Syrian War: News #17

Yap around 20 burn marks.
Wish they'd showed a better full picture.

But this is the better known image.


Although with this one we can confirm that 10 of them are BS.

GarryB wrote:Fuck the Jury... they are irrelevant sheeple.

No matter what they decide justice is no longer possible.

Got it.

Stop trying to convince people, and let them believe the Sate departments BS.

kvs wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:You are not some arbiter of the truth.   Nobody owes you proof.   The Pentagon knows that 70% of the NATO missiles failed to reach their targets
and that is all that Russia cares about.    Any effort by Russia and Syria to play your stupid proof game will be instantly shot down by NATO propagandists
as "fake" and "staged".   You have no process to suggest even what would impartially validate "evidence".   Some video of pieces of metal or
"radar" data means nothing.  

Anyone on this board who is claiming the Pentagon BS is credible, is certifiable.   None of their cruise missiles are maneuverable or fast.   Once they
are tagged they are done.   To claim that the ludicrous 73 missiles on three buildings requires proof to counteract the Pentagon claim is insane.  
BTW, you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.   There is zero ambiguity in the fact that 73 x 1000 = 73000 pounds of high explosive
detonated in the confined area of these three buildings would not leave anything standing.   If you think that it is plausible that any concrete of
the thickness shown in the photos can survive this much explosive force you need to go back to school.

Also, all you "proof" seekers, why don't you prove first that the USA has ever launched 73 missiles at non-hardened targets before.

PS.  The Pentagon has shown zero evidence proving their claims of only 3 targets with 73 missiles on one of them.
Stop spreading BS straw men and demanding others prove what amounts to obvious facts.

"arbiter of the truth"???..... dude your taking this way to personal.

This isn't even really about what actually happened, this about the people trying to figure out what going on, and on one side we have footage of impact and on the other side you nothing but claims, if one wishes to convince people, then one needs to present a certain level of  evidence, the U.S has presented their footage, while Russia only has claims, what is going to convince people more?

On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.
People don't know much about explosive charges, they simply see what remains.

This is why """PR""" wise, this is a U.S victory.

2017 bombing? Of Shayrat? Shayrat by the words of the US itself was largely a symbolic act, the Airbase was reusable the very same afternoon. They double/tripple tapped much of the hangars taking out 9 planes, 6 of which were derelict. They hit 12 radar positions, missed 6 but took out the UXO area that is true.

In all 44 of 59 TLAM's were effective, 8 were off mark, 7 were redundant.

Now one thing, has anyone asked anything about those TLAM's? Seriously. No, albeit there was a gross miscue between what was claimed and what was achieved.

Back on April 2018, I already gave a beginning of answer, there it is very possible there was an attempt to hit more targets, simply based on what we can see, and what we can assess. As I said, we know that the Shishar target was probably triple covered because the results of the Shayrat strike. They were planning to fire 30 missiles for targets that needed 10. And they fired 29. About 10 were off mark, duds or redundant. Probably 3 were intercepted, because of the typical spread pattern. That leaves 17 shots for roughly 4 targets in Shinshar.

As easy as that.

PR wise, everyone has stopped talking about this, because none of the sides wants a proper BDA. Since both are BSing.

BSing is what you are doing.   The worst failure rate of the Tomahawk was 15% and that was from the 1999 Kosovo operation in
a terrain with a lot more relief than Syria.   You claim it is 34.5% in 2018 without a shred of anything to back it up.   I am quite sure
that in the real world the US improved the failure rate to under 10%, especially in Syria where it is probably under 5%.   The rest of
your guessing is neither here nor there.   Sending 73 cruise missiles at a cluster of three civilian university buildings is record breaking
overkill, or more plausibly pure BS from the self-anointed guiding lights of humanity.  

The notion that Russia has not evolved the capacity to neutralize the Tomahawk is patent absurdity.   To repeat, since it is clearly
not penetrating the skulls of intellectual giants here, these cruise missiles are subsonic and non-maneuverable.   Russia can track
these dinosaurs from orbit.   Yet people here are still going on about how Syrian 1950s radars would never detect them.   Give
it a rest.    

What? Has it got into you that maybe Russia had no plans to actually stop the hits on those targets? I said it before, the US talked this out and they chose targets that have no link to the CW program. If i didn't knew better, I'd even say that Russia hoped for something to go amiss for free propaganda points. Shinshar's maybe the most interesting example on how the Western Coalition humiliated itself. But then we have intellectuals like you that want war porn instead of analyzing the claims and results.

They did the same with Yemen back when the Yemenis fired "ghost" AShM's to the US in the Red sea. To which the US replied by hitting already destroyed posts.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Yap around 20 burn marks.
Wish they'd showed a better full picture.

But this is the better known image.


Although with this one we can confirm that 10 of them are BS.

Yes, this "better known" image is the perfect example of the immense amount of b........t  that western PR machine is capable to sell to theirs public opinion ,in spite of the fact that any factual and rational element would point to the exact opposite.
Practically for western operatives is sufficient to trace some yellow circles around elements of old satellite images ,taken even before the attack even happened, and magically a "proof" has been created for thin air ! All of that against the self-evident primary detonations of only 23 missiles (22 on military installations) visible in the live video shown by Federation's MoD and for not different reason that, in spite of the total absurdity of those PR works, the typical western viewer would not even pass the thing under the minimum scrap of critical thinking lens !
 
By now naturally anyone execpt the most ignorant people is perfectly aware that the problem is not only of the 10 weapon depots that has been never hit in the US attack to Al Shayrat AB



but also that ,only to provide some examples, that number of hits at the support complex was 4 (as easily visible in the video of Federation's MoD) not 5  



that those two burn trace are obviously NOT the result of two TLAM hits but ZERO



or that for several of the two-bay hardened aircraft shelters, counted as two TLAM hits, in reality only one was hit while the other remained relatively undamaged



Naturally all of that will change nothing for mindless plants that ,for the last event, come to the point to even believe to the absurdity that the pics shown under theirs eyes of three medium size ,not hardened civil builings, "strangely" just those without any SAM battery purposely placed at theirs defence (to the contrary of the military installations targeted) is the result of 76 TLAM hit !!!  

Enough said.

Many of this military bases photos.. were damages done by ISIS artillery... specially Homs..
When ISIS captured Palmyra ,there were shelling the homs military base and night.. and any Idiot
can then take a satellite photo (or a photoshop) and claim "proof" of Israel ,NATO ,Dinosaurs or ALiens hit of the military base.. with cruise missiles or anti matter bombs.. and use the burned zones as "Evidence"/
Common idiots , stop the bullshit already. There is no rocket science to intercept a freaking Subsonic low speed
missile that fly most of the time in a fucking straight line.


i mean common people stop the bullshit. is not the 60s ,there are air defenses that intercept fast missiles.
Why can't Russia intercept an old cruise missile that fly in a straight line at slow speed?
here the flight of an "invincible" tomahack missile ..


France and britain missiles did not ad any additional difficulty.. they all flight at similar speeds
of Tomahawks..

The real challenge is not subsonic missiles.. but Hypersonic missiles instead.. that fly 5x ,10x or 20x times!!!
faster that anything NATO have on its inventory in cruise missiles .. there is not enough time to intercept them..
and close air defenses dont work well with such technology.. you need lasers or electronic warfare to crash the missile.


even a world war 2 plane ,armed with a manpad with infra red seekers can beat the hell out of any NATO cruise missiles if there is knowledge of where the warships are located launching the missiles and low altitude radars,Combat planes and AWACS monitoring Syria airspace completely..  

This is the whole Point of Pantsirs and TOR defenses.. they were designed to defend S-400s and S-300s from cruise missiles attacks or ballistic ones..If Pantsirs can't intercept Cruise missiles then for what reason Russia bothers deploying short range defenses at all ? for show?    

As i told many times Russian air defenses can target anything 5 meters above ground ,so "flying low" will not help..
and radars can pickup any cruise missile flying low missiles at any distance ,when you have flying radars on the air..or dense layers of low altitude radars that reach all the way to Syrian borders and beyond it.. no problem.. any infra red missile intercepting short range missile or even a manpad can shutdown any missile in inventory of NATO as long they are told the missile trajectory and the time it will fly over your positions. Is like intercepting a train.. all you need to know is when the train will pass over any area... then you deploy a road side bomb..and wait the train and when is about to pass.. the bomb will explode.and stop the train.. Intercepting a train is very easy.. when you know where the train will pass. In case of tomawaks.. is all about positioning in the correct place and the correct time ,
pantsirs will defeat any NATO missile withit 20km 30km range of their positions.. reason why is important that Syria have enough Pantsir air defenses to cover its entire territory. Any fragmentation missile that explode near it..will send the tomahawk directly to the ground. Electronic warfare can also send the missile to the ground..Is not coincidence why NATO needs to use 100 missiles to target 3 buildings..is not by coincidence. they need mass scale attacks to try to overwhelm Syrian air defenses..   If it was Russian air defenses in place... the interception rate will have been 100%.

This however will not stop NATO from releasing old photos from Syria, from previous attacks by terrorist. and use it as "evidence " that their attacks was a "success".

Vann7 wrote:

Many of this military bases photos.. were damages done by ISIS artillery... specially Homs..
When ISIS captured Palmyra ,there were shelling the homs military base and night.. and any Idiot
can then take a satellite photo (or a photoshop) and claim "proof" of Israel ,NATO ,Dinosaurs or ALiens hit of the military base.. with cruise missiles or anti matter bombs.. and use the burned zones as "Evidence"/
Common idiots , stop the bullshit already. There is no rocket science to intercept a freaking Subsonic missile
that fly most of the time in a fucking straight line and that even a terrorist in a pickup truck and direct fire
can blow up if the terrorist in the correct place and warned before hand the missile is going on its direction..

As i told many times Russian air defenses can target anything 5 meters above ground and radars can pickup any cruise missile flying low missiles at any distance ,when you have flying radars on the air.. no problem.. any infra red missile intercepting short range missile or even a manpad can shutdown any missile in inventory of NATO as long they are told the missile trajectory and the time it will fly over your positions. Is like intercepting a train.. all you need to know is when the train will pass over any area... then you deploy a road side bomb..and wait the train and when is about to pass.. the bomb will explode.  In case of tomawaks.. is all about positioning in the correct place and the correct time ,
pantsirs will defeat any NATO missile withit 20km 30km range of their positions.. reason why is important that Syria have enough Pantsir air defenses to cover its entire territory. Any fragmentation missile that explode near it..will send the tomahawk directly to the ground. Electronic warfare can also send the missile to the ground..Is not coincidence why NATO needs to use 100 missiles to target 3 buildings..is not by coincidence. they need mass scale attacks to try to overwhelm Syrian air defenses..   If it was Russian air defenses in place... the interception rate will have been 100%.

This however will not stop NATO from releasing old photos from Syria, from previous attacks by terrorist. and use it as Proof that their attacks was a "success".

Putin will strike back

Syria: western nations seek to bypass Russian veto at UN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un

Austin wrote:Syria: western nations seek to bypass Russian veto at UN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un

Is quite interesting that the last time.. US ,France and Britain bypass Russia and China and try to justify a war against
another country using the general assembly vote..instead of security council ,and justify the invasion of North Korea
by NATO in the korean war.. this was the very same conflict that NATO got his ass kicked , in that conflict ..the korean war.. and after receiving the Support of UN for the :unification of both koreas ,through force. They had to retreat
from North Korea after China invaded and with a limited help of Russia airforce and kicked the north Atlantic Powers
and other allies from there...

https://www.bevinalexander.com/books/korea-first-war-we-lost.htm

So this looks like the west does not learn from history is it? They again trying to bypass international laws and
seeking to repeat a new North korean war.scenario that they ignored the interest of other major powers.. this time
is Russia.  So by the looks of it.. the Guardian a british propaganda outlet. who receive its content from British Government. it looks they planning another chemical incident this time in IDLIB and blaming Assad again .

Austin wrote:Syria: western nations seek to bypass Russian veto at UN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un

Sounds like they're running out of ideas..... what exactly would a vote in the general assembly achieve?

Cyberspec wrote:

Austin wrote:Syria: western nations seek to bypass Russian veto at UN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un

Sounds like they're running out of ideas..... what exactly would a vote in the general assembly achieve?

Bully many other countries to support US-UK-France illegal aggression on Syria , and future ones...
And justify their illegal military presence. They had no way to counter effectively the arguments of Russia
that their attacks are illegal ,invasion illegal ,and so this only give Syria a better international legal standing
to fight back and shoot down US or NATO planes or even attack warships ,if NATO start attacking Syria government
buildings. or Presidential palace. it will be self defense..  Trying to bypass Russia at UN also shows indication that
they have plans to continue with the "chemical attacks" story of Assad against its own people.. and "justify" their
future airstrikes. on Syria if continue liberating zones in syria controlled by NATO backed terrorist.

Legalizing the strikes through UN general vote ,also will help cover Trump government from potential impeachment from enemies at congress specially Democrats who wants him out .Since US have not declared war against Syria ,which is a major requirement by US constitution to attack another country and is in a war against a nation who have done nothing to US.. So is better for their international image ,to have the support of majority of UN than not having it. Russia for example could do the same against a US ally... ie.. strike Saudi Arabia for their real genocide against civilians in Yemen with American ,british and french weapons and even strike Saudi Oil FIelds.. (something that will sink US dollar value) and so US and the fake humanitarian people ,who complains about chemicals weapons in Syria,  will have problems to explain why is legal to strike Assad and not legal to strike Saudi Arabia. and so it will be funny to see US-UK-France defending Saudi Arabia REAL government genocide against Yemenis.. but condemning at the same time the fake genocide of Assad against Syrians. when he is only fighting the Terrorist that US -UK and France support in Syria to split it in parts.

GarryB wrote:Which video did you look at... that video shows intact aircraft shelters and intact aircraft sitting in berms by a runway...

From about 26 seconds on there is nothing shown that has any damage and the footage from before that you get no detailed view of the hotspots that could be impact points to determine what has happened.

Garry we are talking of the video of the attack to the Al Shayrat air base of April 2017

That UAV video confirm perfectly the exact 23 primary detonations (22 on military targets of the air base and 1 void area between the runway) that Federation's MoD had declared whille completely disprove the declaration of the time of Pentagon

In substance western spin doctors was forced to come to the point to depict ridiculous yellow circles traced above details of satellite photos taken before the attack !!!!!..... to attempt to distract theirs public opinions from what them could literally observe with theirs very eyes (pointing as usual to the completly blind, self-referencial mindset deeply rooted among western civil people, prone to believe to any version of "therir side" even when laughably incoherent and absurd).

The other comical western attempt of the time was to show images of some of the 22 hits, perfectly visible and identifiable in the Federation's MoD UAV video, sustaining to show in this way the proof of the "lies uttered by the Cremlin"

Western public opinion can be surely considered, on average, narrowsighted and ignorant but theirs PR operatives are surely unbelievably shameless .

Wreckage of cruise missiles which were shot-down by Syrian air-defence forces.
https://youtu.be/B5kzrwIntLk

On a more important note and as already stressed-out previously, the spectacular failure of the last cruise missile attack by part of US-UK and France (in particular against all the military installations targeted at the defence of which was placed purposely the few batteries of the most advanced SAM systems available to Syrian armed forces) in those days already begin to create the first doctrinal lessons about cruise missile employment and the same feasibility of the concept of the conventional "contactless war" around whioch has been constructed mainly the the Western warfare doctrine.


An interesting article of Константин Сивков about the subject

https://vpk.name/news/213422_globalnyii_udar_medlenno_i_pechalno.html

With all this perhaps now i can make a case, thank you gents, sorry i had to piss  a lot of you off to give me the info.  

Also, no ones posted this yet, so may as well.

Doesn't syria have Tor? If so how many? And why haven't we seen them in action (short range?wrong place wrong time?) It would be nice to see tunguska and Tor see some action.

Has Iranians deployed any AD assets? If not why not? On paper apparently they have systems that could be useful to protect SAA Iranian troops and hez.

d_taddei2 wrote:Doesn't syria have Tor? If so how many? And why haven't we seen them in action  (short range?wrong place wrong time?) It would be nice to see tunguska and Tor see some action.

Has Iranians deployed any AD assets? If not why not? On paper apparently they have systems that could be useful to protect SAA Iranian troops and hez.

No Tor for Syria. Pantsir was cheaper to buy for longer rane and same capabilities and it has two guns for the dead zone of missile around the luncher.

There were reports of iranian tors and their domesrical variant of buk system but no pictures.

Isos wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Doesn't syria have Tor? If so how many? And why haven't we seen them in action  (short range?wrong place wrong time?) It would be nice to see tunguska and Tor see some action.

Has Iranians deployed any AD assets? If not why not? On paper apparently they have systems that could be useful to protect SAA Iranian troops and hez.

No Tor for Syria. Pantsir was cheaper to buy for longer rane and same capabilities and it has two guns for the dead zone of missile around the luncher.

There were reports of iranian tors and their domesrical variant of buk system but no pictures.

Syria has Tor M1, at least two batches were delivered in summer 2013 and 2016.

Iran has TOR-M1....AFAIK, Syria doesn't

Vann7 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

Austin wrote:Syria: western nations seek to bypass Russian veto at UN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un

Sounds like they're running out of ideas..... what exactly would a vote in the general assembly achieve?

Bully many other countries to support US-UK-France illegal aggression on Syria , and future ones...

The General Assembly can't authorise an attack or occupation...it would be useful as a PR exercise but they're alreay doing all that without any authorisation so in practical terms it wouldnt make any difference

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Isos wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Doesn't syria have Tor? If so how many? And why haven't we seen them in action  (short range?wrong place wrong time?) It would be nice to see tunguska and Tor see some action.

Has Iranians deployed any AD assets? If not why not? On paper apparently they have systems that could be useful to protect SAA Iranian troops and hez.

No Tor for Syria. Pantsir was cheaper to buy for longer rane and same capabilities and it has two guns for the dead zone of missile around the luncher.

There were reports of iranian tors and their domesrical variant of buk system but no pictures.

Syria has Tor M1, at least two batches were delivered in summer 2013 and 2016.

I think you mean Iran because Syria doesn't have them. They are expensive compare to pantsir. Egypt has also got them some years ago with s-300VM.

Isos wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Isos wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Doesn't syria have Tor? If so how many? And why haven't we seen them in action  (short range?wrong place wrong time?) It would be nice to see tunguska and Tor see some action.

Has Iranians deployed any AD assets? If not why not? On paper apparently they have systems that could be useful to protect SAA Iranian troops and hez.

No Tor for Syria. Pantsir was cheaper to buy for longer rane and same capabilities and it has two guns for the dead zone of missile around the luncher.

There were reports of iranian tors and their domesrical variant of buk system but no pictures.

Syria has Tor M1, at least two batches were delivered in summer 2013 and 2016.

I think you mean Iran because Syria doesn't have them. They are expensive compare to pantsir. Egypt has also got them some years ago with s-300VM.

No I mean Syria.