Russian aircraft carrier off coast of scotland - emergency scramble deployed

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
I personally may sound crazy here but I think the UK should have taken the opportunity to sink half the russian fleet while they had the chance. British submarines could have taken those two ships by suprise and sunk them both before they even had chance to scramble.

It sounds crazy but the writing is on the wall for a large scale war anyway, and it is looking very likely that Russia will be an enemy. So why not?



Yeah it does sound crazy.. your suggesting Britain starts a large scale war..




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Sigh, It is always and I mean always England and the US...............
I am sick and tired of this stuff and I think we should all tell them to go F**P themselves.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Yes, your right I am. That is because I now think large scale war is inevitable and we should have taken the opportunity to take the advantage whilst we had it. Russia has 1 aircraft carrier in service, Britain could have effectivly disable their entire surface fleet by sinking it.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l

BUT...

WOT BOUT THE NUKE MISSILE ARMED SUBS OFF COAST OF UK?
OR RUSKIE LAND BASED NUKES THAT WOULD INEVITABLY FOLLOW OUR SINKING THE CARRIER?

CHECK OUT THIS (FULL) MOVIE... YOU WILL ADORE IT!
www.1channel.ch...

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR (JOHN LENNON) -
HOW ABOUT RUSSIA SHOULD SEND ALL ITS SEXY CHICKS OVER TO SCREW US TO DEATH? MUCH NICER WAY TO GO.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I wonder:
Did Russia communicate this in advance, or was this a surprise?
In either case, should the first concern be war?
Shouldn't our first concern be if they are in need of aid?

Don't misunderstand, if they attack, I tend to side with those who suggest that we decimate their homeland. However, if our countries' conduct causes us all to go to war, don't we all deserve to lose some life?

It is interesting to consider that it has been more than 2000 years after God touched the world in such a specific and lasting way and we still conduct ourselves like animals who don't know they're animals and also gods. Such are the thirsty.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Yes, your right I am. That is because I now think large scale war is inevitable and we should have taken the opportunity to take the advantage whilst we had it. Russia has 1 aircraft carrier in service, Britain could have effectivly disable their entire surface fleet by sinking it.



The British Navy in an an unprovoked attack.. Killed XXX innocent people and sank a Russian vessel in international waters.

This is what is known as a war of aggression..

This is from the convention for the definition of aggression.. "Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State."


The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime,



Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".




The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

link



Even war has rules...



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Yes, your right I am. That is because I now think large scale war is inevitable and we should have taken the opportunity to take the advantage whilst we had it. Russia has 1 aircraft carrier in service, Britain could have effectivly disable their entire surface fleet by sinking it.



The British Navy in an an unprovoked attack.. Killed XXX innocent people and sank a Russian vessel in international waters.

This is what is known as a war of aggression..

This is from the convention for the definition of aggression.. "Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State."


The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime,



Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".




The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

link



Even war has rules...







Just like in a fight as is in war, rules are reserved for those who stand by them. There are no rules in war. Everything is game.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I'm not going to fasten my seatbelt this time, it's been said a hundred thousand times. There is no open aggression here.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
This is how UTTERLY false the info is around here. There has been thread upon thread on here over the last month about how Russis ALREADY had an aircraft carrier off of Syria.

And now the MSM reports that one is just now on the way?

Geez you really cant believe ANYTHING on this website until it has been reported in the MSM and then folks can call people they know who live in the said area to get confirmation.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
For the sake of all that is the lack of common sense people. Weather is the issue here. If it was a serious threat the UK would of sent more than a destroyer. Let's not forget that the Sixth Fleet isn't to far off.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
This is how UTTERLY false the info is around here. There has been thread upon thread on here over the last month about how Russis ALREADY had an aircraft carrier off of Syria.

And now the MSM reports that one is just now on the way?

Geez you really cant believe ANYTHING on this website until it has been reported in the MSM and then folks can call people they know who live in the said area to get confirmation.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This happend on monday !
bit to late to worry now....
I dont think england needs to worry.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by technologicalsingularity
 


Anyone feeling any apathy or excitement towards this whole World War prospect, you should be [SNIP] ashamed of yourselves.


Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

edit on 15/12/11 by argentus because: snipped censor circumvention



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Do you think Russia would sit idly by whilst hundreds, potentially thousands, of their midshipmen sink to the bottom of the North Sea?

No. They would declare war. And do you know what a declaration of war would mean? The gauntlet is off.

You think that Europe is in trouble now? IF, and only IF, the Russians chose not to use tactical nuclear warheads, most of the Western world would not back England's war of aggression and would leave England completely on its own.

The only country that could possibly fight Russia on its own is the United States. And something tells me that even if the United States chose to back England, it would not be a fair fight. You think America's invasion of Iraq was bad when they killed 3,000 civilians? Imagine what Russia's response would be if an entire naval squadron was surprise attacked and sent to the bottom?

Jesus, some people just have no respect for human life.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by technologicalsingularity
 

"Russian aircraft carrier off coast of scotland - emergency scramble deployed"

Why is it I feel like I have just been...RickRoll'D




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Just don't get you head set on Obama, nobody is sure what side he is on yet. Plus he is very busy campaigning and campaigning and campaigning....



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by technologicalsingularity
 


Lets hope no Migs get scrambled lol



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Just the simple fact that Russia is siding against the US and the UK scares the # out of me. Other people are viewing this like entertainment, but prob best to take these events seriously.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Maybe I'm overly calm but "emergency scramble" just means "lets go take a look" in my world. I don't see any hostility in this action, implied or otherwise.

It's critical to note that Russia's only Med naval base is in Syria - they are "friends". And if you don't look out for your friends, then what kind of a friend are you? It makes Russia look very weak to their allies around the world if they don't stand up and say something here.

Combine that with Western oil interests in Syria (currently in shutdown mode) and we have a very sketchy situation brewing.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


I'm astonished by this. Is this a typo? Or are international waters really that close to shore?





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join