Game changer : Russian Iskander (SS-26) Mobile Ballistic Missile Delivered to Syria

reply to post by MrSpad


The Syrian conflict truly began in May of 2011 when 120 state security forces were surrounded and massacred by armed rebel gangs.

That is clear-as-daylight evidence that since day 1, the Syrian conflict is between the state, and terrorists with enough funding and organization to conduct that scale of operation.

"Peaceful demonstrations"? Hah!

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


No, don't believe everything you read. There have been atrocities committed by both sides, outside of Syria it is all a propaganda war. You have to choose which lies you are more inclined to believe.

reply to post by MrSpad


Actually many of the most fierce rebels, the best organized, funded and well armed are from outside of Syria. There are forces at play here from all over the region, and many are aided and influenced by other powers also with the shared agenda of removing the Assad regime from power.

Not a great number have "changed sides" from Assad forces to the rebels.

For the first time, if I would live in the Middle East, I would start running to the hills.
Even better, run for life Out of Middle East all together.
A major (nuclear) war is looming!

Originally posted by MrSpad
You seem confused. This started with peaceful demontrations like in the other Arab states, When the police could not get rid of them Assad sent the army in to start shooting. Many army units refsued to fire on civilians and changed sides. The bulk or rebellions fighting forces remains Syrians forces that have changed sides.

If you were to dig a bit deeper about the initial protests, you would find that there were possibly terrorists in operation who could of enticed the Assad forces to fire. I'm not saying that is the truth but if we take a look at sources not based around our Western liars, this story has been reported also.

As for the Rebels, no, as much as most of them would be Syrians, a good majority are not Syrians and are killing innocent Syrians. All you have to take a look at is the tactics bein implied by some of the groups.. Car bombs, Beheadings, massacres, these are all traits of Extremists. With that though I understand Assad has blood on his hands also but not they way the media is portraying it. How does Assad have the backing of most of his country if he is this dictator hell bent on murdering Syrians?

When it comes down to it, there are other elements working in Syria and this could date right back to the minority of protesters at the start. I'm not confused, I just don't believe everything the media will force down my throat..

reply to post by DarknStormy

Me neither. I know its important to give the "rebels" credibility by saying they are Syrians trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. But really one must admit that insurgencies and guerrilla warfare aimed at overthrow of a "regime" are from the outside and it is a well known tactic for them to start what appears to be a peaceful protest and then the insurgency takes over and turns it into a "rebellion". It really is a Coup de tat disguised as a movement of, by and for the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You want to make a comparison, look at Egypt. Egypt's people are protesting their government. Syria's protest in Syria was escalated to open warfare by injecting guns.

Imagine if dump trucks of AK 47s were dumped in Tahir Square in Egypt and you get closer to the point.

16 million guns were infused into Libya to create the chaos that now exists in that torn country. Over a hundred tribes are feuding for power and the whole country is in utter disarray for it. NATO and the West didn't and don't care about the people in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria and Iran either.

War, in the name of Peace.

reply to post by ausername

No, don't believe everything you read. There have been atrocities committed by both sides, outside of Syria it is all a propaganda war. You have to choose which lies you are more inclined to believe.

But you are inclined to believe the louder lies, right?

I'll fill you in. The "rebels" (insurgents) move into a town and begin murdering the residents. Some flee and they are known as refugees. They didn't flee before the "rebels" came there did they? Now the insurgents hide in the town and in order to ferret them out, the Syrian military needs to shell and bomb its own population centers. The people left in town are also killed.

You could ask the rebels to fight outside the city limits on open ground, but there they would lose very quickly and they know it. So it "looks" like both sides are responsible but really only one is. The outsiders hiding amongst the Syrian people.

I'll ask them to take it outside for you if you like. This also begs the question: why would a real Syrian resistance movement risk injuring the poor, sick and old people left in town in order to defeat Assad? You think they would protect them from harm by not fighting the Army where they live???

That would be like you starting a gun battle in your own neighborhood when you knew it was going to put your neighbors in the line of fire. Unless you are doing that intentionally ...

Originally posted by mypan
Good on them too. In fact send a few more just for good measure.

Syria as is might not have long to live but these offensive weapons sure gonna make someone feels bad being uninvited guests. Heard they are quite accurate with just a CEP of less than 10 metres. Maybe BBC will show us some of those in action.

LOL Yes during the Gulf War we came up against a vast variety of "state of the art" cough, cough Russian dare I say firepower.

Other then being good targets or not working as advertised, I can't seem to remember much about those terrifying weapons LOL.

Syria, Iran and Egypt are no match for anything the US arms Israel with...

I am excited to see the fireworks too! What do you think 24 hours for complete American air superiority, with give or take another 48 for the ground?

I cannot wait to see the US over power that weapon system too.

I must give Russia credit for at least attempting to prevent America from starting yet another war in the middle east. Some nation has to make an effort to keep America in check. I believe it is not good to have one single empire running around the world doing what ever it feels like doing all for it`s sole benefit.

I think it is very good for the people of Syria to work out their problems without the Americans deciding their fate for them.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Me neither. I know its important to give the "rebels" credibility by saying they are Syrians trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. But really one must admit that insurgencies and guerrilla warfare aimed at overthrow of a "regime" are from the outside and it is a well known tactic for them to start what appears to be a peaceful protest and then the insurgency takes over and turns it into a "rebellion". It really is a Coup de tat disguised as a movement of, by and for the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The revolution has been hijacked and we should be pulling all our support and our leaders should be held accountable for the deaths of 1000's of people for allowing it to get to where it is. We have gone from anti-terrorist to the leading sponsor.. Maybe its because they aren' attacking us in Syria, they will be when there done though.

You want to make a comparison, look at Egypt. Egypt's people are protesting their government. Syria's protest in Syria was escalated to open warfare by injecting guns.

Imagine if dump trucks of AK 47s were dumped in Tahir Square in Egypt and you get closer to the point.

Egypt is a perfect example of how a revolution should roll.. Even though they have had their moments with bloodshed, I admire the people of Egypt.and they should be proud of themselves. Even with the new leader they stand together against dictatorship.

If someone started funding the Egyptians and sending swarms of fighters across the border, I'm certain they would be in the same situation as Syria.

16 million guns were infused into Libya to create the chaos that now exists in that torn country. Over a hundred tribes are feuding for power and the whole country is in utter disarray for it. NATO and the West didn't and don't care about the people in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria and Iran either.

War, in the name of Peace.

They don't, they are more interested in lining their filthy pockets with what ever they can syphon out of those countries. The only countries they attack are countries who don't want a bar of them. Egypt have a relationship with the West, Syria, Libya, Iran don't and didn't. Imagine Africa unifying, We can't have that Libya was pretty much Syria.

reply to post by jrx2020


You can all the advanced technology you wish,, it will not stop Americans dying.. With that, all it takes is a few direct strikes on certain targets and the playing field is levelled. The USA and people like you can boast all you want, you are not the only country with devastating weapons..

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by mypan

 

I don't think Russia are to worried about being condemned..

The Russians have conceded that the Assad regime's days are numbered, they have major interests in Syria including a naval base, they do not want to lose control over their interests, they could care less about being condemned.

They do not want a new regime that is allied with NATO/USA, and that makes this a very dangerous situation.

You are quite right, russia is quickly running out of allies and this makes for a very dangerous situation!
With the NATO pushing for allied regime changes in every country in the Middle East I'm surprised Russia
waited this long to take action! With every other country in the ME being subverted or having Nukes only Syria and Iran are vulnerable! This could be the most likely reason why Iran is trying so hard to get nuclear capabilities!
They know Assad is about to fall and their next! I have no love for any of those countries but what the
UN is doing is empire building. I expect this to end badly and we may all pay a high price if this ends
in escalation! I would'nt be surprised if Iran already has weaponized fissionable material but do they
have enough yet to create a prototype? This could be the reason why we have'nt heard any more about
attacking them or maybe NATO has decided it's too dangerous to attack because of radioactive fallout!
Whatever the case something is up for Isreal to stop spouting off on destroying their ability to create WMDs.

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


I wouldn't say Russia are running out of Allies.. Its like saying Iran are becoming isolated yet they have over 100 countries who back their nuclear program

reply to post by jrx2020


Remember if Russia puts this hardware on the theatre then they will be there with it, this will insure the tech doesn't get into the wrong hands..... Be it west or opposition forces.

this is why it is an indicator to what may unfold soon, either that or Russia are being incredibly stupid to allow these weapons and Tech to end up in the wrong hands.

reply to post by ANDERSON23


Obviously putting tech into another country that may fall, is not something you do with first grade weapons.

Therefore one could assume that Mother Russia has something much better than these that She is keeping Mum about. Always keep your best tech at home until you really, really need it.

P

If true, it would give russian experts a good chance to review their system under real conditions.
A handy civil war is the best chance for something like this, especially when you have got no small neighbor to bully/experiment on with impunity.

They do look bad ass.

reply to post by freedomwv


Have you seen the new documentary series Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States, very good it skims some issues like the Spanish Civil War but from the political side in the US is well covered and balanced enough. The steps to the nuclear detante was fantastic in the first 5 episodes. I hope it cover the Cuba missile crises and (the issue in general in complete frankness also).

reply to post by Jauk3


They are bad-ass..

www.military-today.com...

The Iskander was designed to overcome air defense systems. Missile files at supersonic speed, excessively maneuvers in the terminal phase of the flight and releases decoys. In some cases this ballistic missile can be used as an alternative to precision bombing.

They are also designed to destroy air and missile defenses.

reply to post by pheonix358


You maybe be right I think every side has their Tech kept secret Just release a couple here and there to keep people on their toes and raise Morale, I have bigger toys than you kind of game, but like I said before I can't see Russia leaving this tech open to the wrong hands they would have to put Troops (or Chechen's) Ref' 08 Georgia war, to secure the safety of these units which would put Russia in overt action, the Guise of Chechen's would most Probably be Merc's or Specail forces from supporting countries. I have to say this is in my opinion so I don't proclaim the statement as truth but it is my perception any theories are welcome to this.

With the west becoming ever more involved in the Syrian Conflict Russia may feel they are running low on the good guy approach and may start dealing out their own stings now