It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moscow says 600 militants have fled Syria . Headed to Europe ? .

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Hmm the Syrian people seem to disagree with everything you just said. They wanted the US to come in after the civil war was 2 years in. They wanted the war to be over. That red line Obama talked about was a regretful hope. Assad is not what the real Syrians want. Until you communicate with the real people living there it's safe to say you have no clue. The intervention would have put an end to the war. With Assad out of power the Syrian army would be under new leadership. Elected by the people of Syria.




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
Now that is a Russian wet dream and nothing more. They are tossing dumb bombs around which means actually hitting anything of value is unlikely. You can expect many more of these great victories that also have undertone of threat to the West. Make a deal a with us or we will drive terrorist into Europe. Russian propaganda much like its air campaign are about 3 decades behind the times.


Your pro American Rhetoric is getting old. You constantly post lies about Russia with absolutely no proof and no links.

Your either extremely nieve, a troll or a shill. We don't need your rhetoric. Deny Ignorance.
edit on 4-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
that's why europe should only tke women and children.

1. decreases the number of refugees to about 20%.

2. decreases the possibility of terrorists seeping into europe dramatically.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Crumbles


The intervention would have put an end to the war. With Assad out of power the Syrian army would be under new leadership. Elected by the people of Syria.

Another failed Western intervention you mean? Libya is the best/worst example of all those false promises.

Libya is a quagmire of infighting factions. There is no end to that war. UN can't get fooled again. Nor the rest of the world.

You can claim that Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are some kind of improvement since "regime change" too, if you like.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

If you watch the videos that they've released, they're using cluster bomb units, and iron bombs. Some of them have landed so far from their targets that they wouldn't even have blown smoke over them, let alone damaged them. I saw a video from an Su-34 where the crosshairs were on the center of the screen, and the bomb landed off the screen.

There's a video of an Su-34 landing with a bomb still on the rack, and you can clearly see it doesn't have a seeker head on it, so it's not laser guided, or optically guided. It also didn't appear to have any kind of satellite guidance antennas on it. It appeared to be one of their KAB series of general purpose bombs. The Su-24s and -25s appear to be using something in the RBK cluster bomb family.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: MrSpad
Now that is a Russian wet dream and nothing more. They are tossing dumb bombs around which means actually hitting anything of value is unlikely. You can expect many more of these great victories that also have undertone of threat to the West. Make a deal a with us or we will drive terrorist into Europe. Russian propaganda much like its air campaign are about 3 decades behind the times.


Your pro American Rhetoric is getting old. You constantly post lies about Russia with absolutely no proof and no links.

Your either extremely nieve, a troll or a shill. We don't need your rhetoric. Deny Ignorance.


I am going to assume you know absolutely nothing about warfare so I will try and make this simple for you figure out your self. Take a look at Russia deployed military assets, what type of ammunition they are using and how many sorties they have made. Do that then tell me anything I have said is not true. Go ahead. Or you can just run with the tales that Russia has defeated ISIS in 3 days barely bombing them at all and then wonder whey they are still around a year from now. It is your call. You can live in reality or not.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: anticitizen
that's why europe should only tke women and children.

1. decreases the number of refugees to about 20%.

2. decreases the possibility of terrorists seeping into europe dramatically.


Your numbers are backwards only 21.8% of Syrian refugees are Males between the ages of 18 and 59 according to the The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. So keeping only taking women and children would decrease the number of refugees to 88% of the total number. Of course there are no numbers for how many of those men are disabled.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


You of all People should know that 99% of the videos are drone fottage... right. Every time the drone have litt up a target the bomb(s) hit.

Non of the videos show the actuall US 24s targeting sight in any of the bomb runs. Not that i have seen any way.

Here is some fottage from yesterday.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Oh, of course. Because they don't ever release footage from the aircraft, right? And they never miss, right? You do realize that not all strikes have a UAV orbiting right? And that aircraft do their own damage assessment, right?

So you're saying that the UAV wasn't even looking at the target in this video?



Then what is the point of having it overhead, if it's not even looking at the target?

And in this video? There certainly doesn't look like there's anything on that hill that they hit with a CBU. And the building, that they missed by a good distance? Are you saying that WASN'T the target?

It's amazing, because all the intelligence people around the world have been fooled into thinking that they're actually NOT hitting every single target that they're bombing.

Although you're right, none show an Su-24, which I never said they did. It shows an Su-34 attack.
edit on 10/4/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/4/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


As far as i can see the sight is not locked to any specific target. It is just overlooking the Field the bomb is going to hit.

The fottage is from a SU 34 as well not the SU 24 you mentioned.

In this video you can see when the sight is locked to a specific target.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


The sight on the SU 24 is exactly like the one on the drone as well.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Uhm, you didn't read that very well, now did you. Maybe you can actually READ what I say first.


I saw a video from an Su-34 where the crosshairs were on the center of the screen, and the bomb landed off the screen.


Funny, the only part I see anywhere in that post that you were replying to about an Su-24 is about them carrying cluster bomb units.

You also don't put the crosshairs "on the field where it's going to hit", you put them on the target, so you get the best images of impact. If it's a laser or optically guided munition, the crosshairs are where the bomb is going to hit, as that's where the laser is aimed. If it's a satellite guided munition you want to see the impact, to get the best damage assessment you can. You don't look at the area around where the bomb is aimed. The fact that it hit that far off, proves exactly what I said about them using iron bombs, and not PGMs.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Uhm, you didn't read that very well, now did you. Maybe you can actually READ what I say first.


I saw a video from an Su-34 where the crosshairs were on the center of the screen, and the bomb landed off the screen.


Funny, the only part I see anywhere in that post that you were replying to about an Su-24 is about them carrying cluster bomb units.

You also don't put the crosshairs "on the field where it's going to hit", you put them on the target, so you get the best images of impact. If it's a laser or optically guided munition, the crosshairs are where the bomb is going to hit, as that's where the laser is aimed. If it's a satellite guided munition you want to see the impact, to get the best damage assessment you can. You don't look at the area around where the bomb is aimed. The fact that it hit that far off, proves exactly what I said about them using iron bombs, and not PGMs.


OKi. It was the SU 34. my bad...

The crosshair that is in the video you show dont even have to be from the SU 34 that released the bomb. And you know very well it is not locked to a target.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And I know very well that you don't look NEAR a target to get a damage assessment, part of which is seeing the impact of the bomb. That's like looking up into the sky, while shooting a gun at a target. Whether it's a guided munition or not, you keep the crosshairs locked on the target, not near it, not around it. You have to see where the bomb hits, as it's hitting, to get an accurate assessment, and to decide if you need to reattack or not. Looking somewhere else doesn't give you that.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

And I know very well that you don't look NEAR a target to get a damage assessment, part of which is seeing the impact of the bomb. That's like looking up into the sky, while shooting a gun at a target. Whether it's a guided munition or not, you keep the crosshairs locked on the target, not near it, not around it. You have to see where the bomb hits, as it's hitting, to get an accurate assessment, and to decide if you need to reattack or not. Looking somewhere else doesn't give you that.


Oki.

Take a look at this fottage. In this fottage it seams as the two bombs miss its target to the left.... right.

But than you see that there is a different drone that actually have the target locked and the two bombs nail it.




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

One would think that the Russian propaganda machine is showing you exactly what they want you to see , perhaps they don't want you to see missiles flying through windows . Some of the strike attempts in the vidoe above looked fairly ordinary attempts while others seemed fairly accurate . Also has it not been Russian tactics in the past to make their bombs bigger where accuracy was a problem . One thing is for sure , practice makes for perfection and as stated before you watched exactly what they wanted you to see .



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And look at where he has the crosshairs. Almost right on top of the target area. Not "in a field near where the bomb is going to hit". He's still looking right at the target.

And you can clearly see that not all the munitions they're using are PGMs in the videos that they have released of the aircraft on their airfield. The larger bombs have no seeker head to steer them, either laser, or optical, and no sign of satellite antennas on them.



There's no laser seeker, no camera, and no satellite guidance kit on that bomb. Even enhanced there's no evidence of a guidance kit on that bomb. Not even Russia manages to hit 100% of their iron bomb targets 100% of the time.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

They're hitting some targets, and they're missing others. It's that simple. Not even Russia is going to hit 100% of the targets, 100% of the time, on 100% of the days. It's simply a combination of some of them using guided munitions, and some of them using iron bombs. PGMs are going to be precise, and iron bombs aren't.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But would you agree you are looking at exactly what they want you to see . They want people to see bad misses .



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

So they're going to let people see bad misses on some, and direct strikes on others, to get people to underestimate them. You do realize that the people that really matter have much better video and intel than YouTube videos, and military releases right? So what if people watching YouTube think that they suck, it's the people in higher places that have access to satellite video that we'll never see that matter, and they know a lot better than we do how accurate Russian weapons are.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




And look at where he has the crosshairs. Almost right on top of the target area. Not "in a field near where the bomb is going to hit". He's still looking right at the target.


You clearly dont understand the fottage. There are two drones... one observing and got its crosshear on the building, but the building is not the target. The target is what the other drone have locked its crosshear onto. And you can see that it is not the house. If you watch it in full screen you see that the bombs land on the dot.




And you can clearly see that not all the munitions they're using are PGMs in the videos that they have released of the aircraft on their airfield. The larger bombs have no seeker head to steer them, either laser, or optical, and no sign of satellite antennas on them.


Sure... I know that all the jets are not armed With PGMs.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join