August 21, 2017, 09:57:01 AM


Author Topic: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16  (Read 727 times)

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« on: June 24, 2017, 04:05:12 AM »



1:06  A nato F-16 approaches the plane carrying the Russian defence minister and is warned off.

How many American provocations until there is a miscalculation?

Imagine your Korea...

Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2017, 04:33:21 AM »

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2017, 06:21:57 PM »

The Russian Su-27 flashed its missiles and then the american f-16 hurried off into the sunset.
Imagine your Korea...

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2017, 09:34:39 PM »


That movie scene probably inspired the latest American provocation.

Quote
Senate panel demands Trump's legal rationale for shooting Syrian jet

 By Rebecca Kheel - 06/22/17 04:09 PM EDT

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has formally requested the Trump administration’s legal justification for the U.S. military recently shooting down a Syrian jet and other confrontations between U.S. forces and those loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a committee aide confirmed Thursday.

On Sunday, the U.S. military shot down a Syrian jet it said was firing on its partnered local forces on the ground. It was the first time the United States had shot down a Syrian plane and the first time a U.S. military jet has shot down any manned aircraft since 1999.

We are there and have legal justification and the authorization of use of military force. We are prosecuting a campaign against ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria,” Dunford said Monday.

That explanation caused some to scratch their heads since the target was the Syrian government, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

“Secretary [of State Rex] Tillerson stood before us and admitted, as such, that there is zero legal authority, not even through a perversion of the 2001 or 2003 AUMF, to begin military action against the Syrian regime,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said during the Foreign Relations hearing. “And yet, it seems as if this isn't a series of one-off incidences. We now have five incidences in 45 days.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/339041-foreign-relations-requests-legal-justification-for-syrian-jet-shoot-down

So there you have it: America attacks anyone who attacks ISIS.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 09:36:20 PM by Aurata »
Imagine your Korea...

Offline MayorHaggar

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • Today we are all root beer
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2017, 10:15:30 PM »
Pretty much the only appropriate response to this topic:


Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2017, 10:21:54 PM »
So there you have it: America attacks anyone who attacks ISIS.
No. The drone plane was bombing anti-Assad moderate rebels. It's actually because of the U.S. ISIS lost so much ground in Syria and Iraq. Without the help of the US (under Obama and then Trump), ISIS would be much, much stronger now. And no, Obama didn't "create" ISIS. Belief in Islamic jihadism did. Al-Qaeda and other holy warriors have been around for a long, long time. Thousands of years actually.

Secularism : good

Sharia : bad

_____________________

Secular democracy : good

USA: good

ISIS: bad

Assad: bad

_____________________

Offline Savant

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2017, 11:00:11 PM »
Wolverines!!!



Offline Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2017, 12:34:08 AM »

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2017, 03:39:19 AM »
No. The drone plane was bombing anti-Assad moderate rebels.

What are you talking about? the crazy top-gun hotshot American shot down a manned Syrian aircraft that was bombing Isis.

 
Quote
The explanation that was given is definitely not sufficient. It was said the Syrian fighter dropped bombs near the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces supported by the US. But in fact, the Syrian government is asserting that the fighter was bombing the positions of Islamic State. The US should explain how it happened that they attacked a Syrian plane in the airspace of Syria. Actually, this is an act of war. It means Syrian airspace is being denied to Syrian fighters. In Syria, there is only one government, the one which is represented in the UN and recognized by the whole world. If the US attacks a Syrian [warplane] in the Syrian sky, it means an act of war and the US should give an explanation for this act of war
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/393388-moscow-memorandum-us-syria/


Quote
It's actually because of the U.S. ISIS lost so much ground in Syria and Iraq.

lol don't make me laugh.

isis was sent to Syria by Hilary and obama to topple assad.

It mushroomed under Hilary and obama. they even dropped leaflets to them warning them to get out of the way before they bombed


The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Washington pretends to be against isis, meanwhile they are arming and helping them because they want to topple assad

Imagine your Korea...

Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2017, 07:32:00 AM »

What are you talking about? the crazy top-gun hotshot American shot down a manned Syrian aircraft that was bombing Isis.

US shoots down another pro-regime drone in Syria
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/us-syria-shoots-down-pro-regime-drone/index.html

New details on US shoot down of Syrian jet
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/us-syria-russia-dogfight/index.html
"The incident took place after a series of clashes between pro-regime troops and the US-backed anti-ISIS group, the Syrian Democratic Forces"

Offline SaintsCanada

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2017, 12:47:06 PM »
The military forces have the legal right to fight all terrorist and rebel forces in its own country. What the United States did by shooting down a Syrian jet engaging anti-government Islamist terrorists was an unprovoked act of war and a flagrant violation of international law. It was a naked act of regime change. Military aggression against a sovereign nation.

And it was to help forces far more evil and dangerous (officially Al Qaeda, perhaps ISIS itself) than the Assad regime.

It's unfortunate that the default level of debate in here is between mindless Washington-cheerleaders and mindless Moscow-cheerleaders. But in this case the pro-American posters are particularly wrong and disgusting.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2017, 12:56:07 PM »
No. The drone plane was bombing anti-Assad moderate rebels.

1. The "moderate" rebels aren't that moderate. They're a step to the left of say, Slobodan Milosevic.
2. The "moderate" rebels have as much a chance of winning and securing the country as the Washington Generals have of beating the Harlem Globetrotters.
3. The definition of "moderate" rebels tends to periodicially include al-Qaeda linked factions.

Quote
Without the help of the US (under Obama and then Trump), ISIS would be much, much stronger now.

Yes, that's true. It's also true that without the help of Russia that ISIS would be much stronger now.

Quote
And no, Obama didn't "create" ISIS.

Anyone who thinks Obama created ISIS is an idiot. Fumbled the response to ISIS? Possibly. Created as some sort of scheme? Hardly.

Quote
Secular democracy : good

USA: good

ISIS: bad

Assad: bad

That kind of simplistic thinking is dangerous when it comes to the Middle East and geopolitics. For someone who calls Trump a stupid idiot, that analysis right there...

Secular democracy has zero chance of working in Syria post-Assad. What you would get is something along the lines of the Hutus and the Tutsis as the Alawites are genocided. Democracy in the Middle East elects Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sadrists. Or it fractures along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines. At best you get an Egypt where it flirts with democracy while the military controls things or a Turkey which WAS secular and now has veered toward Erdoganism.

Secular democracy is a false choice in the Middle East. What you have are options like secularist military-backed regime with pretenses of democracy (Egypt, Turkey), a mix of absolute monarchy and theocracy (Saudis and the Gulf States), fractured tribal democracy and proxy war battleground (Lebanon, Iraq), full theocracy with somewhat functioning democracy (Iran), or reformist monarchy that survives on the skill of its ruler (Jordan).

In the case of Syria the options seem to be A)Partitioning the state into Kurdish, Alawite, and Sunni zones, in which case Assad retains power over the Alawite areas and Russia gets its Mediterranean port. B) Assad ruling the entire country, which would mean no democracy but would have basic protections for religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis (they overwhelmingly support Assad lest Islamists take over and start butchering them) or C) Deposing Assad and ending up with genocide and an Islamist state.

The military forces have the legal right to fight all terrorist and rebel forces in its own country. What the United States did by shooting down a Syrian jet engaging anti-government Islamist terrorists was an unprovoked act of war and a flagrant violation of international law. It was a naked act of regime change. Military aggression against a sovereign nation.

And it was to help forces far more evil and dangerous (officially Al Qaeda, perhaps ISIS itself) than the Assad regime.

It's unfortunate that the default level of debate in here is between mindless Washington-cheerleaders and mindless Moscow-cheerleaders. But in this case the pro-American posters are particularly wrong and disgusting.

Exactly. From what I understand, SaintsCanada you are no fan of the right or Trump, but clearly you grasp the situation far better than someone like LifeImprovement.

Offline SaintsCanada

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Gender: Male
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 01:21:14 PM »
No. The drone plane was bombing anti-Assad moderate rebels.

1. The "moderate" rebels aren't that moderate. They're a step to the left of say, Slobodan Milosevic.
2. The "moderate" rebels have as much a chance of winning and securing the country as the Washington Generals have of beating the Harlem Globetrotters.
3. The definition of "moderate" rebels tends to periodicially include al-Qaeda linked factions.

Quote
Without the help of the US (under Obama and then Trump), ISIS would be much, much stronger now.

Yes, that's true. It's also true that without the help of Russia that ISIS would be much stronger now.

Quote
And no, Obama didn't "create" ISIS.

Anyone who thinks Obama created ISIS is an idiot. Fumbled the response to ISIS? Possibly. Created as some sort of scheme? Hardly.

Quote
Secular democracy : good

USA: good

ISIS: bad

Assad: bad

That kind of simplistic thinking is dangerous when it comes to the Middle East and geopolitics. For someone who calls Trump a stupid idiot, that analysis right there...

Secular democracy has zero chance of working in Syria post-Assad. What you would get is something along the lines of the Hutus and the Tutsis as the Alawites are genocided. Democracy in the Middle East elects Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sadrists. Or it fractures along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines. At best you get an Egypt where it flirts with democracy while the military controls things or a Turkey which WAS secular and now has veered toward Erdoganism.

Secular democracy is a false choice in the Middle East. What you have are options like secularist military-backed regime with pretenses of democracy (Egypt, Turkey), a mix of absolute monarchy and theocracy (Saudis and the Gulf States), fractured tribal democracy and proxy war battleground (Lebanon, Iraq), full theocracy with somewhat functioning democracy (Iran), or reformist monarchy that survives on the skill of its ruler (Jordan).

In the case of Syria the options seem to be A)Partitioning the state into Kurdish, Alawite, and Sunni zones, in which case Assad retains power over the Alawite areas and Russia gets its Mediterranean port. B) Assad ruling the entire country, which would mean no democracy but would have basic protections for religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis (they overwhelmingly support Assad lest Islamists take over and start butchering them) or C) Deposing Assad and ending up with genocide and an Islamist state.

The military forces have the legal right to fight all terrorist and rebel forces in its own country. What the United States did by shooting down a Syrian jet engaging anti-government Islamist terrorists was an unprovoked act of war and a flagrant violation of international law. It was a naked act of regime change. Military aggression against a sovereign nation.

And it was to help forces far more evil and dangerous (officially Al Qaeda, perhaps ISIS itself) than the Assad regime.

It's unfortunate that the default level of debate in here is between mindless Washington-cheerleaders and mindless Moscow-cheerleaders. But in this case the pro-American posters are particularly wrong and disgusting.

Exactly. From what I understand, SaintsCanada you are no fan of the right or Trump, but clearly you grasp the situation far better than someone like LifeImprovement.

Great post.

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2017, 02:54:28 AM »
Quote from: SaintsCanada
by shooting down a Syrian jet engaging anti-government Islamist terrorists was an unprovoked act of war and a flagrant violation of international law. It was a naked act of regime change.


I would say that it was a deliberate provocation designed to ensure that trump cannot form better relations with Russia.

The military-security complex gets spoiled with an annual 1 trillion, 100 Bn dollar budget. To a tiny few elites, this provides huge wealth and power.

In order to keep the money flowing, they have to have enemies. if America has none, then they make enemies. And they need a big enemy to justify such massive military spending. Russia has been chosen to play that role.


So every time it looks like relations with Russia have a chance of improving, they step in with some new provocation to keep things strained. Before this incident, it was the bombing of the Syrian airfield. before that, it was the shooting down of the Russian jet. 


The worst nightmare for these elites is a president who wants to make better relations with Russia. Reagan was a nightmare for them, and they don't want a repeat performance. That's why they and their media have gone all out to attack Trump.
Imagine your Korea...

Offline Aurata

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Gender: Male
  • Je regrette rien
Re: Russian Su-27 drives away Nato F-16
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2017, 03:45:09 AM »
Anyone who thinks Obama created ISIS is an idiot. Fumbled the response to ISIS? Possibly. Created as some sort of scheme? Hardly.

Obama wanted to invade Syria. remember?


First he prepared the American people for military action ahead of time by making his "red line"- chemical weapons - that if crossed would justify his invasion.

When he felt the moment was right, he then announced the trumped up charge that "Assad used chemical weapons" and that he would now invade. But the British said NO. Their parliament voted not to help another American invasion. Failing to whip up a coalition, he then decided the only way to overthrow  Assad was to send in isis to do the job. General Flynn actually said this on television.

Watch the interview. Watch the Shiite leader confirming that the US wants to use isis for operations in Syria.

https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

And that's before you even get onto the Syrians themselves who all say the same thing: US is arming and supporting isis in order to overthrow assad.

While Americas excuse for being in Syria (they were not invited) is touted in the media as "fighting terrorism", their real reason is regime change, and failing that, partition of Syria into two so that they can at least use half of it as a front to keep attacking the Russian half. Globalists play the long game.

The US doesn't fight terrorism, it uses it as a proxy tool of its own imperialism. Maybe they tell the people something different in the media they control, but reality is - be it the mujahedeen or isis- they've sponsored terror for decades whenever it helps their globalist objectives.
Imagine your Korea...

 

Recent Lesson Plans

Buy/Sell/Trade

Employment