The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar - Page 169

Oberon · 01-23-17, 01:20 PM

Russian Defence Ministry has stated that its warplanes have flown first combat missions in Syria with US-led coalition aircraft.

ikalugin · 01-23-17, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Russian Defence Ministry has stated that its warplanes have flown first combat missions in Syria with US-led coalition aircraft.

Yes, we also did some sorties with Turks before.

Oberon · 01-23-17, 02:16 PM

Now the question is...which one is the truth and which one is an Alternative Fact™?

August · 01-24-17, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Now the question is...which one is the truth and which one is an Alternative Fact™?

Both are true.

In accordance with agreements the US tells Russia they will be dropping ordinance at a particular spot. Russia figures out the likely target and also attacks it. The US didn't try to coordinate the strikes just inform Russia where they would be operating. Russia sees a propaganda opportunity. You fall for it.

Skybird · 01-24-17, 04:39 PM

Since somebody recently asked me in another thread by whom Germany should feel threatened so that it should maintain military strength.

CNN recently reported that several strikes against IS camps and personell carried out in Libya by the US Air Force, were run due to attempts of targetting and killing contact persons of the Syrian assassin who murdered several people on the christmas market in Berlin 2016.

I have to wonder. The terror attack was carried out on German soil, in a German city, during a German festivity, killing German citizens and injuring, mutilating, traumatising German citizens - subjects which to protect from such dangers is a mandatory constitutional duty of the German state. Why is it then that it needs American platforms firing American ordinance and putting American crews at risk in retaliation for this anti-German attack, when in fact it should have been German military capacities reaching out and retaliating for the terror attack from Berlin? Isn'T Germany seen as one of the leading, most wealthy nations on Earth? Why do we not maintain a more potential military? Just this third world aid and development unit that it currently is?

A classic joke from the cold war era: whats the role of the west-German Bundeswehr in case the Sovjets suddenly attack? To regulate traffic and keep the Autobahn free for the real armies (US, UK) arriving as relief forces.

ikalugin · 01-24-17, 05:57 PM

Cold War Era Bundeswehr was a credible force to be reckoned with, especially on the tactical level. So is the current Bundeswehr force, on paper atleast.

What, in my opinion, Bunderswehr needs (well apart from EU becoming a centralised federal state with a single army, which you would not approve of) is to improve what it already has - improve readiness and combat preperadnes.

Oberon · 01-24-17, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

(well apart from EU becoming a centralised federal state with a single army, which you would not approve of)

If that would happen Europe would be a potent force...but it probably never will.

Meanwhile in the Middle East, 17-20 million Shia Muslims stick two fingers up at Daesh and march to Karbala.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7436561.html

Oberon · 01-25-17, 12:48 AM

Uncle Kuznetsov is heading through the channel, wondered why it was so foggy tonight. He's brought the usual guests with him, a Royal Navy warship which wishes it was HMS Ocean (Transmitting the wrong transponder), HNOMS Roald Amundsen, and the HNLMS Groningen. A USN P-8A also buzzed the Kuzzie at 500ft about 15-20 minutes ago whilst doing 210kts.
Hopefully the weather will be clear and there'll be some nice pics as he goes around Hellfire corner.

Dan D · 01-25-17, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

[...]
What, in my opinion, Bunderswehr needs [ ...] to improve what it already has - improve readiness and combat preperadnes.

The German-Dutch Corps for example would be a quick response unit for both NATO and EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps

Skybird · 01-25-17, 12:09 PM

NATO states are - rightly - demanded by Trump to finally fulfill their financial self-committments. The only ones doing that or exceeding them even, are the Brits and I think the French (on the latter I am not certain).

Now that the crisis-haunted EU desperately seeks a new "symbol" that should communicate how very nicely united and fine they all are LOL, the Euro military united super corps has been discovered, and new military structures should be formed for that. Of course, the eU then gets a new ministry to boast with, the Euzropean defence council/ministry/party club or whatever you want to call it. Nice meetins with cool drinks and attrac9tve ladies serving drinks, and nice PR photos and invitations for TV talkshows. For politicians, this sounds all great of course.

But why having parallel structures to the already established ones - NATO's?

Why risking political controversy if NATO decides for one thing, and the Euro military orginsation decides for an opposing thing?

Why to assume that the money this new structure and network will cost, will be paid willingly - if states demonstrate that they are not even willing to fulfill their financial obligations within NATO?

Why assuming that adding to the hierarchy to decision-making and political will forming, will form better, faster reacting, more potent reaction options in case of a sudden crisis? The German-Dutch corps requires 30 days minimum as pre-warning time in case of emergency deploymment - on paper. Remember how fast thigns rushed in parts on the nCrimean peninsula ince the first green men were spotted. I know from insiders (the logistical and staff headquarter is stationed here in my hometown Münster) from years ago that internally they calculate - at least years ago - with more time before they are able to relocate and setup a "robust" and really combat-potent force somewhere in Eastern or Southern Europe. Symbolically raisng a flag somewhere or sending a groupo to repair a bridge or drill a waterhole (traditionally the main reason the Bundeswehr now exists, it sometimes seems to me), is one thing, and politicians love it. Setting up a real battle-potent combat forces of serious size somewhere and establishing its logistical support background - that is something very different.

The deficits of the Bundeswerhr lie in eroding platform pools, undersupply on every level, not sufficient personell, low moral and high level of frustration, and time and again: too low numbers in weapon platforms in case of a real conflict with Russia. Helicopters, transportplanes, tanks, navy units and especially their crews - too few, to little, too broken, not enough, not workable, not equipped for combat.

Finally, instead of avoiding symbolically wanted, politically ambitioned, practically questionable double structures that in the end are nothing but additionally wasting money for smaller Bang, the ending of underfunding NATO should be the priority. This way, the Europeans could also claim a bigger role in NATO rightfully, and either demand America to reduce its claims for control and power in it, or could fill any vacancies if Trump voluntarily reduces America'S role in NATO, as he has threatened to do. Lets face it: Americas priority is no longer Europe, or the Middle East - but the Pacific.

This is the far more potent and clever move to make. And that is why Russia supports the idea of secondary European military structures instead. The more difficult and complex the network of hierarchies in Europe is, the easier it is for Russia to manipulate it in its favour and to win the media war - and delay (at least, if not more) real military reactions.

We have an established military defence structure already. Why forming parallel structures? We should spend more for NATO, and by that strengthen European positions inside NATO instead - and by that strengthening our stand and influence in it, compared to Washington. Right now, without Washingtons Yes or No nothing works in NATO. And this although the EU economic zone has a slightly higher GDP than the American economy...!? A parallel military structure will suffer from the same financial harms: it will be underfunded, and if not, this would mean that the force is so small that militarily it has no real importance and effect in case of a major conflict. And what then? Calling NATO for help?

Not two alliances parallel to each other, like Moscow wants (Moscow acts by divide et impera here). Only one alliance - but this one in much better shape, if you please.

ikalugin · 01-25-17, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan D

The German-Dutch Corps for example would be a quick response unit for both NATO and EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._German/Dutch_Corps

I was talking about overall readiness and preparedness. Quick response units are, in my opinion, a placebo.

Oberon · 01-25-17, 05:22 PM

Just saw some footage from a helo and Typhoon passing over the Kuznetsov in the channel earlier today, her funnel smoke seems a lot less thicker than it was on her way out to Syria. They fix or change something out there?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364

mapuc · 01-25-17, 05:30 PM

Some news from our politician on the home front

The are two parties who's debating on who are the biggest threat to Denmark.

The Conservative party say it's Russia, while the Peoples party say it's Islamic/ISIS that is the biggest threat to Denmark.

Both party agree on that Russia/ISIS is a threat too, but not so much as what they claim to be the major threat to Denmark.

Markus

Skybird · 01-25-17, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Just saw some footage from a helo and Typhoon passing over the Kuznetsov in the channel earlier today, her funnel smoke seems a lot less thicker than it was on her way out to Syria. They fix or change something out there?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364

Quote:

While the Typhoons do not have any anti-ship missiles they can use their sensors to try to detect the Russian's air defence systems.

How - helpful in case of a problem. Hasn't a famous Brit once written "Readiness is all", and another one being the author of this quote "Its better to have a weapon and not needing it, than to need a weapon but finding one has none?"

So reassuring that Europe has such a fantastic recent record to forsee and be fully prepared for the many Black Swan events there have been in the past three years and that all failed to take Europe by surprise.

Oberon · 01-25-17, 06:56 PM

Well, that would be why there was a warship there too.

Of course, chances are that this also had no missiles, but a strongly worded letter would suffice.

01-24-17, 04:39 PM	#2525
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,684 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Since somebody recently asked me in another thread by whom Germany should feel threatened so that it should maintain military strength. CNN recently reported that several strikes against IS camps and personell carried out in Libya by the US Air Force, were run due to attempts of targetting and killing contact persons of the Syrian assassin who murdered several people on the christmas market in Berlin 2016. I have to wonder. The terror attack was carried out on German soil, in a German city, during a German festivity, killing German citizens and injuring, mutilating, traumatising German citizens - subjects which to protect from such dangers is a mandatory constitutional duty of the German state. Why is it then that it needs American platforms firing American ordinance and putting American crews at risk in retaliation for this anti-German attack, when in fact it should have been German military capacities reaching out and *retaliating* for the terror attack from Berlin? Isn'T Germany seen as one of the leading, most wealthy nations on Earth? Why do we not maintain a more potential military? Just this third world aid and development unit that it currently is? A classic joke from the cold war era: whats the role of the west-German Bundeswehr in case the Sovjets suddenly attack? To regulate traffic and keep the Autobahn free for the real armies (US, UK) arriving as relief forces. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-24-17, 05:57 PM	#2526
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Cold War Era Bundeswehr was a credible force to be reckoned with, especially on the tactical level. So is the current Bundeswehr force, on paper atleast. What, in my opinion, Bunderswehr needs (well apart from EU becoming a centralised federal state with a single army, which you would not approve of) is to improve what it already has - improve readiness and combat preperadnes. __________________ Grumpy as always.

01-25-17, 12:09 PM	#2530
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,684 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	NATO states are - rightly - demanded by Trump to finally fulfill their financial self-committments. The only ones doing that or exceeding them even, are the Brits and I think the French (on the latter I am not certain). Now that the crisis-haunted EU desperately seeks a new "symbol" that should communicate how very nicely united and fine they all are LOL, the Euro military united super corps has been discovered, and new military structures should be formed for that. Of course, the eU then gets a new ministry to boast with, the Euzropean defence council/ministry/party club or whatever you want to call it. Nice meetins with cool drinks and attrac9tve ladies serving drinks, and nice PR photos and invitations for TV talkshows. For politicians, this sounds all great of course. But why having parallel structures to the already established ones - NATO's? Why risking political controversy if NATO decides for one thing, and the Euro military orginsation decides for an opposing thing? Why to assume that the money this new structure and network will cost, will be paid willingly - if states demonstrate that they are not even willing to fulfill their financial obligations within NATO? Why assuming that adding to the hierarchy to decision-making and political will forming, will form better, faster reacting, more potent reaction options in case of a sudden crisis? The German-Dutch corps requires 30 days minimum as pre-warning time in case of emergency deploymment - on paper. Remember how fast thigns rushed in parts on the nCrimean peninsula ince the first green men were spotted. I know from insiders (the logistical and staff headquarter is stationed here in my hometown Münster) from years ago that internally they calculate - at least years ago - with more time before they are able to relocate and setup a "robust" and really combat-potent force somewhere in Eastern or Southern Europe. Symbolically raisng a flag somewhere or sending a groupo to repair a bridge or drill a waterhole (traditionally the main reason the Bundeswehr now exists, it sometimes seems to me), is one thing, and politicians love it. Setting up a real battle-potent combat forces of serious size somewhere and establishing its logistical support background - that is something very different. The deficits of the Bundeswerhr lie in eroding platform pools, undersupply on every level, not sufficient personell, low moral and *high level of frustration,* and time and again: too low numbers in weapon platforms in case of a real conflict with Russia. Helicopters, transportplanes, tanks, navy units and especially their crews - too few, to little, too broken, not enough, not workable, not equipped for combat. Finally, instead of avoiding symbolically wanted, politically ambitioned, practically questionable double structures that in the end are nothing but additionally wasting money for smaller Bang, the ending of underfunding NATO should be the priority. This way, the Europeans could also claim a bigger role in NATO *rightfully, and either demand America to reduce its claims for control and power in it, or could fill any vacancies if Trump voluntarily reduces America'S role in NATO, as he has threatened to do. Lets face it: Americas priority is no longer Europe, or the Middle East - but the Pacific. This is the far more potent and clever move to make. And that is why Russia supports the idea of secondary European military structures instead. The more difficult and complex the network of hierarchies in Europe is, the easier it is for Russia to manipulate it in its favour and to win the media war - and delay (at least, if not more) real military reactions. We have an established military defence structure already. Why forming parallel structures? We should spend more for NATO, and by that strengthen European positions inside NATO instead - and by that strengthening our stand and influence in it, compared to Washington. Right now, without Washingtons Yes or No nothing works in NATO. And this although the EU economic zone has a slightly higher GDP than the American economy...!? A parallel military structure will suffer from the same financial harms: it will be underfunded, and if not, this would mean that the force is so small that militarily it has no real importance and effect in case of a major conflict. And what then? Calling NATO for help? Not two alliances parallel to each other, like Moscow wants (Moscow acts by divide et impera here). Only one alliance - but this one in much better shape, if you please. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.* Last edited by Skybird; 01-25-17 at 12:21 PM.

01-23-17, 01:20 PM	#2521
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Russian Defence Ministry has stated that its warplanes have flown first combat missions in Syria with US-led coalition aircraft.

01-23-17, 02:16 PM	#2523
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Now the question is...which one is the truth and which one is an Alternative Fact™?

01-25-17, 12:48 AM	#2528
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Uncle Kuznetsov is heading through the channel, wondered why it was so foggy tonight. He's brought the usual guests with him, a Royal Navy warship which wishes it was HMS Ocean (Transmitting the wrong transponder), HNOMS Roald Amundsen, and the HNLMS Groningen. A USN P-8A also buzzed the Kuzzie at 500ft about 15-20 minutes ago whilst doing 210kts. Hopefully the weather will be clear and there'll be some nice pics as he goes around Hellfire corner.

01-25-17, 05:22 PM	#2532
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Just saw some footage from a helo and Typhoon passing over the Kuznetsov in the channel earlier today, her funnel smoke seems a lot less thicker than it was on her way out to Syria. They fix or change something out there? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364

01-25-17, 05:30 PM	#2533
mapuc Fleet Admiral Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 18,188 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	Some news from our politician on the home front The are two parties who's debating on who are the biggest threat to Denmark. The Conservative party say it's Russia, while the Peoples party say it's Islamic/ISIS that is the biggest threat to Denmark. Both party agree on that Russia/ISIS is a threat too, but not so much as what they claim to be the major threat to Denmark. Markus

01-25-17, 06:56 PM	#2535
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Well, that would be why there was a warship there too. Of course, chances are that this also had no missiles, but a strongly worded letter would suffice.