In other news, Dave and his mate George plan to cut child tax credits in the UK, for everyone. This alienated most of the population, so the Tories have marked is as a win/win situation, hurt the poor + piss off labour. Unfortunately for the Tories and luckily for the rest of the humans in the UK, the House of Lords voted to delay it. The Lords technically shouldn't vote on economic issues, so chaos (relatively speaking) ensued. Corbyn, labour leader, then asked Dave 6 times if people would be poorer under these changes. 6 times he refused to answer.
- Status
Re:
Worse thing about this is Dave clearly said he wouldn't do this prior to the election
Brullnux said:
Worse thing about this is Dave clearly said he wouldn't do this prior to the election
Re: Re:
Think 1992 GB snr in power, WWII hero having just pushed Saddam out of Kuwait in double quick time, Clinton's campaign comes up with a slogan "its the economy stupid", the die is cast
Anyway I digress Keynsian economics - wasn't that the instigator of FDR's new deal that got US out of depression, basically the core of western economics until Thatcher/Reagan
blackcat said:del1962 said:Here is the guy you should consult
was thinking about Canuck's who have been in the US administration, Zbrezinski Galbraith, there was a spokesman for GOP last decade too...
but i was not gonna pick JMK, did not know his face
Think 1992 GB snr in power, WWII hero having just pushed Saddam out of Kuwait in double quick time, Clinton's campaign comes up with a slogan "its the economy stupid", the die is cast
Anyway I digress Keynsian economics - wasn't that the instigator of FDR's new deal that got US out of depression, basically the core of western economics until Thatcher/Reagan
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,577
- 28,180
Can any of you Europeeps tell me how serious of an issue the Left being banned in politics in Portugal is?
I hear some saying it really is the tipping point. But others saying the left still has a minority. And some others saying the Telegraph is center-right rag stirring things up. But others are saying austerity is completely draining the life out of a generation of people, not just in Portugal (and Greece) but many other places in Europe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
I hear some saying it really is the tipping point. But others saying the left still has a minority. And some others saying the Telegraph is center-right rag stirring things up. But others are saying austerity is completely draining the life out of a generation of people, not just in Portugal (and Greece) but many other places in Europe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
Re:
The Telegraph are mainly using this news to create anti-EU sentiment.The fact they were banned from office has little to do with them being anti-EU and anti-euro, but rather anti-Austerity. The Telegraph and the British right, fervently anti-EU, want to spin the news to make it seem as if the EU told the Portuguese President to 'ban' (not really banned, just denied) the left wing party from government. Many people believe in the UK that the EU is a dictatorship that has no other goal but to expand their power. It is called undemocratic and a lot of other things in the same vein. They seem to forget that anyone over 18 can actually vote which party (or group of parties of the same ideology) is most represented in the European Parliament. The UK voted UKIP in an attempt at some sort of protest. UKIP have one of the worst attendance records at the EU parliament.
Anyway, back to your question, yeah it is serious. Very serious. I am not an expert in the Portuguese constitution (I'll ask BigMac for that) but I imagine this is unprecedented/extremely rare. Austerity has destroyed Portugal and Greece, Spain and Italy too. UK has paid a price too, although we seem to be pretty happy about it. Problem is, in the euro, there is little other option until Merkel, the ECB and the IMF change their mind.
Fixed that for youAlpe d'Huez said:
The Telegraph are mainly using this news to create anti-EU sentiment.The fact they were banned from office has little to do with them being anti-EU and anti-euro, but rather anti-Austerity. The Telegraph and the British right, fervently anti-EU, want to spin the news to make it seem as if the EU told the Portuguese President to 'ban' (not really banned, just denied) the left wing party from government. Many people believe in the UK that the EU is a dictatorship that has no other goal but to expand their power. It is called undemocratic and a lot of other things in the same vein. They seem to forget that anyone over 18 can actually vote which party (or group of parties of the same ideology) is most represented in the European Parliament. The UK voted UKIP in an attempt at some sort of protest. UKIP have one of the worst attendance records at the EU parliament.
Anyway, back to your question, yeah it is serious. Very serious. I am not an expert in the Portuguese constitution (I'll ask BigMac for that) but I imagine this is unprecedented/extremely rare. Austerity has destroyed Portugal and Greece, Spain and Italy too. UK has paid a price too, although we seem to be pretty happy about it. Problem is, in the euro, there is little other option until Merkel, the ECB and the IMF change their mind.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re:
....yeah I ran into that article last week....and frankly couldn't make much sense of it until I ran into the following...
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Last Saturday, after landing at Lisbon airport and checking Twitter, I discovered that a coup d’etat was taking place in Portugal, my home country. Or at least an English-speaking coup, since the Portuguese-speaking users in my Twitter feed were happy to ignore it.
What had started the frenzy was an article published by the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which said that the Portuguese president, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, had taken the “explicit step of forbidding Eurosceptic parties from taking office” – a decision, the article implied, which had come about as a result of pressure exercised by “EU austerity mandarins”. But the true story of what has happened is a different one.
Each European state has its own political system, with its own peculiarities, with elements closely linked to their own national history. To outsiders, these peculiarities can sometimes look deeply undemocratic. For example, it may seem odd to some Europeans that a democratic country would have an unelected hereditary head of state and an unelected upper house that can block laws from the elected lower house of parliament. How democratic can a system be where a party with 12.6% of the vote gets one MP while another gets 56 MPs with 4.7%?
While parliamentarism is dominant in the European Union – 24 out of 28 member states follow that system – there are other systems. Portugal and France, for example, are semi-presidential republics where the president is not a ceremonial figure but directly elected by the people, with powers to appoint the prime minister or to dissolve the parliament. And the legitimate exercise of those powers is what happened in Portugal last week.
The most probable scenario is that by the end of the next month Portugal will have a leftwing government
After four years of austerity, this month’s parliamentary elections produced a messy result: Pedro Passos Coelho’s ruling rightwing Forward Portugal Alliance (PAF) won the most votes and the most seats in parliament, but lost its overall majority to anti-austerity parties – the centre-left Socialists, the radical Left Bloc and the Communists.
According to the Portuguese constitution, the president has the right to choose the prime minister “after consulting the parties with seats in the assembly of the republic and in light of the electoral results”. What the president legitimately did was to choose the leader of the coalition with the most votes, which, in the eyes of British Eurosceptics, constituted a coup. So why was the common view on the Portuguese left that the president’s decision was “a waste of time”? The good news for British commentators worried about the state of Portuguese democracy is that parliament still has the last word: after the new government has been nominated by the president, any party can table a vote of no confidence which, if approved, would bring down the nominated government."
.....
....so it may just be that The Telegraph article is just a bunch of hot air to incite Euro-Scepticism....which is pretty standard stuff out of The Telegraph playbook...
...and btw Truth Out which is where I originally saw the article has now scrubbed it from their system which I think is telling...
Cheers
Alpe d'Huez said:
....yeah I ran into that article last week....and frankly couldn't make much sense of it until I ran into the following...
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Last Saturday, after landing at Lisbon airport and checking Twitter, I discovered that a coup d’etat was taking place in Portugal, my home country. Or at least an English-speaking coup, since the Portuguese-speaking users in my Twitter feed were happy to ignore it.
What had started the frenzy was an article published by the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which said that the Portuguese president, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, had taken the “explicit step of forbidding Eurosceptic parties from taking office” – a decision, the article implied, which had come about as a result of pressure exercised by “EU austerity mandarins”. But the true story of what has happened is a different one.
Each European state has its own political system, with its own peculiarities, with elements closely linked to their own national history. To outsiders, these peculiarities can sometimes look deeply undemocratic. For example, it may seem odd to some Europeans that a democratic country would have an unelected hereditary head of state and an unelected upper house that can block laws from the elected lower house of parliament. How democratic can a system be where a party with 12.6% of the vote gets one MP while another gets 56 MPs with 4.7%?
While parliamentarism is dominant in the European Union – 24 out of 28 member states follow that system – there are other systems. Portugal and France, for example, are semi-presidential republics where the president is not a ceremonial figure but directly elected by the people, with powers to appoint the prime minister or to dissolve the parliament. And the legitimate exercise of those powers is what happened in Portugal last week.
The most probable scenario is that by the end of the next month Portugal will have a leftwing government
After four years of austerity, this month’s parliamentary elections produced a messy result: Pedro Passos Coelho’s ruling rightwing Forward Portugal Alliance (PAF) won the most votes and the most seats in parliament, but lost its overall majority to anti-austerity parties – the centre-left Socialists, the radical Left Bloc and the Communists.
According to the Portuguese constitution, the president has the right to choose the prime minister “after consulting the parties with seats in the assembly of the republic and in light of the electoral results”. What the president legitimately did was to choose the leader of the coalition with the most votes, which, in the eyes of British Eurosceptics, constituted a coup. So why was the common view on the Portuguese left that the president’s decision was “a waste of time”? The good news for British commentators worried about the state of Portuguese democracy is that parliament still has the last word: after the new government has been nominated by the president, any party can table a vote of no confidence which, if approved, would bring down the nominated government."
.....
....so it may just be that The Telegraph article is just a bunch of hot air to incite Euro-Scepticism....which is pretty standard stuff out of The Telegraph playbook...
...and btw Truth Out which is where I originally saw the article has now scrubbed it from their system which I think is telling...
Cheers
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
My two learned colleagues above have pretty much covered your question, Alpe. The Telegraph is not for nothing widely known as the Torygraph, and for being Euro-skeptic. I get a lot of coverage of Euro stories, but I have to say that this Portuguese story never even appeared on my radar. What is certainly true is that an ever increasing number of people in ever more countries are sick of austerity. Sadly, in original founder countries like the Benelux, Germany and France, we are still light years away from being able to change this disastrous policy through the ballot box.
- Apr 15, 2014
- 4,254
- 2,341
- 18,680
Putin Believes Global Warming ‘Is A Fraud To Restrain Developing Nations’
So, another one that doesn't like what global warming would imply, therefore questioning its existance.
Scott and the Tea Party have found a partner in crime.
So, another one that doesn't like what global warming would imply, therefore questioning its existance.
Scott and the Tea Party have found a partner in crime.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re:
....one really has to be aware of the provenance of sources....as in who says what about whom and why....the, uhhh, article( s) that is/are carrying this tripe make The Telegraph article mentioned above seem like high art worthy of a Pulitzer or Nobel ....read, this is crap low level propaganda, full stop....not unlike stuff that NoCred typically uses to backfill a point...
Cheers
Jagartrott said:
....one really has to be aware of the provenance of sources....as in who says what about whom and why....the, uhhh, article( s) that is/are carrying this tripe make The Telegraph article mentioned above seem like high art worthy of a Pulitzer or Nobel ....read, this is crap low level propaganda, full stop....not unlike stuff that NoCred typically uses to backfill a point...
Cheers
You don't get it at all, folks. Amazing!
First, the Portuguese "Left Bloc" is absolutely not anti-Euro, that's Pritchard's only mistake. There's no legal way to exit the Eurozone anyway but by leaving the European Union. Leaving the European Union is possible by Art. 50 of the TEU. But hardly any parties in Europe propose that (not even so-called far-right parties, least of all, I should say): only UKIP, the French UPR and the Greek EPAM, to my knowledge.
Pritchard is one of the best journos there is. In an article on Sep. 19 2000 he showed the work by historian Joshua Paul proving (with declassified document) that the European Economic Community was an American creation, that the Founding Fathers of the EU (Jean Monnet, Joseph Retinger, Robert Schuman, etc.) were paid by the State Department and more importantly that by 1965, the State Department ordered the Vice-President of the Euro Commission, Robert Marjolin (let us remember that the President of it was former SS Walter Hallstein), to favour the creation of a monetary union and recommends suppressing debate until the point at which adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable (but no, the EU is not a dictatorship !!).
The EU is not a dictatorship because we may vote for MEP, you say? But Jeeez, have ever wondered how much power the Euro Parliament has? Nothing! The Euro commission has a Monopoly on Legislative Initiative. The Parliament vote is by no means restrictive. The Commission always has the last word. It means that when MEP's vote against a directive, the Commission just say, "thanks for your advice, folks, no go and play in your kindergarten and let the grown men decide".
The Commission has the executive power, the legislative power and even has an inspection right on the judicial power. The Commission concentrates all three powers and the commissioners have never been elected by anybody. In correct English you call that a DICTATORSHIP!
You gotta love all those pro-EU left-wingers. They just show their true faces. If you are pro-EU, you support all Euro treaties and all articles in them. So for example, the ignominious article 63 of the TFEU which states:
This article has been there since Maastricht 1992. It simply meant the start for the relocation of all our industry overseas in low cost countries, with as corollary the dramatic rise in unemployment in our own countries.
And that is what you are supporting by advocating for the EU !!
Just like Qatar buying out Parisian luxury hotels, Spanish football clubs, Burgondian vineyards or building a tower in London. All according to art. 63 of the TFEU! Before Maastricht, you could not do that because the Treasuries had control over movements of capital and over imports. Now, they have to say Amen! to anything.
So I claim that if you support the EU, you either are ignorant of the law or you have no sympathy for people suffering on this continent. And I think that is typically left-wing. Goodthinkers who have never been affected by any institutional reforms whatsoever!
First, the Portuguese "Left Bloc" is absolutely not anti-Euro, that's Pritchard's only mistake. There's no legal way to exit the Eurozone anyway but by leaving the European Union. Leaving the European Union is possible by Art. 50 of the TEU. But hardly any parties in Europe propose that (not even so-called far-right parties, least of all, I should say): only UKIP, the French UPR and the Greek EPAM, to my knowledge.
Pritchard is one of the best journos there is. In an article on Sep. 19 2000 he showed the work by historian Joshua Paul proving (with declassified document) that the European Economic Community was an American creation, that the Founding Fathers of the EU (Jean Monnet, Joseph Retinger, Robert Schuman, etc.) were paid by the State Department and more importantly that by 1965, the State Department ordered the Vice-President of the Euro Commission, Robert Marjolin (let us remember that the President of it was former SS Walter Hallstein), to favour the creation of a monetary union and recommends suppressing debate until the point at which adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable (but no, the EU is not a dictatorship !!).
The EU is not a dictatorship because we may vote for MEP, you say? But Jeeez, have ever wondered how much power the Euro Parliament has? Nothing! The Euro commission has a Monopoly on Legislative Initiative. The Parliament vote is by no means restrictive. The Commission always has the last word. It means that when MEP's vote against a directive, the Commission just say, "thanks for your advice, folks, no go and play in your kindergarten and let the grown men decide".
The Commission has the executive power, the legislative power and even has an inspection right on the judicial power. The Commission concentrates all three powers and the commissioners have never been elected by anybody. In correct English you call that a DICTATORSHIP!
You gotta love all those pro-EU left-wingers. They just show their true faces. If you are pro-EU, you support all Euro treaties and all articles in them. So for example, the ignominious article 63 of the TFEU which states:
This article has been there since Maastricht 1992. It simply meant the start for the relocation of all our industry overseas in low cost countries, with as corollary the dramatic rise in unemployment in our own countries.
And that is what you are supporting by advocating for the EU !!
Just like Qatar buying out Parisian luxury hotels, Spanish football clubs, Burgondian vineyards or building a tower in London. All according to art. 63 of the TFEU! Before Maastricht, you could not do that because the Treasuries had control over movements of capital and over imports. Now, they have to say Amen! to anything.
So I claim that if you support the EU, you either are ignorant of the law or you have no sympathy for people suffering on this continent. And I think that is typically left-wing. Goodthinkers who have never been affected by any institutional reforms whatsoever!
However, it is a democratic 'dictatorship' because the European Parliament votes the commission leader in, it's not like one guy in a room just goes "You. You are the leader"; they are voted in by the people we voted in. If you voted for the party that the leader represents but you dislike the leader, then it's your fault for voting wrong. So that is where you are very wrong. The commissioners are voted in by someone. Then they decide the cabinet members, usually a rough mix of ALDE, EPP and PES mix. Eurosceptic groups (hard or soft) arent represented but ti is better than having 100% EPP members, like most national governments have (not coalitions). Remember, we don't decide cabinets either in any government. In fact the Euro cabinet is decided by the national governments of each country, who send a selected member for each position. Every country is represented.
It's not really a dictatorship point 2) The council now holds as much power than the commission. The council is made up of prime minister/president/leader of every member country + the Euro Comission dude.
While it's not entirely democratic, and has a long way to go, it is not a dictatorship and is making steps forward.
It's not really a dictatorship point 2) The council now holds as much power than the commission. The council is made up of prime minister/president/leader of every member country + the Euro Comission dude.
While it's not entirely democratic, and has a long way to go, it is not a dictatorship and is making steps forward.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
python i cant be the only one who thinks the Aeroflot plane that comes down over Alexandria or Egypt, this has to be a plausible deniability Flight 655.
Without having any evidence, I am thinking blackops, Too much of a coincidence.
And seeing "evidence" from either side, wont make me move to less chance or more chance, because i wont trust any of the evidence.
this is one of Donnie Rumsfelds known unknowns. I cannot know either way. Also, I cannot trust either way. I cannot have any confidence in assuming the official position. Just like I will not take any confidence in assuming the (official) contra position, or, conspiracy version.
I do know, ethically, well, morally, $hit just got *** up if the "good guys" <tongue in cheek> were integral in bringing down the plane.
Without having any evidence, I am thinking blackops, Too much of a coincidence.
And seeing "evidence" from either side, wont make me move to less chance or more chance, because i wont trust any of the evidence.
this is one of Donnie Rumsfelds known unknowns. I cannot know either way. Also, I cannot trust either way. I cannot have any confidence in assuming the official position. Just like I will not take any confidence in assuming the (official) contra position, or, conspiracy version.
I do know, ethically, well, morally, $hit just got *** up if the "good guys" <tongue in cheek> were integral in bringing down the plane.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
Re:
what do we know so far (tentatively of course) which could qualify as facts:
-the plane was above the terrorist preferred weapon range against such targets -the manpads - good to no more than 5 kilos up.
-there no, none, surface-to-air means in sinai (where the russian civilian craft went down) capable of 10K metres altitude (like the infamous buks that allegedly shut down mh-17). this is the firm-in-concrete postulate from the israel-egypt peace treaty that survived decades w/o a sigle problem. thus, given the facts available to-date i exclude a terrorist or a provocation (from the 'good guys'). that said, the israeli claims of being the first to locate the wreckage and, curiously, offering an instant help to investigate the incidence (not accepted by the russians yet) should be interesting to follow.
- russian non govt-supported carriers (that is, non airflat) are notoriously poor-serviced and accident prone.
there isn't much more to say with any reasonable confidence at this point.
ps...wanted to add via an edit: of course, the internal explosion via a baggage is always a possible. this could be accomplished by a number of means - from a deliberate poor boarding controls in egypt to unfortunate human error by the airport officials to a plot exploiting the just suggested. either way, it will be very easily checked b/c the black boxes have been retrieved and will answer the internal explosion version conclusively, if one had taken place.
i dont have any opinion at this point given the catastrophe had happened only hours earlier and the investigation just started...blackcat said:
what do we know so far (tentatively of course) which could qualify as facts:
-the plane was above the terrorist preferred weapon range against such targets -the manpads - good to no more than 5 kilos up.
-there no, none, surface-to-air means in sinai (where the russian civilian craft went down) capable of 10K metres altitude (like the infamous buks that allegedly shut down mh-17). this is the firm-in-concrete postulate from the israel-egypt peace treaty that survived decades w/o a sigle problem. thus, given the facts available to-date i exclude a terrorist or a provocation (from the 'good guys'). that said, the israeli claims of being the first to locate the wreckage and, curiously, offering an instant help to investigate the incidence (not accepted by the russians yet) should be interesting to follow.
- russian non govt-supported carriers (that is, non airflat) are notoriously poor-serviced and accident prone.
there isn't much more to say with any reasonable confidence at this point.
ps...wanted to add via an edit: of course, the internal explosion via a baggage is always a possible. this could be accomplished by a number of means - from a deliberate poor boarding controls in egypt to unfortunate human error by the airport officials to a plot exploiting the just suggested. either way, it will be very easily checked b/c the black boxes have been retrieved and will answer the internal explosion version conclusively, if one had taken place.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Re: Re:
I was thinking Yankees tho. Not Israelis. Israeli's, well behind my reckoning.
And I am thinking of means and techniques that will give plausible deniability. I dont expect another Iran airliner 655 being shot our of the gulf by the US navy. I expect if it was done, it would have been done which has offered the Russians zero evidence or recompense, but the indirect or meta evidence, the "evidence of no evidence" would have the russians being highly highly highly highly highly highly suspicious. but no response, no direct retributive act. proxies? yeah, they will ramp up the proxies. So we may be able to indirectly work out what is going on by the proxy responses.
python said:
I was thinking Yankees tho. Not Israelis. Israeli's, well behind my reckoning.
And I am thinking of means and techniques that will give plausible deniability. I dont expect another Iran airliner 655 being shot our of the gulf by the US navy. I expect if it was done, it would have been done which has offered the Russians zero evidence or recompense, but the indirect or meta evidence, the "evidence of no evidence" would have the russians being highly highly highly highly highly highly suspicious. but no response, no direct retributive act. proxies? yeah, they will ramp up the proxies. So we may be able to indirectly work out what is going on by the proxy responses.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
oh, and boots on the ground?
phleeeese, who believes this press release from the whitehouse? they are putting 4 dozen seals or special forces into Syria against ISIS just from training and tactics?
these special forces have been on the ground for over a year now, they are not putting them in now.
What they are doing, is changing the messaging, because the likelihood that it becomes proper force boots on ground. the plans will have been in the works for a year, the plans will have been approved, and this will be the first step in making the public aware
redline
phleeeese, who believes this press release from the whitehouse? they are putting 4 dozen seals or special forces into Syria against ISIS just from training and tactics?
these special forces have been on the ground for over a year now, they are not putting them in now.
What they are doing, is changing the messaging, because the likelihood that it becomes proper force boots on ground. the plans will have been in the works for a year, the plans will have been approved, and this will be the first step in making the public aware
redline
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
Re: Re:
the airline accident science is quite well developed, so, unless the accident was cause by an internal blast, which could be easily detected, the american connection is possible but still unproven.
my guess - they would not need the provocation in the midst of the vienna talks. but again, this is a rational behavior one usually sees in foreign ministry's but not necessarily the intelligence and the military.
see my edit of the post above.blackcat said:
the airline accident science is quite well developed, so, unless the accident was cause by an internal blast, which could be easily detected, the american connection is possible but still unproven.
my guess - they would not need the provocation in the midst of the vienna talks. but again, this is a rational behavior one usually sees in foreign ministry's but not necessarily the intelligence and the military.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
Re:
also, tellingly the special forces were all employed to the syrian kurdish support - the fact not advertised to avoid upsetting the turks - but really, there is no one else in syria for the us to rely on, including the fluff like 'the free syrian army'
this i agree to completely. the 'boots' were there long ago. they are called 'spotters' without whom ANY modern precision weapons fired from the air are useless. these guys are risking hugely but they are roaming syrian emptiness with laser painters for those laser guided bombs and with other communication and targeting gear that isn't talked a lot about..the announcement of their 'introduction' was purely political to indicate to the domestic critics: 'involvement, action and resolve' in the face of obama indecision (which i justify) and failures (which i think he was mis-advised)blackcat said:
also, tellingly the special forces were all employed to the syrian kurdish support - the fact not advertised to avoid upsetting the turks - but really, there is no one else in syria for the us to rely on, including the fluff like 'the free syrian army'
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Re: Re:
Most(all) modern US aircraft are self lasers, nobody on the ground needed to laze the target. Other weapons used are either optical or GPS type. No 'Spotters' needed. But I agree, US special forces have been in this area for a long time. And I am sure the Russians won't be targeting any Kurds or not surprisingly, some Russian troops may be targeted also.
python said:
Most(all) modern US aircraft are self lasers, nobody on the ground needed to laze the target. Other weapons used are either optical or GPS type. No 'Spotters' needed. But I agree, US special forces have been in this area for a long time. And I am sure the Russians won't be targeting any Kurds or not surprisingly, some Russian troops may be targeted also.
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
Re:
You need to urgently go out and buy all the tin foil you can find. I can't imagine what life is like with your kind of paranoia. Nothing is known yet, but you are happy to assume the crackpot worst. Shameful, dude.
blackcat said:
You need to urgently go out and buy all the tin foil you can find. I can't imagine what life is like with your kind of paranoia. Nothing is known yet, but you are happy to assume the crackpot worst. Shameful, dude.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Re: Re:
also, tellingly the special forces were all employed to the syrian kurdish support - the fact not advertised to avoid upsetting the turks - but really, there is no one else in syria for the us to rely on, including the fluff like 'the free syrian army'[/quote]
lasers yep. I could not remember a technical term and said "bluelight" on another forum.
have you thought of this conspiracy?
Da'esh or ISIS or IS or whatever they go by, they actually have an american uniform military captured...
Pentagon needed to tell the public they have forces on the ground, cos how else would this guy have been captured?
just throwing some conspiracy counter factuals out there for the fun...
this i agree to completely. the 'boots' were there long ago. they are called 'spotters' without whom ANY modern precision weapons fired from the air are useless. these guys are risking hugely but they are roaming syrian emptiness with laser painters for those laser guided bombs and with other communication and targeting gear that isn't talked a lot about..the announcement of their 'introduction' was purely political to indicate to the domestic critics: 'involvement, action and resolve' in the face of obama indecision (which i justify) and failures (which i think he was mis-advised)python said:
also, tellingly the special forces were all employed to the syrian kurdish support - the fact not advertised to avoid upsetting the turks - but really, there is no one else in syria for the us to rely on, including the fluff like 'the free syrian army'[/quote]
lasers yep. I could not remember a technical term and said "bluelight" on another forum.
have you thought of this conspiracy?
Da'esh or ISIS or IS or whatever they go by, they actually have an american uniform military captured...
Pentagon needed to tell the public they have forces on the ground, cos how else would this guy have been captured?
just throwing some conspiracy counter factuals out there for the fun...
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Re: Re:
lasers yep. I could not remember a technical term and said "bluelight" on another forum.
have you thought of this conspiracy?
Da'esh or ISIS or IS or whatever they go by, they actually have an american uniform military captured...
Pentagon needed to tell the public they have forces on the ground, cos how else would this guy have been captured?
just throwing some conspiracy counter factuals out there for the fun...[/quote]
Link??
blackcat said:
lasers yep. I could not remember a technical term and said "bluelight" on another forum.
have you thought of this conspiracy?
Da'esh or ISIS or IS or whatever they go by, they actually have an american uniform military captured...
Pentagon needed to tell the public they have forces on the ground, cos how else would this guy have been captured?
just throwing some conspiracy counter factuals out there for the fun...
[/quote]Link??
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....well as long as we're sittin' here on the porch tellin' stories here's something to chew on...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember when the U.S. was whining that Russian cruise missiles fired into Syria were in danger of hitting our drones? Good ol’ SecDef Ash Carter laid that one on us. I think a U.S. drone either hit this Russian airliner by accident, or it ran into a drone. This would appear to be far more likely than any other scenario I’ve heard.
Look, the U.S. has been saying for years now that drones are presenting a threat to air traffic. And that’s the smaller ones, the size of pigeons and hawks that they’re talking about. In fact, at a recent Southern California wildfire, firefighters couldn’t bring in air tankers due to private drone traffic around the scene. The drones that the U.S. military uses are substantially larger. Therefore, if an airliner struck a drone the size of the ones the U.S. military uses, it would certainly be capable of fatally disabling the aircraft."
....from... https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/jack-perry/us-drone-russian-metrojet/
....now ain't that just a class-A whopper....or not ?....
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember when the U.S. was whining that Russian cruise missiles fired into Syria were in danger of hitting our drones? Good ol’ SecDef Ash Carter laid that one on us. I think a U.S. drone either hit this Russian airliner by accident, or it ran into a drone. This would appear to be far more likely than any other scenario I’ve heard.
Look, the U.S. has been saying for years now that drones are presenting a threat to air traffic. And that’s the smaller ones, the size of pigeons and hawks that they’re talking about. In fact, at a recent Southern California wildfire, firefighters couldn’t bring in air tankers due to private drone traffic around the scene. The drones that the U.S. military uses are substantially larger. Therefore, if an airliner struck a drone the size of the ones the U.S. military uses, it would certainly be capable of fatally disabling the aircraft."
....from... https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/jack-perry/us-drone-russian-metrojet/
....now ain't that just a class-A whopper....or not ?....
Cheers
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Re:
Not
"LewRockwell.com
anti-state•anti-war•pro-market"
Give me about an hour and I'll find a website that says aliens shot it down. Or Jeb was behind it...
blutto said:
Not
"LewRockwell.com
anti-state•anti-war•pro-market"
Give me about an hour and I'll find a website that says aliens shot it down. Or Jeb was behind it...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram