as it is critical for the Syrian state to remain viable: its disorderly collapse would be an unmitigated disaster which would radically exacerbate, rather than quell, the conflict.
The US and the opposition have even come to begrudgingly accept this, at least ostensibly. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that aid which keeps the government intact, be it military or otherwise, should be understood as critical for the stability of Syria—as an important component in making any eventual agreement or reforms possible to meaningfully implement.
It also becomes clear that the idea propagated by political “scientists,” to push the government to the brink of collapse in order to get a “better” deal, is lunacy--in no small part because it presupposes that the US-led coalition would be able to successfully pull the situation back from the edge and prevent a collapse. Over the course of the conflict, American policymakers have shown that they do not even have a robust understanding of the dynamics in Syria...The idea that they could somehow control a complex and fluid situation they barely understand with the finesse such a strategy demands is ridiculous.
It is also unclear what a “better” deal would mean in this context: better in what sense? And for whom?
Certainly, they are not seeking a “better deal“ for the Syrian people, who have overwhelmingly sided with the government over the [militants] by all available empirical evidence. All the apologists of the...[militancy] ever offer to the contrary is rhetoric and anecdotes.
Accordingly, the most important asymmetry between Russia and Iran supporting the Syrian government versus the West and the [Persian] Gulf [states] supporting the...[militants] is that, it is unequivocally the former who are promoting the will and interests of the Syrian people.
Regardless of whether or not the Syrian government can reach an agreement with the “opposition,” if the Geneva conference can result in Western powers and their allies at long last complying with the provisions of the Geneva Communique, ceasing their perpetuation and escalation of the conflict—this would be the greatest outcome conceivable in helping to wind down the crisis in Syria. This was the task the Communique was designed to accomplish.
By Musa al-Gharbi
Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 16, 2014 3:56:56 PM | 49
@48 This is true. Just as, I suppose no harm will come to Obama or anyone in the west, should those "humanitarian" missiles start falling on Syria.
The question I guess, might be this: can Tel Aviv, Amman, Ankara and Riyadh be sure of the same? If Syria has any hope, the answer better be "no".
Meanwhile, just saw this: Syria gunmen fire on Jordan troops at border. Another excuse for the warmongers, no doubt.
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 3:59:06 PM | 50
MANPADS are not exactly a new weapon for the Syrian insurgents. Brown Moses has a Youtube playlist with fifty some examples of their possession.
Obama was played by the interventionists who sold him on the idea that in order to make the Geneva talks successful he had to increase support for the rebels so Assad would feel pressure to agree to rebel and western demands. This was just another stratagem to drag the US into the conflict and it seems to be working. If one specious rationalization for intervention doesn't work the israelists and their pals will soon come up with another.
Posted by: J. Bradley | Feb 16, 2014 4:29:59 PM | 51
Why are they returning home? Is the war in Syria over for them as they have taken a real beating?
Return of 250 British jihadis from Syria 'serious threat', says minister
A "significant and growing” threat is posed by up to 250 British-based jihadis, a Home Office minister warns
Britain is facing a “significant and growing” threat from up to 250 British-based jihadis who went to train and fight in Syria and have returned home, a minister has warned.
Posted by: Virgile | Feb 16, 2014 5:12:51 PM | 52
Posted by: james | Feb 15, 2014 10:50:13 PM | 26
i dont share your sentiment...religious fanatisicm among the mases is on the rise as a deadly alternative to the arab secularism of the 1960. However the egyptian people had enough memebrs free of MB indoctrination to send Morsi packing.
Posted by: brian | Feb 16, 2014 5:16:37 PM | 53
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 10:53:13 AM | 39
Posted by: brian | Feb 16, 2014 5:19:06 PM | 54
Saudi Arabia getting 15,000 anti-tank TOWS from Raytheon, doesn't need to get them from Russia. Bernard, does China export MANPADs? This article looks more like psyops to declare Assad's allies arming opposition.
Posted by: China Hand | Feb 16, 2014 2:02:29 PM | 42
Posted by: brian | Feb 16, 2014 5:19:49 PM | 55
@54 the long links break the page, on my browser at least. anyone else?
They can be shortened: <A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Link to ACLU</A>
but if it only irritates me, then no worries.
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 6:24:42 PM | 56
It is the long links, they break the layout, in my browser at least. Anyone else?
They can be shortened like it shows in the "Allowed HTML Tags" section above the comments box. But if it only bothers me, don't worry about it.
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2014 6:56:12 PM | 57
It's not just you. It's annoying especially when it's so easy to do it right.
Posted by: Lysander | Feb 16, 2014 8:15:35 PM | 58
@53 - well brian, i suppose it is just a coincidence then that the same type of powers - military type dictatorship - are in place again in egypt.. i thought the article was a nice piece of fluff and not much else, especially when you scratch away the reality that remains now the the morsi gov't is gone... same bs. if some group of people think that this has somehow moved egypt forward, i personally don't see it.. it remains stuck in much the same place..
Posted by: james | Feb 16, 2014 10:45:52 PM | 59
Actually is almost exclusively the fault of BRIAN, when the thread width gets messed up - almost always - then he also posts Arabic tweets (of little value usually) which completely wreck the formatting as the text is all right-justified
Posted by: LMAO | Feb 17, 2014 6:15:55 AM | 60
Chomsky is a disgraceful idiot. Here again he floats this hasbara sh!te that Israel and the US aren't seeking the end of Assad but rather are just passive observers to Arab bloodletting in the this Syria "suicide" - his word - exercise.
Hey, NC, what about the fact that the partitioning of Syria you talk about follows the Yinon Plan strategy to a tee?
Just another coincidence like all those coincidences that have happened on and since 9/11, huh, you pathetic gatekeeper?!! What is someone calling in their chits, Noam? Like Dylan doing Chrysler ads ?
Disgraceful, shameful and sickening.
Here's a good one from Escobar on the "new" Cold War.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Feb 17, 2014 12:05:30 PM | 61
@61 How ridiculous. You attack Chomsky, and then post a link to Escobar that says the exact same thing.
Chomsky: "Israel will be pretty happy to see Syrians kill each other."
Escobar: "Meanwhile, in Syria, the US 'strategy' boils down to let Arabs kill Arabs in droves."
I don't agree with everything Chomsky says here, but of course the US and Israel have far more to win by letting Syria be locked in bloody conflict rather than just letting al Qaeda sweep to power. It is becoming clearer and clearer by every move the US makes that their main interest is in keeping the killing going, to keep pushing against Assad while at the same time providing and withdrawing support from one group of rebels to the next as one gets too powerful compared to the other. Nothing Chomsky says goes against your Yinon plan thesis. In fact, killing is what is required to make people hate and fear each other so that the breakdown of society takes hold.
Do you think you're some kind of iconoclast? Because its not too impressive to watch you try and trash someone's decades and decades of good work, all because you disagree with him on one point. And then its clear that either A) you don't even know what you are saying because you go on to praise someone who says the exact same thing as him or B) you are just dragging out this attack on this man just because you've got some bug up your ass about him.
And of course none of this is related to some stupid Super Bowl ad in the slightest.
Posted by: guest77 | Feb 17, 2014 2:35:00 PM | 63
Oh, you so clever AND saucy. Would you like a tissue? Because you sure seem a little hysterical in your need to defend your hero from a lowly MOA poster? Must EVERYONE toe your fanboy line? Must everyone adorate at the foot of your beloved gatekeeper?
It appears so. Because somehow the decades upon decades of wonderful things that NC has done just can't stand up to the tongue-lashing of single person somewhere in the world.
If there's one guarantee with you guest77 is your defense of the fake left establishment when push comes to shove. But let's allow you to cover all your bases first, shall we?
"I don't agree with everything Chomsky says here..."
But of course, you're just really in love. We get it. With that disclaimer out of the way, I'd like to address the rest of your post.
Subtlety is clearly not the strong point of fanboys, I understand, so I'll explain the differences between the two - NC and Escobar - more clearly.
This is not the first time Chomksy has stated that the genocidal apartheid state of Israel is just sitting on the sidelines vis a vis Syria just enjoying the "civil war" show. Here's an interview he did with fellow gatekeeper Amy Goodman last year in which he rolled out once again that the Syrian conflict was INTERNAL and that Syria is plunging into "suicide".
Here's another interview he did where he says the same things:
In your view, what is Israel’s true position regarding the Syrian revolution?
Israel has done nothing to indicatethat it is trying to bring down the Assad regime. There are growing claims that the West intends to supply the opposition with arms. I believe this is quite misleading. The fact of the matter is, that were the United States and Israel interested in bringing down the Syrian regime there is a whole package of measures they could take before they came to the arms-supply option. All these other options remain available, including, for example, America encouraging Israel to mobilize its forces along the northern border, a move that would not produce any objections from the international community and which would compel the regime to withdraw its forces from a number of frontline positions and relieve the pressure on the opposition. But this has not happened, nor will it, so long as America and Israel remain unwilling to bring down Assad regime. They may not like the regime, but it is nevertheless a regime that is well practised in accommodating their demands and any unknown alternative might prove worse in this respect. Much better, then, to watch the Syrians fight and destroy each other.
So, just to recap because us fake-hero-slappers - sorry, iconoclasts - have some problems sticking with scripts at times:
Chomsky is helping create and promulgate a narrative - completely false - that the US and Israel are just passive players in the Syrian conflict. Thus, even though NC does mention the partitioning of Syria along the lines of the Yinon Plan if that did happen it would APPEAR - following NC's little fairy tale - that it was just another fortuitous circumstance for the Israelis. Yup, just another lucky break for the Israelis. Just sittin' on the sidelines. Oh well.
Here on the OTOH is Escobar detailing the the Israeli/KSA axis of terror and further interview in which Escobar says more about Israel involvement in Syria.
Gee, that sure sounds like there's a difference of opinion there, huh? One says Israel is NOT directly involved and the other says that Israel is actively engaged in the Syrian "suicide".
But us little washed-up-embarrassing-false-narrative-building-gatekeeper-slappers should just toe the line and respect NC's genius. (NOTE: he also does a nice gatekeeping job on 9/11 saying that the Chilean coup was MUCH MORE important and significant that the US 9/11 attacks and those who question the official 2001 narrative are effing idiots. What an effing hero. No wonder you're in love.)
BTW, Escobar also differs from your lion-of-the-left on his stance concerning the American 9/11.
And lastly, just as how the pathetic NC is still to this day trotted out to sell fairy-tales to fanboys like you, so is the washed-up, barely cognizant "hero" of the counter-culture, Bob Dylan, trotted out to sell cars to people of a similar level of gullibility.
Both are has-beens but TPTB know people such as yourself will still listen to them no matter what.
Now, the real question is, is why would you be so seemingly butthurt about someone correctly calling a bullshitter like NC a bullshitter, guest77?
Posted by: JSorrentine | Feb 17, 2014 4:06:57 PM | 65
Forgive me, b
Some zamerican presstitute farted? How terrible! I'm shaking in fear.
Let's be realistic for a moment, OK.
a) Putin is still somewhat hampered by Sochi. Of course cowards make use of that and tell the world about yesternights wet dream.
b) Putin and Xi have made abundantly clear that the saction terror against and menacing of Iran is over. Either by negotiations or else by Russia, China - and soon others - not caring batshit about zusa sanctions and doing major with Iran anyway.
Does that piss off the zusa puppet empire? Of course! And what do impotent wannabe-ex-world rulers do when they are angry? Right, they fart dangerrrous stuff.
No, just assume for a moment the zamerican blabbering had any significance whatsoever and they really were ready for war. Then one must ask
- They lost their wars in 2 weaker countries that had no support by e.g. Russia. What is there to worry about? After all Russia has clearly stated that they stand with Syria. And that's the voice that counts.
- With what would zusa wage war? With their disappointed and worn out "soldiers" that can't even move in unless starbucks, mc donalds and full climate control systems are installed and that have learned the hard way that their government couldn't care less about them (just ask veterans or their families who wait endlessly for medical treatment if they don't get shot by cops ..)? With their 30 yrs old fighter jets? Or with their supremacy bla bla high tech jets that are so lousy that even zusa allies try to get out of the contracts to buy them? And how will they defend against Russian really high tech missiles like Yachont or Iskander? With their anti-air missiles that badly lack range, speed, destructive potential and that have a hit rate of around 5%?
Not to even mention the completely crippled and paralyzed state the zamericans would enter if their communication systems were killed.
And just btw: Going to war with Russia wouldn't necessarily mean a war that is dictated by zusa. It needs no more than 30 minutes and zusa has tens of thousands of dead troups around the gulf and a considerable part of its fleet and it's headquarters to cry and moan about ... and, just aside, a quite free Iran with lots of reasons to clean zusa puppet regimes in the region and israel.
Short, zusa has many reasons to dream and talk about their dreams. But they have even more reasons to avoid seriously provoking Russia.
In other words: Let them stutter wild things. They are about as dangerous as a 13 year old boy with a broken water pistol who on top of it has run out of his monthly allowance.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 17, 2014 5:53:17 PM | 66
...and let's not forget that the Military-Industrial Complex is, first and foremost, a profit-motivated Ponzi scheme with priorities of:
3. Churning out single-use (disposable) products, with zero oversight, supervision and quality control, for which taxpayers pay up to 10x the cost of manufacture.
Oh yes. And hundreds of "Battleships" which were Yesterday's Heroes by the end of WWII.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 17, 2014 7:36:00 PM | 67
...and let's not forget that the Military-Industrial Complex is, first and foremost, a profit-motivated Ponzi scheme
Right. Just look at the joint strike fighter F-35, *the* zato supremacy superiority mega giga miraculator jet.
Its productions is spread over 40+ states in order to secure the vast majority in senate and congress. After putting all their air force eggs in one single basket (lockheed) and spending hundreds of billions of dollars zusa/zato has, well, what? A couple of wet dream incarnations turned into nightmares that are excessively expensive, way over budget, falling out of sky, slow, lame and widely pilotless because those with a brain simply refuse to fly it.
The F-35 is inferior to 30 year old designs in pretty every regard, costs 3+ times the price of Russias most expensive and really high-tech Su and Mig jets or, to name a western jet, the Dassault Rafale (a stupidly underestimated fine piece of western tech.).
But you don't need to trust Russian experts. How about the Australian "5 eyes club" friends (and early F-35 order book entries) asessment? Well, they played multiple scenarios involving F-35 against a mix (some older, some newer) of Russian and Chinese jets. The quote of surviving zato jets? About 1 in 6. In many scenarios the Russian & Chinese jets killed the complete zato fleet but one or two jets. The worst scenarios (for zato) were those with high F-35 involvement.
The overall verdict? The F-35 is incapable and useless in all scenarios.
And you bet your *ss that the ozzis arranged for those tests to make the F-35 (and such their own decision to waste billions on them) look as good as any possible.
Somewhat less gross but similar story with the F-22.
And those brain dead morons seriously blabber about air superiority missions against China! In-cre-di-ble, just incredible how deceiving, lying, wet dreaming and self-delusional those zamerican thugiots are.
The only winner of any military endeavor involving lockheed jets will be lockheed. If they didn't get blown to hell by fine Russian weaponry, that is.
Btw (and a propos "Rafale"): I'm pretty sure that one of the major reasons, next to being too broke to go it alone, for zuk to sign the Lancaster deal with France was that France has some capabilities left to design and build weapons that actually work and sometimes are even good.
Ceterum censeo israel americanamque delenda esse.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 17, 2014 8:37:51 PM | 68
Re F35. Yes, I've seen one of those Oz assessments of it. 4Corners (abc.au) did a story on it when it became too obvious that the promise was going to fall way short of the dream - but the pollies (who take their order$ from the US Ambassador to Oz) want to buy it, anyway.
It's a topsy-turvy world in the land Down Under > corrupt, studiously deaf, nest-feathering, politician$.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 17, 2014 10:16:14 PM | 69
^ About F-35, which were "clubbed like the baby seals" in dog-fight scenarios against Sukhois, etc. But to be fair, F-35 dont suck at everything, their long range capabilities are formidable, they are just useless for short-range combat, and even weather conditions have to be perfect for them to fly (i.e. they cant stand rain, snow, etc). Plus its unclear if "pilots choking" was fixed already :))
Considering the cost (over a trillion $ over the life cycle of F-35 gen), its the biggest tech blunder of All-time. F-35 is hardly any better than Russian's previous gen, and clearly inferior to PAK-FA.
Posted by: Harry | Feb 18, 2014 1:26:17 AM | 70
As i recall it, the US and the zionazi abomination´s navies (most likely the latter without informing the former, to kick start the aggression) was firing two missiles towards Syria which "fell into the sea", or so they said.
According to an article in the Lebanese al-Safir and al-Akhbar these missiles where indeed shot down between Cyprus and Syria by the Russian armada. According to Mighty Vlad himself and President Bashar Al-Assad, Syria do have S-300´s, although not the entire set agreed upon. They would have responded first but the Russians obviously preferred to give the message a little more weight and they wouldn´t in any case have let missiles pass over their air-space towards Syria. Although it roughens some US feathers, it makes perfect sense.
On another note: The Russian armada has not left the scene and the enormous fire-power that sent the US/NATO fleets beyond Cyprus 6 months ago, remain the same the re-established Mediterranean fleet is there to stay. They are simply changing vessels on a rotating basis and the amount of ships remains the same. They are currently headed by battle cruiser Pjotr Veliki/ Peter the Great.
Posted by: Not so fast | Feb 18, 2014 2:45:49 AM | 71
@ 71. Thanks. The Yankees are just too angry with Putin's Russia for all the moderate explanations of why they put their Bomb Syria plan on the back-burner to be true.
... the Russians preferred to give the message a little more weight...
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 18, 2014 3:47:19 AM | 72