Russia invades ...
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 05:41
VIEWED: 21925
PAGE 15 of 20
Quote:This, from the asshole who begins his post
Yanno, instead of constantly launching personal attacks against ME, why don't you pay attention to actual facts and trends around the world once in a while? -SIGNY
Quit whining - you deserve it, you bring any personal comments on yourself.
"The world would be better off without you..."
"Do you think anyone is ok with bombing civilians?-GSTRING" "You are.-SIGNY"
Even in this post you insult - get a clue.-GSTRING
Quote:
Wow - is that your husband's web site? It's almost hard to tell if they are being serious.
And continues with
Quote:You have NEVER, and I mean NEVER posted any information. Is it an "opinion" that the Russians prevented the bombing of Syria? That the US aircraft carrier left the Persian Gulf?
You post from BS web sites
Yanno what? Have it your (ignorant) way!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You have NEVER, and I mean NEVER posted any information.
You make such silly statements.
Maybe you thought I made these up? These are real headlines from the site you used for a source:
- "The End of the US Empire – Live on Video!"
- "Dear American 'Liberals': Everything You Think You Know About Russia Is Wrong"
- "US Navy Can Be Sunk"
- "Pathetic Old Fart Calls for Terror Alliance Against Russia and the West"
Those are real. That's who you choose as your information source??? Do you even know what "journalism" is??
Once again SIG suggests posting false nonsensical information stands equal with factual posting. It is amazing how much exposure we have given in these threads for all to see that SIG and 1kiki are Russian trolls. And yet those two still keep at it. That in itself shows how delusional Russians are about their own country. It must be too painful for them to soul search and work towards gaining back the freedoms they almost had.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You have NEVER, and I mean NEVER posted any information.
You make such silly statements.
Maybe you thought I made these up? These are real headlines from the site you used for a source:
- "The End of the US Empire – Live on Video!"
- "Dear American 'Liberals': Everything You Think You Know About Russia Is Wrong"
- "US Navy Can Be Sunk"
- "Pathetic Old Fart Calls for Terror Alliance Against Russia and the West"
Those are real. That's who you choose as your information source??? Do you even know what "journalism" is??
I know what YOU think of as journalism, I just don't believe that it exists.
Tell me, son, what were your American "journalists" doing on the lead up to war with Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Did they bring any facts to your attention, especially facts which MIGHT have dissuaded you from those wars? Or did they just carry the President's water for him?
I just showed you that ONE of the headlines is well-founded in fact, and has been reported in the western press: Yes, USA aircraft carriers appears to have become strategically irrelevant in the face of better defensive weapons. There is nothing wrong, counter-factual, or deceitful in the article as far as I can tell.
So, ONE of the articles, at least, is well-supported, not only by facts but by the western press.
You should go read the other articles. Do a quick search on the important terms and see if they line up with information from other sources. Think about what they say and whether it makes any sense. Look for patterns: What else is the timing consistent with? What do the articles say about the biases of the sources? Does that make the statement more or less credible? Who benefits from reporting the event/ cause/ course of action? Are the means (if any are proposed) consistent with the ends? Is the reported event, allegation, or proposed action even possible/ do-able?
When you have thoroughly discredited the articles, come back to me with your reasoning. Then we can talk about them. Until then, you've brought nothing to the table except emotions, personal reactions, allegations, and (as always) personal attacks. What about trying evidence and reason, for a change?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
US, allies launch 23 airstrikes in Syria, Iraq
The US and its allies targeted Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq with 14 airstrikes on Thursday, Reuters reported. Six of the strikes in Iraq hit tactical and fighting units, bunkers and an assembly area near Sinjar, the US military said on Friday. Four strikes near Ramadi also hit tactical units while destroying sniper positions, weapons, bunkers and a building. Nine airstrikes in Syria struck crude oil collection points and tactical units as well as fighting positions near Al Hawl, Al Hasaka and Abu Kamal.
What I find interesting about this is that Syria has NOT asked the USA for help. OTOH,, Iraq has not asked the USA to leave (although Iraq has also asked Russia for help fighting ISIS). So the USA airstrikes on Syria would probably be considered "illegal" (if that was a consideration at all!) while Russian airstrikes in Iraq would be considered "legal", if anyone in the USA were paying attention to legality.
All of these airstrikes were carried out in the very far northeastern tip of Syria, which kind of projects between southeastern Turkey (mainly to the north) and northwestern Iraq (to the south and east)... far from the Syrian/Iranian/Russian operations which are being carried out in the far western half of Syria.
Since the USA and Russia have already reached an agreement on "deconfliction" I assume that these American operations were carried out with Russia's tacit approval.
The battle against ISIS is going this way and that. Russia is logging about 100 airstrikes a day. While the government army (SAA, Syrian Arab Army) has gained control over the eastern road (and their supply-line) from Damascus to Aleppo, IS has gained control over the last town on the main road (M5) between those two points. There has been no overall movement, as far as I can tell. This appears to be a war of attrition; if Syria/ Russia/ Iran can shut off the supply-lines from Turkey, then IS will eventually run out of ammo, no matter whether they adopt "hit and run", "hit and advance", or "dig in" tactics.
Russia thinks there are about 10,000 - 30,000 foreign fighters (mercs) in Syria. I don't know how they figure that except by examining the bodies and passports of killed enemy combatants, but if true, that would be a huge fighting force. That would also indicate that local support for IS and its various affiliates is not strong.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allow for the fact that carrier's will use lasers which no conventional missile can out run or out maneuver. Laser's travel at the speed of light.
"The study found that the new high-energy laser “could provide Navy surface ships with a more cost-effective means of countering certain surface, air and ballistic missile targets.”
You're a moron SIG. The type Missile you describe will be as effective as the Scud Missile was in the first gulf war in a decade. And you suggest it is others who should read up on current Military capabilities. Your problem is that you look for propaganda journalism that conforms to your points of view instead of journalism that portrays the truth whatever that truth may be. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/navy-deploying-laser-weapon-pr
ototype-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=0
P.S. Syria asked America for help years ago in the form of joining in negations with Syria that would allow them to stay in power which in turn would help Syria overcome its opposition.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Among the many items that hubby has designed for is high-powered lasers. Many months ago, hubby pointed out a Navy demo of a high-powered laser in ship, hitting a floating target and a target drone.
Allow for the fact that carrier's will use a laser which no conventional missile can out run or maneuver. Laser's travel at the speed of light.
It was particularly underwhelming to my untrained civilian eye.
Now, I'm sure that the Navy is not going to advertise ALL of the laser's capabilities but I've been told that lasers can send BRIEF surges of high powered beams, but are easily defeated by smoke, fog, and multiple missiles requiring fast recharge rate. Hopefully, the Navy also has much faster targeting than demonstrated, and better control systems that aren't defeated by electronic warfare.
Just sayin'
This could be another F-35 boondoggle.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Among the many items that hubby has designed for is high-powered lasers. Many months ago, hubby pointed out a Navy demo of a high-powered laser in ship, hitting a floating target and a target drone.
Allow for the fact that carrier's will use a laser which no conventional missile can out run or maneuver. Laser's travel at the speed of light.
It was particularly underwhelming to my untrained civilian eye.
Now, I'm sure that the Navy is not going to advertise ALL of the laser's capabilities but I've been told that lasers can send BRIEF surges of high powered beams, but are easily defeated by smoke, fog, and multiple missiles requiring fast recharge rate. Hopefully, the Navy also has much faster targeting than demonstrated, and better control systems that aren't defeated by electronic warfare.
Just sayin'
This could be another F-35 boondoggle.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
First of all if your hubby is working on sensitive information and it's for this country maybe our government would be interested in that. Second, anything you post is an argument against the technology given the link you posted earlier. No news there. They said the same thing about the minuteman defense system.
The Lasers in the video are hitting the targets dead on. The residual splashing is parts flying off the targets. All these systems will be running on automatic targeting at speeds not see in the video.
Again, once the trigger is pulled on a Laser system impact is immediate. Speed of light remember?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, he's not working for the government. There ARE uses for high-powered lasers besides weaponry!
First of all if your hubby is working on sensitive information and it's for this country maybe our government would be interested in that.
Quote:Huh?
Second, anything you post is an argument against the technology given the link you posted earlier. No news there. They said the same thing about the minuteman defense system.
Quote:Yes, small parts made of thin metal or plastic. Do you really think a laser could damage a hardened warhead?
The Lasers in the video are hitting the targets dead on.
Quote:Yes, I know.
The residual splashing is parts flying off the targets.
Quote:But the movement of the laser is slow and lumbering. A lot of grinding and not much motion. Also, the seas were very calm. I presume that the system is computer-controlled and takes into account the motion of the ship. Maybe it only "pulls the trigger" when the laser targeting crosses the flight-path of the target, because there's no way the motion-controller can keep up with the ship's rocking.
All these systems will be running on automatic targeting at speeds not see in the video.
Quote:Duh.
Again, once the trigger is pulled on a Laser system impact is immediate. Speed of light remember?
YOUR link said the following:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Navy is going to sea for the first time with a laser attack weapon that has been shown in tests to disable patrol boats and blind or destroy surveillance drones.
YOUR LINK ALSO said
Quote:
Among the limitations, according to the research service, is that lasers are not effective in bad weather because the beam can be disturbed or scattered by water vapor, as well as by smoke, sand and dust. It is also a “line of sight” weapon, meaning that the target has to be visible, so it cannot handle threats over the horizon. And enemies can take countermeasures like coating vessels and drones with reflective surfaces. Navy officials acknowledge that the first prototype weapon to be deployed is not powerful enough to take on jet fighters or missiles on their approach. That capability is a goal of researchers.
You have not addressed any of my points.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's the future SIG and it's well on its way. You suggested that these weapons designed like the old scud missiles suggests ships were outdated. The fact that there weapon systems have to be built and function off the back of trucks shows they can't protect them. Also once turned on it's over. They are visible.
Nope, I'll stick with the future, you can have your past. I haven't looked into it but maybe information and even weapons lasers will be beamed off satellites. Directly onto you scud missiles once activated? If they can see us, we surly can see them.
P.S. All the Lasers have to do is kill the missiles targeting capability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:Get us the eff out.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are a lot of things in the works.
check this
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME