Does anyone still think that Turkey is not behind ISIS
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Che Guevarra would be a terrorist? Let's take a more rediculous example; the Americans revolted against the British. That means they "rebelled". Are you saying those were terrorists?
Yes. They would have been classed as terrorists in those times. But the word, like the world, has evolved since then. For example only a few decades ago Homosexuals were classed as Sexual Criminals on a par with rapists and paedophilles. Thankfully the world has evolved since then. The reason the Americans/British who rebelled are not seen as terrorists is because they won. To give it a British perspective, if Guy Fawkes had been successful, Nov 4th would be a Public Holiday where we would all feast on luxury food whilst receiving presents from our loved ones. Instead we stand in freezing cold rain watching shitty fireworks when we might aswell set fire to our wallet and toss it over the garden shed to achieve the same effect.
PompeyThree wrote:
But the word, like the world, has evolved since then.
Yes, it has. We industrialized genodicde. People have not become morally superiour compared to man living a few years ago.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
semi-dic
:laugh: :laugh: Sorry, I know I'm juvenillelle but you just said
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
semi-dic
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You may have as match laugh as you wish, but when the nuclear bombs start falling, I'm the one that will have the last laugh :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Oh, wait...
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Yes Russia said all that stuff, so it must be true. I see no reason why they would lie. None what-so-ever.
This is one of the rare cases they don't lie. Russian pilots were shot down for bombing Turkish insurgents in Syria(and yes, they had it coming). That's why the pilot was shot dead after he bail out. Simple revenge. What concerns me is that Turkey - also a dictatorship, is a NATO member. Actually the only dictatorship in the alliance.And we can see the result.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Member 9082365 wrote:
but given that Russian targeting technology is outdated
This is not true from more than a decade. GPS bombs, targeting systems on Su-24 that can make pinpoint hits with "dumb" bombs within CEP of few meters. Naval and air lunched cruise missiles that hits their targets from 3000 miles. Only US is ahead of Russians in this area. So this stereotype is a little outdated.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
I'm a little in two minds about this. On one hand, there is the false urban legend that the US spent millions trying to make a pen that would work in zero-g, while the Russians simply took pencils. On the other hand, is the record of the soviets when it comes to re-usable liquid-fuelled rocket technology. The ill-fated N1 project produced both engines and materials that far exceeded that which the US could come up with for at least another 20 years.(The russians acheived closed-cycle operation first, in which the exhaust from the turbo-pumps is fed back into the combustion chamber, rather than being dumped. They also devised a stainless steel alloy whose heat resistance was something to be admired) The Russians have a track record for a propensity to throw brain-power at a problem before they throw money at it. And so on, and so forth. All anecdotal at best, irrelevant at worst. Yesterday I read an article that claimed Russian war-planes are using commercially available consumer-grade GPS units. Staggered, I wrote off the claim as one made by anti-Russian trolls. I then found these two gems amongst the noise. Rather an interesting development in light of this weeks' events I thought.. The jury's still out on this one. Russian jet with Garmin (1)[^] Russian jet with Garmin (2)[^]
-
I'm a little in two minds about this. On one hand, there is the false urban legend that the US spent millions trying to make a pen that would work in zero-g, while the Russians simply took pencils. On the other hand, is the record of the soviets when it comes to re-usable liquid-fuelled rocket technology. The ill-fated N1 project produced both engines and materials that far exceeded that which the US could come up with for at least another 20 years.(The russians acheived closed-cycle operation first, in which the exhaust from the turbo-pumps is fed back into the combustion chamber, rather than being dumped. They also devised a stainless steel alloy whose heat resistance was something to be admired) The Russians have a track record for a propensity to throw brain-power at a problem before they throw money at it. And so on, and so forth. All anecdotal at best, irrelevant at worst. Yesterday I read an article that claimed Russian war-planes are using commercially available consumer-grade GPS units. Staggered, I wrote off the claim as one made by anti-Russian trolls. I then found these two gems amongst the noise. Rather an interesting development in light of this weeks' events I thought.. The jury's still out on this one. Russian jet with Garmin (1)[^] Russian jet with Garmin (2)[^]
enhzflep wrote:
Russian war-planes are using commercially available consumer-grade GPS units
Hope they turn off the audio. Hearing "Get back on the nearest road" for hours would get old real quick. Cheers, Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
You may have as match laugh as you wish, but when the nuclear bombs start falling, I'm the one that will have the last laugh :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Oh, wait...
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I'm the one that will have the last laugh
No, you will be dead, unable to laugh. Just saying.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
the Americans revolted against the British
Except that many of the "Americans" at that time were second or even first generation British.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Except that many of the "Americans" at that time were second or even first generation British.
:thumbsup:
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Che Guevarra would be a terrorist? Let's take a more rediculous example; the Americans revolted against the British. That means they "rebelled". Are you saying those were terrorists?
Yes. They would have been classed as terrorists in those times. But the word, like the world, has evolved since then. For example only a few decades ago Homosexuals were classed as Sexual Criminals on a par with rapists and paedophilles. Thankfully the world has evolved since then. The reason the Americans/British who rebelled are not seen as terrorists is because they won. To give it a British perspective, if Guy Fawkes had been successful, Nov 4th would be a Public Holiday where we would all feast on luxury food whilst receiving presents from our loved ones. Instead we stand in freezing cold rain watching shitty fireworks when we might aswell set fire to our wallet and toss it over the garden shed to achieve the same effect.
PompeyThree wrote:
Yes. They would have been classed as terrorists in those times. But the word, like the world, has evolved since then.
Anyone who fights a power we support is now classed as a terrorist for propaganda purposes because it is a more emotive word. Terrorism was invented by the French government against its own citizens, and is violence against civilians. Anyone who attacks the military of a country is a guerrilla, but that sounds more cuddly. The Taliban may have been a bunch of bastards, but we went in, nicked the country they were running, then when they had the audacity to fight back labelled them terrorists.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I'm the one that will have the last laugh
No, you will be dead, unable to laugh. Just saying.
I believe you missed his two last words.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Russia has them on the run? :sigh: Do you actually have any evidence (I'm disinclined to count Russian news outlets!) bearing in mind that the first Russian attacks somehow managed to miss IS targets altogether and hit Turkmen settlements instead. There's certainly a lot of people running when Russian aircraft come into Syria but given that Russian targeting technology is outdated and the motives for the attacks less than clear it's not necessarily the right people or for the right reasons. Turkey certainly has a lot to answer for in its relationship with IS but its being pissed off with Russia is a whole other can of worms.
-
Troll turds, everywhere. :sigh:
-
I don't know what Turkey is doing. Ambushing and killing Russian bomber for revenge and then hiding behind NATO's back is not a good thing to do. Not at all. What's next? Sinking China's frigate?
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Don't even get me started on this new breed of terrorists that they call "Moderate Rebels"
So.. Che Guevarra would be a terrorist? Let's take a more rediculous example; the Americans revolted against the British. That means they "rebelled". Are you saying those were terrorists? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
I think you can do what ever you need to do in your own country and ISIS today are not doing anything the French Resistance didn't do in the second world war. When you cross the border and blow other people up then you cross the line and become a terrorists. Kicking the British out was a good move, i'm with them all the way but now it is time to kick foriegn control of our bankers and politicians out, we are sheep to them, sub-human.
-
Yes Russia said all that stuff, so it must be true. I see no reason why they would lie. None what-so-ever.
Well Russia did not invade Syria without UN approval and then dropped bombs in the desert while at the same time saying they were fighting ISIS as it grew bigger and bigger. It did not take Russia long to work out that it needed to bomb the oil convoys that were moving oil from ISIS oil terminals across the border and into Tuurkey. Yes Russia could be telling lies by i sure as hell know that the USA has been telling lies so forgive me if i have been taken in by Russia, you will have to run with anything fox news says because " I see no reason why they would lie. None what-so-ever."
-
The Russian government/military is not our friend. Has never been our friend. Will never be our friend. So, I don't care if Turkey shot down one of their jets. Putin is full of shit. Every word out of his mouth, smells like elephant farts.
-
"I'm disinclined to count Russian news outlets!" No point talking to you then, go back to your fox news or the BBC and stop asking questions since you allready know the answers from your new stations.
-
Well Russia did not invade Syria without UN approval and then dropped bombs in the desert while at the same time saying they were fighting ISIS as it grew bigger and bigger. It did not take Russia long to work out that it needed to bomb the oil convoys that were moving oil from ISIS oil terminals across the border and into Tuurkey. Yes Russia could be telling lies by i sure as hell know that the USA has been telling lies so forgive me if i have been taken in by Russia, you will have to run with anything fox news says because " I see no reason why they would lie. None what-so-ever."
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Russia did not invade Syria
Nobody has invaded Syria but Russia is the only force launching air attacks from within its borders having taken full control of Latakia and stationed ground forces there. All other non-Syrian forces involved are operating from bases hundreds of miles outside Syria. If IS has been the target then Russia has been spectacularly incompetent in its bombing. If, on the other hand, the targets have been more generally anybody that opposes Assad as it seems then they can claim some success but with an unacceptable level of collateral damage to civilians. The RAF's drones are claiming 350 IS operatives killed with no civilian casualties. Russia's statistics by comparison are basically haven't got a clue and don't really care as long as it looks like we're making big bangs on TV. It is highly likely that the indiscriminate nature of the weaponry used by Russia along with flawed intelligence has resulted in more civilians being killed band injured than rebels of any stripe let alone IS in particular. That is not a Fox News* story nor even an American one. It is the report that all the independent news sources in the area are confirming every day. Now of course if you want to close your eyes and wrap yourself in the red flag and feel pride rather than the shame which this should bring you there's nothing we can do to stop that. But please don't expect us to buy a word of the alternative history you're writing to maintain it. We can only hope that the talks held with France in recent days do result in a more focussed and precise targeting of legitimate IS targets in the future but so far Russia has done next to nothing of any real strategic or military value in Syria being far too busy baring its chest and throwing its weight around for the screens back home.
-
Yes they always try to hit and run with one line replys these troll do. Shame that i can cut better code than you
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Che Guevarra would be a terrorist? Let's take a more rediculous example; the Americans revolted against the British. That means they "rebelled". Are you saying those were terrorists?
Yes. They would have been classed as terrorists in those times. But the word, like the world, has evolved since then. For example only a few decades ago Homosexuals were classed as Sexual Criminals on a par with rapists and paedophilles. Thankfully the world has evolved since then. The reason the Americans/British who rebelled are not seen as terrorists is because they won. To give it a British perspective, if Guy Fawkes had been successful, Nov 4th would be a Public Holiday where we would all feast on luxury food whilst receiving presents from our loved ones. Instead we stand in freezing cold rain watching shitty fireworks when we might aswell set fire to our wallet and toss it over the garden shed to achieve the same effect.
-
PompeyThree wrote:
Yes. They would have been classed as terrorists in those times. But the word, like the world, has evolved since then.
Anyone who fights a power we support is now classed as a terrorist for propaganda purposes because it is a more emotive word. Terrorism was invented by the French government against its own citizens, and is violence against civilians. Anyone who attacks the military of a country is a guerrilla, but that sounds more cuddly. The Taliban may have been a bunch of bastards, but we went in, nicked the country they were running, then when they had the audacity to fight back labelled them terrorists.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
chriselst wrote:
Anyone who fights a power we support is now classed as a terrorist for propaganda purposes because it is a more emotive word.
Do you have a specific example, say since 2000, where the forces that were engaged were not using suicide bombers, killing civilians and only civilians often, and often if not always running from active military engagements?
chriselst wrote:
when they had the audacity to fight back labelled them terrorists.
Because they were specifically and obviously targeting civilians.
