It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles: U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by intrptr

Eisenhower was only there passing through. She is on the way to Norfolk for maintenance. The only carrier in the
region is Stennis, and there are only two other carriers available to deploy.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

According to your own link... maybe I misunderstood... or you're just running interference again.

"Just running through the Med on the way North"... okay

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Soshh

Sorry, I meant to say double "standard" not double "stander". You know the reasoning-- Its okay for us to invade and conquer other nations but not okay for other nations to do it to us? Isn't that why we are over there... to fight the war on terror for what they did to us on 911? Or is it burkas and WMD...

We are off topic here. Nice dodge by the way.

Where was the dodge my good chap. You said "you won't mind when they come over here and violate our national sovereignty then will you."

How am I supposed to comment on that? Who is coming over here? Where is here? Why are they coming? Go on mate I'm all ears. It's your imaginary scenario so make it a good one, then you can see if I'm a "double stander" or not.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM
That Syria might attack Turkey with this missile or for any reason is absurd. Turkey is NATO. Syria's military knows it would be suicidal to launch even one missile against them. With all the forces arrayed in the region just spoiling for a fight?


Lets see. If they haven't already, Patriot missiles are to be installed along the northern border of Syria.

The Eisenhower carrier task force has just arrived off the coast of Syria with thousands of troops, dozens of fighter bombers and thousands of bombs and missiles of their own.

The UK and France are seeking to lift the blockade for arms shipments to the insurgency in Syria across its borders with neighboring countries.

The UK and France are also building a "coalition government" (government in exile) so as to authorize it to replace the one in Damascus.

The rhetoric about the use of chemical weapons is at a fever pitch which is designed to further demonize the Syrian government and therefore justify all these escalating measures against that beleaguered nation.

Meanwhile the nation of Syria has done nothing to any nation around it, even now. It knows how desperate its plight is and still they remain in control, non threatening to its own people, the nations around it or the world at large.

In fact, the ones that are threatening another country in the middle east are the US, Nato, and its Arab allies. They have Syria surrounded and wage aggressive guerrilla war as we speak as they tighten the military noose around Syria's neck.

In the name of peace we wage war.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by Soshh

You said it...

Not because the were lied to or because the West and the Arab League broke non-existent promises on Libya (someone get me a violin).

I said, Sounds like somebody is sounding the double standard horn again. In other words, we hold our victims to "international standards" that we don't have to abide by.

Its that simple. Last reply on this.


posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by intrptr

That isn't the best source for updates. If you look through other sources I can't link from my phone she is due home at Christmas for deck resurfacing. I'll link other sources in the morning from the laptop.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:39 AM
reply to post by intrptr

You're all over the place my friend. Where are these double standards of mine now?

Last reply on this.

What a clever fellow you are for asking me what you would consider an off-topic question and then trying to prevent me from answering it because you would consider it an off-topic discussion. You must be very smart but it was actually an on-topic question so you can continue, it's okay!

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:19 AM
Oh yea.
Finally we will get to see something like this ->

Russia + China + Muslim Brotherhood(iran,turkey etc)

This is going to be very interesting.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by svmpua
Oh yea.
Finally we will get to see something like this ->

Russia + China + Muslim Brotherhood(iran,turkey etc)

This is going to be very interesting.

You got it mixed up, which isn't surprising - it's a cluster#.

Turkey is part of NATO; the insurgents in Syria from the beginning are (Syrian)Muslim Brotherhood, who last tried this in the 80's, though the FSA is now mostly foreigners; Iran, China and Russia are on Syria's side, for now anyway.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by curiouscanadian777

Oh yes Turkey is with NATO,sorry about that.

But again do you think the Muslims will support anything that goes against muslims?

And do not forget about the Syrian and Turkey Christian Genocide ->
Syrian Christian Genocide
Turkey Christian Genocide

That is the reason I have little faith that Turkey will work with a 'christian' NATO against 'muslim' countries and their allies.

edit on 9-12-2012 by svmpua because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:09 AM
reply to post by svmpua

Nah, they # each other over all the time. Plus the major divisions of Shia, Sunni and Wahabi that fight each other even within one country.

Gadaffi said that in a speech at the Arab League. Something to the effect of "We all mistrust each other, scheme against each other; we watched one of our own (Saddam) get hung, didn't lift a finger; any one of us could be next...What are we doing?"

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:14 AM
From what I understand, the people of Turkey ARE pretty pissed off with his decisions.

eta: thanks for the links btw.

edit on 9-12-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I'm actually glad to hear that. This could turn exceptionally nasty if only for a brief time...and I really hate to think we have major U.S. Naval power concentrated right in the middle of the firestorm. Outside the area and ready assist in the aftermath? Sure...but not a part of it. Syria has the Yakhont SS-N-26 supersonic sea skimming cruise missiles from Russia too. Some figure Aegis can make short work, and I hope that's true but it's also noted that not every ship has Aegis protection or would in a real battle.....and those were made to exploit the gaps in the system.

Add the S-300's Iran only may have but it's open fact Russia sold to Syria and it's sure not a push over by any stretch. It'll be a costly thing if Syria actually uses what it has at it's disposal in a real fight. They'll be the first. Even Lybia, oddly, used almost nothing of what it'd been buying from the E.U. for years in military systems...but I think Syria will actually use it's stuff.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by intrptr

The following quote was taken from an article that you had provided in defense of Russia/China and why they used their veto powers:

s has overstepped their mandate for enforcing a no fly zone, escalating their action into one of enforcing regime change.

By which you hold the notion that vetoes were then justified, due to China and Russia not wanting the US to overstep their powers and enforce a regime change.

Again, a regime change... just because Russia or China or anybody in their defense simply says "it's because they fear that the US or any group will over-step boundaries" doesn't mean anything. This isn't about 'playing by the rules' and 'morality'... it's about 1 thing. Keeping Assad in power.

Lets put it this way and maybe the situation becomes a little more clear...

Assad has been president since 17 July 2000. That's 12 years of holding it down...

Who was president before then?

His father Hafez al-Assad ruled Syria for 29 years until his death in 2000. So that brings us back to 1971, and a total of 41 years of holding it down...

Now here's the important part and please read it all...

First half of the equation:

The Syrian port city of Tartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria. The base was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy's fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Since Russia forgave Syria of three-fourths, or $9.8 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier, Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge its naval base, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean.

Now ask...

After 41 years of Assad's holding it down... cold war, military, and so forth. Is it possible that a regime change is the most import aspect here?

Not convinced... ?

Second Half **the most important***:

Syria for the past few years has reached out to Russia to obtain modern weapons that included many modern anti-tank and anti-air missile systems that will further improve its combat capabilities. In 2008, Syria agreed to purchase MiG-29SMT fighters, Pantsir S1E air-defense systems, Iskander tactical missile systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines from Russia. Russia's foreign minister said his country's sale of weapons to Syria would not upset the balance of power in the Middle East. The sales he stated are "in line with the international law" and "in the interests of strengthening stability and maintaining security" in regions close to Russian borders, Sergei Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the United Nations in New York.[7] As of 2011, Syria's arms contracts with Russia were worth at least $4 billion.[8][9] Dmitri Trenin reports in the New York Times that from 2000 to 2010 Russia sold around $1.5 billion worth of arms to Syria, making Damascus Moscow’s seventh-largest client.[10]

If Syria were to all of a sudden tell Russia that they are done with their military relationship, Russia wouldn't veto

yada yada yada... there's much more to this story, but I feel like I'm trying too hard to convince you.

my prediction:

Assad will fall by March of next year and Russia will still retain their military relationship with Syria.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by chrismarco

There was only one YAL-1A airborne laser, and it's been cancelled. It is sitting in Arizona in the boneyard, all packed up.

As for the Iskander v Patriot, the Iskander is extremely hard to intercept, but not impossible. Yes it's faster than the Patriot, but the Patriot actually has a slight advantage, because the Iskander HAS to fly towards it, so it's a closing engagement. If it was going away, the Patriot would be at a huge disadvantage. The Patriot won't be able to stop all of them, maybe not even most of them, but the Iskander isn't the world changing weapon that is going to dominate the battlefield either.

Yeah well lets not forget...

It's not like the Patriot missile is designed to chase a target, so the speed isn't the most influential... not saying it doesn't matter at all. Just not as significantly as people assume.

You can throw a basketball in the air and hit a bird as it flies by. That's a bad analogy lol.

It finds a target and predicts where it's going to be, but that position isn't fixed into the flight path...(terrible description)
All you have to do is go to the wikipedia page for the Patriot missile and it gives a general description as to how it all works.

From all that I've read... + simple logic... I'd say you are 100% correct with everything you said. The patriot missile will destroy some, not even most of them, and the Iskander is good.. but no 'game changer' by any means.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:24 AM

If the reader would only read the whole article.... at the bottom One would find the DISCLAIMER:

...Reza Kahlili (the author of this article) is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and author of the award winning book "A Time To Betray"
He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

At the top of page with the Title is this info:

World News Daily - by REZA KAHLILI
Posted on December 8, 2012 by #1NWO Hatr

i does not take much thought to deduce the info in the report/article is just propaganda, and stuff that is likely exaggerated for the gut effect on the reader...
now a lot of the other info & links the OP presents is legit stuff... but the whole thread is based on the misinformation fed to the public by a disinfo, propagandist from the CIA and a Task Force member with Homeland Security (I guess an Info-War specialist might be his title or slot)

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by St Udio

EPIC! on so many levels...

I find it amazing that you are the first person to catch this...

It's not as if I didn't question the validity based on the information alone contained with in the article.

Although... this doesn't prove anything...

meow meow

edit on 9-12-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional information

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by intrptr

Eisenhower had to pass through the Suez Canal to get out of her AO. Once she passed out of the Canal, just about anywhere she was could be considered off the coast of Syria, but if she runs north a little ways, that puts her in the open area where she doesn't have to worry about navigation hazards.

From the Norfolk News:

WASHINGTON -- The Navy has directed the temporary return of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) from her current overseas deployment, allowing the ship to return home for two months before sending it back to the Middle East region.
The unusual move is being made to accommodate delays due to emergent repair work on USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The Everett, Wash.-based carrier was expected to deploy to the region to relieve Eisenhower early next year, however, Nimitz is now expected to deploy once repair work is complete.
Bringing Eisenhower back home to its homeport in Norfolk in December will permit the Navy to resurface the ship’s flight deck and make it available to return and remain in the Middle East region for several more months. This decision also provides the ship’s crew a welcome holiday respite from what will become nearly 10 months on station.

The Norfolk-based aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower is coming home two months early, but after the flight deck is resurfaced it’s heading back to the Persian Gulf.

The Eisenhower was scheduled to be relieved by the Nimitz, but that had to be put off until summer to complete repairs to its propulsion system, the Navy said Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta decided to bring the Eisenhower home in December to resurface its flight deck so it can go back to the Gulf area in February and remain for four months. That means that in December and January the John C. Stennis will be the only carrier in that area, although there are other naval forces there, including Marines aboard a three-ship contingent led by the Peleliu.

This will be the first such gap in the Gulf region since at least December 2010, the Navy said. The carriers are a key feature of the U.S. military strategy for the Mideast.

In announcing the moves, the Navy said none are related to the conflict between Israel and the Hamas militants in Gaza — or any other security threats or contingency planning. They said it reflects wear and tear on the carrier fleet, which has been under enormous strain during more than 11 years of war.

She was operating in the Gulf of Suez, so by having her come through the Canal, they shaved a good bit of time off her return, so they can get her flight deck redone, and get her back to the region that much quicker. Truman is supposed to head over to back up Stennis, but there's no word on when she'll be there. She just finished carrier quals, and headed out of Norfolk on the 5th or 6th, but no word on her destination.

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by St Udio

I thought the same thing. That this sounded wrong. According to this Syria already has the Iskander.

The Iskander-M missile system was officially adopted by the Russian Army in 2006. Currently Russian Army operates only about 20 of these missile systems. It's export variant, the Iskander-E, was sold to Syria (26 units). System is capable of hitting moving targets, as target coordination can be adjusted while missile is in-flight. The Iskander has several different conventional warheads, including cluster, fuel-air explosive, bunker-busting and electro-magnetic pulse. Minimum firing range is 50 km.

It's an advanced Russian surface-to-surface ballistic missile. Syria has it's hands full with the rebellion I don't think they will want to start shooting at Turkey.

It appears Syria already has the Iskander-E missile system, this is old news.

Iskander-E (SS-26 Stone)
edit on 9-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: add

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by JimTSpock

Who is the author of this article?

Better yet, who is:

"© ARG 2006 - 2012 Everything about modern warfare?"

Who is the author of this article?

Who is the author of this article?

Who is the author of this article??

Who is SGI-USA?

Unless I missed something... there are absolutely no mentions of any names in regards to authorship of any of this.

More disinformation... AWESOME!?!?!

New conspiracy?

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in