World Politics

[Amsterhammer]

FAO conspiratards - the weapons carried by US planes and drones do NOT require 'spotters' to paint the target with laser beams. The only thing required is an accurate GPS coordinate. This is obtained by use of a little hand held gizmo that the US has given to some (few) 'acceptable' rebels on the ground. Once they have a GPS, they 'phone' that in to the US liaison office in the Gulf, who then calls in the airstrikes. Perhaps this system goes some way to explaining how all this bombing has achieved so little.

Meanwhile, Erdogan has begun his post election crack down by arresting journalists and editors whom he accuses of being involved in a coup.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

FAO conspiratards - the weapons carried by US planes and drones do NOT require 'spotters' to paint the target with laser beams. The only thing required is an accurate GPS coordinate. This is obtained by use of a little hand held gizmo that the US has given to some (few) 'acceptable' rebels on the ground. Once they have a GPS, they 'phone' that in to the US liaison office in the Gulf, who then calls in the airstrikes. Perhaps this system goes some way to explaining how all this bombing has achieved so little.

Meanwhile, Erdogan has begun his post election crack down by arresting journalists and editors whom he accuses of being involved in a coup.

A lot of precision weapons are still laser and optical. GPS is used a lot but very limited in that the coordinates have to be imputed, not quite as flexible in the Fog of War, with targets of opportunity. GPS almost useless for CAS. 'Drop it on the big white building', type stuff.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....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

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...

....you won't have to look any further, just rummage thru the archives at Lew Rockwell and you should be able to find something that fills the bill in about 5 min....

....btw that site is just a hoot....high octane conservatives with polished pretensions and like with footnotes and everything....somewhere our very own NoCred will love to graduate to once he grows up and "leaves home"...they pride themselves on being the modern carriers of water for Hayek, Mises, and Rand....though occasionally good articles do slip thru...

...nice to visit every once in a while just to see how the other side lives....

Cheers

 

[hrotha]

I sure as hell would hope the US actually has spotters on the ground if the alternative is blindly bombing whatever some guys of dubious allegiance on the ground tell you to bomb. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to have nearly strict enough target acquisition standards, so...

 

[python]

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

 

[blackcat]

thnx Python

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

I sure as hell would hope the US actually has spotters on the ground if the alternative is blindly bombing whatever some guys of dubious allegiance on the ground tell you to bomb. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to have nearly strict enough target acquisition standards, so...

What has been 'unique' about the US/French air campaign in Syria and Irag, targeting ISIL, is the amount of ordnance brought back, because for one reason or another, the target couldn't be attacked.

Pretty easy with a bunch of guys, face covered, in a Toyota, roaring around with black flags. Somewhat tougher when they hold up in a hospital or mosque.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

What has been 'unique' about the US/French air campaign in Syria and Irag, targeting ISIL, is the amount of ordnance brought back, because for one reason or another, the target couldn't be attacked.

Pretty easy with a bunch of guys, face covered, in a Toyota, roaring around with black flags. Somewhat tougher when they hold up in a hospital or mosque.

There are many incidents, especially with drone attacks outside of Syria, that suggest the US isn't all that thorough with their target acquisition. That Russia in all probability is even worse doesn't change that.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

....nice succinct statement that nicely covers a lot of ground and hits most if not all of the relevant targets....

....maybe time for some cold beverages and a sit down to admire this fine post....

Cheers

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

The problem is that these situations are so complex that it is usually damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Then there is the political motivation for going to fight in foreign countries. In my opinion, Hollande decided to bomb Daesh because there are regional elections coming up and he got a boost in the polls when he ordered troops to Mali a few years back, not because of real geopolitical dangers. War as a presidential communication tool, that is the world we are living in.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

for what it's worth here's my 5 amateur pennies, though i do follow the military technology somewhat...

the term 'spotters' is NOT literal rather a general role description of a small ground-based group tasked with obtaining and communicating immediate intelligence on a target and - which is as important - the assessment of the effectiveness of a target destruction. the term takes its origin from the artillery spotters whose job was (and still is) to guide the long-range gunners deprived of seeing their targets directly.

It is very important to stress, that in any sophisticated air force (which the usaf certainly is) the 'spotters' are only one element of a multiplayer intelligence system designed to assess, collect, select, confirm and finally eliminate a target. the other elements include satellites, local surveillance drones, ground and air based radar assets and , yes, old-fashioned human spies.

it is this element - the locals - any air force strives to use for a better targeting. the us seems inferior to the russian bombers in this regard. more specifically, the russians can rely on the syrian govt arab networks on the ground in their own country whilst the americans are lost figuring out which rebel group they can trust...

and very briefly, as far as i know from the open sources, it is incorrect to favour one air-to-ground targeting and guidance method over each other. there are several methods - the gps, laser, cctv, active/passive/semi-active radar, infrared etc - that are each used in different conditions. each has its pluses and minuses...for instance, the laser is notoriously dispersed by the desert dust and sand while cctv (cameras) cant see through objects well or the infrared is too short range etc etc. thus the most sophisticated bombs and missiles (particularly the cruise ones) are employing a multi-level system which gets expensive...i reckon therefore, the us still enjoys a considerable advantage over the russians in the precision guidance weaponry. simply b/c the americans can spend more $$.

but in syria the gap has been shown to shrink very worryingly for the cocky americans.

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

The problem is that these situations are so complex that it is usually damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Then there is the political motivation for going to fight in foreign countries. In my opinion, Hollande decided to bomb Daesh because there are regional elections coming up and he got a boost in the polls when he ordered troops to Mali a few years back, not because of real geopolitical dangers. War as a presidential communication tool, that is the world we are living in.

....what a great coolistical idea, killing people to acquire votes....much better than buying votes because that would be considered corruption which is very bad form and just not done by proper people...

...and yes, that is unfortunately, the world we are living in....

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

FAO conspiratards - the weapons carried by US planes and drones do NOT require 'spotters' to paint the target with laser beams. The only thing required is an accurate GPS coordinate. This is obtained by use of a little hand held gizmo that the US has given to some (few) 'acceptable' rebels on the ground. Once they have a GPS, they 'phone' that in to the US liaison office in the Gulf, who then calls in the airstrikes. Perhaps this system goes some way to explaining how all this bombing has achieved so little.

Meanwhile, Erdogan has begun his post election crack down by arresting journalists and editors whom he accuses of being involved in a coup.

Conspiratards is a good term to describe some of the chunk that was blown in this tread with respect to the Russian's Jet. Yet every time something goes down it is the same brain is on da slaw stuff.

The best thing that could happen is for the USA to stay the he!! out of that region. Don't go anywhere near it. Still the same Conspiratards will have thousands of CIA operatives roaming the area to do our bidding here in Merikah.

 

[frenchfry]

Speaking of climate change....

On the news at noon there was a report on a Belgian brewery that uses the cooling at night as an essential step in the natural brewing process. They had to interupt production because of unusually warm nights recently. Second time in five years.

Of course some would say this obviously has nothing to do with all the pollution we are spewing into the environment, but when Belgian beer production is at stake opinions might change...

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

[

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.[/quote]i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.[/quote]

Most americans feel the same way. I am sure, if the US left, the 'European Union' would take care of this, as ISIL marched to the west. I am sure, the European Union would be happy to confront Putin as he also, marches to the west. Right? Or, maybe not.

BUT if the US did leave, what crisis would happen before the EU actually came to the party?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

[

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.[/quote]

Most americans feel the same way. I am sure, if the US left, the 'European Union' would take care of this, as ISIL marched to the west. I am sure, the European Union would be happy to confront Putin as he also, marches to the west. Right? Or, maybe not.

BUT if the US did leave, what crisis would happen before the EU actually came to the party?[/quote]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....as we all know blutto is more than a bit dim.....so could you please explain why exactly the EU should confront Putin....

Cheers

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

[

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

Most americans feel the same way. I am sure, if the US left, the 'European Union' would take care of this, as ISIL marched to the west. I am sure, the European Union would be happy to confront Putin as he also, marches to the west. Right? Or, maybe not.

BUT if the US did leave, what crisis would happen before the EU actually came to the party?[/quote]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....as we all know blutto is more than a bit dim.....so could you please explain why exactly the EU should confront Putin....

Cheers[/quote]

Err because he wants to annex large parts of Eastern Europe, former parts of the USSR, the operative word being 'Europe'...

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

[

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

Most americans feel the same way. I am sure, if the US left, the 'European Union' would take care of this, as ISIL marched to the west. I am sure, the European Union would be happy to confront Putin as he also, marches to the west. Right? Or, maybe not.

BUT if the US did leave, what crisis would happen before the EU actually came to the party?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....as we all know blutto is more than a bit dim.....so could you please explain why exactly the EU should confront Putin....

Cheers[/quote]

Err because he wants to annex large parts of Eastern Europe, former parts of the USSR, the operative word being 'Europe'...[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
....and which large parts would those be exactly....

Cheers

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re:

Speaking of climate change....

On the news at noon there was a report on a Belgian brewery that uses the cooling at night as an essential step in the natural brewing process. They had to interupt production because of unusually warm nights recently. Second time in five years.

Of course some would say this obviously has nothing to do with all the pollution we are spewing into the environment, but when Belgian beer production is at stake opinions might change...

This post needs to go in the US Politics thread for Scott to see. Way more effective than a bunch of photos of algore's various houses

 

[Merckx index]

Didn't see this posted here? Latest reports are that British and U.S. intelligence think it's likely that a bomb brought down the plane near Sharm El-Sheikh. Not confirmed, but I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they thought the evidence was pretty strong. Either that, or they want to marshall public opinion against ISIL even more than it already is.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

Didn't see this posted here? Latest reports are that British and U.S. intelligence think it's likely that a bomb brought down the plane near Sharm El-Sheikh. Not confirmed, but I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they thought the evidence was pretty strong. Either that, or they want to marshall public opinion against ISIL even more than it already is.

And the latest leaks from St. Petersburg, where forensic experts are working to identify the bodies - bodies at the front of the plane showed the kind of trauma consistent with having fallen out of the sky, whereas bodies at the rear showed impacts by small metal objects. This 'news' coming out of Russia lends more credence to the bomb on plane scenario. All sides (except Egypt) now saying that security at S-E-S airport was lax.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Didn't see this posted here? Latest reports are that British and U.S. intelligence think it's likely that a bomb brought down the plane near Sharm El-Sheikh. Not confirmed, but I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they thought the evidence was pretty strong. Either that, or they want to marshall public opinion against ISIL even more than it already is.

if it is something ON THE PLANE that has brought it down, my intuition is correct, it is a US dirty trickx, black-ops.

they wont leave enough evidence to trace it back to a particular action by CIA... there will be multiple barriers and levels and chinese walls for the plausible deniability

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

[

What would you prefer, precision by the US and some by the Russians(their ROE are 'suspect, bunch of cowboys in their first air campaign) or a cell of B-52s, doing an arc light mission.

You Euros are an interesting bunch, sitting in your safe haven(for now) sipping a latte' while others do the heavy lifting for you. OBTW-ISIL is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

i'd prefer the cocky americans not to do the 'heavy lifting' for anyone, including 'us euros'. almost 2 decades of non-stop invasions and wars, including in blatant disregard of international law, the opinions of many europeans and plain common sense is not 'heavy lifting. it is arrogant, often unilateral foreign policy...perhaps then, there would no need for a false pretending doing the 'heavy lifting'.

Most americans feel the same way. I am sure, if the US left, the 'European Union' would take care of this, as ISIL marched to the west. I am sure, the European Union would be happy to confront Putin as he also, marches to the west. Right? Or, maybe not.

BUT if the US did leave, what crisis would happen before the EU actually came to the party?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....as we all know blutto is more than a bit dim.....so could you please explain why exactly the EU should confront Putin....

Cheers

Err because he wants to annex large parts of Eastern Europe, former parts of the USSR, the operative word being 'Europe'...[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
....and which large parts would those be exactly....

Cheers[/quote]

I know you can call up a map..Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

Didn't see this posted here? Latest reports are that British and U.S. intelligence think it's likely that a bomb brought down the plane near Sharm El-Sheikh. Not confirmed, but I assume they wouldn't announce this unless they thought the evidence was pretty strong. Either that, or they want to marshall public opinion against ISIL even more than it already is.

if it is something ON THE PLANE that has brought it down, my intuition is correct, it is a US dirty trickx, black-ops.

they wont leave enough evidence to trace it back to a particular action by CIA... there will be multiple barriers and levels and chinese walls for the plausible deniability

Hope you are kidding..gonna be interesting as Russia starts a 'scorched earth' policy towards ISIL. Wonder when Russia boots on the ground.