While cruise missiles are traditionally used at the beginning of bombing campaigns to hit multiple high-value targets simultaneously while avoiding radar detection and maintaining the element of surprise, Russia’s strikes did none of those things. Instead, [IHS Jane's analyst Jeremy] Binnie believes, everything that was targeted by the Russian cruise missiles could have easily been hit by other Russian assets within Syria (more than 50 aircraft) or possibly by Russian ships in the Mediterranean Sea.
“I think if you look at what cruise missiles are traditionally used for . . . this isn’t one of those scenarios,” Binnie said. “Russia has been striking the [Islamic State] for more than a week, and the U.S. has been for more than a year.”
Binnie went on to say that the cruise missile strikes were probably a show of Russian military force and technology, noting that the ships that fired the missiles — mostly small missile corvettes — were intended to demonstrate that even the small ships in the Russian navy are stronger than they look.
http://missilethreat.com/these-are-the-cruise-missiles-russia-just-sent-into-syria/
19 comments:
Who's Binnie? That used to be a derogatory term for bin Laden.
Really? I apologize for not making his identity exact :(
Will fix.
deborah said...
Really? I apologize for not making his identity exact :(
Will fix.
I still had to google "binnie" + "cruise missile" to learn his identity. I'm not a regular reader of "Jane's Defense Weekly."
Nor am I. I believe the zig-zagging was hot-dogging, and that they had the permission of Iran and Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cwKCU8Z5c
"...Iraq's leadership has close ties with Iran."
Iraq is now Iran's satellite, thanks to Hussein's precipitous withdrawal of American troops. Thanks to that same withdrawal Hussein is also the father of ISIS. And Hillary will continue the assault on anything resembling a stable order in the Middle East. That's what communists do. But of course Americans have been carefully brainwashed to immediately think *Joe McCarthy crackpot* when communists are called communists.
ricpic, all that is predicated on the unilateral, non-NATO approved, falsely evidenced invasion of Iraq.
"Proceeded by" maybe, but definitely not "predicated". It's amazing somebody is still stuck on stupid with the "unilateral" claim. It's like Bill Engvall's sign.
I'm partial to Ron White: You can't fix stupid.
It was unilateral in the sense it went against NATO and was a put-up job. That there were hangers-on kissing the US ass does not signify. But I think you know that. Scroll down in your link to the Deaths section.
"It was unilateral in the sense it went against NATO"
It is not just the word "predicated" that you use improperly; you also don't know how to use "unilateral". Are you going to start throwing around the word "inconceivable"?
Leland, it's impolite and not very wise to point out spelling and word usage errors on the internet.
I stand by unilateral for the reasons given.
deborah said...
ricpic, all that is predicated on the unilateral, non-NATO approved, falsely evidenced invasion of Iraq.
Deborah, are you really still going to stand by that fictitious lie that the Iraq invasion was based on false evidence? Please tell me yes, so I can utterly destroy your pathetic screed on it.
I'll just start with this vignette from the NYT:
"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
Not to mention UN Resolution 1441 and there is so so so much more. Even my own eye witness account when I was in Al-Tuwaitha. Please go ahead and continue denying and believing a lie. The fact that you and your ilk continue to spread it makes you complicit in that lie as well, which makes you all look like unilateral idiots.
I stand by unilateral for the reasons given.
Yes, you did say "you can't fix stupid", so I understand your problem.
Meth, enter the WABAC machine and read this very informative article about the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, written by a very high-up military Intel officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/09/drinking_the_ko.html
deborah said...
Meth, enter the WABAC machine and read this very informative article about the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, written by a very high-up military Intel officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/09/drinking_the_ko.html
Deborah, there was a 2 year lead up to Iraq with debate, discussions, resolutions, more debate, six other state intelligence agencies agreeing that yes there were WMD's there. This is a 31 page screed by Pat Lang, one man's opinion, and you will believe that too. Was he there? Not a single footnote, not a single attribution, no corroborating evidence of quotes, statements, or verifiable witness, eyewitness testimony. The opinion of one guy. Brilliant. This is what you are relying on as one of the poles in your argumentative tent? Really?
You don't know shit do you? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, you and your kind never have. You spew irascible emotional nonsense hoping that some of it sticks to the political walls so you can run around waving your arms in the air at how right you are, trying to score political points, while screaming sloganeering punch lines like it was the 60's all over again.
You have nothing because you are willing to believe anything. You are the ones that have been lied to. Do I think Iraq was the right thing to do, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, but what I do know is that the case made for going there after a two year national debate was made, was that it was the right call overall.
So if all you can muster is, go read the ramblings of a military guy, then you clearly need to get back into your depends and hit the centrum silver a little harder.
Meth, let's agree to disagree.
Meth, let's agree that deborah doesn't know of what she writes yet decided to make a wisecrack response to ricpic's appropriate analysis to show her stupidity.
deborah said...
Meth, let's agree to disagree.
Deborah, you mean to agree to disagree that you are wrong and that you believe in utter lies, which in itself make you and those who repeat them just as wrong? That's what you want to agree to disagree on? No, I will not agree to that. You are wrong and dangerously so. You have repeatedly told lies over and over again. You believe those lies. You are are complicit along with other in retelling those lies. You will not suffer lightly with me on this, so no I will not agree to continuing to allow you to continue to spread these lies.
You've made accusations you cannot defend. I've refuted them. I've asked you to defend them, you can't and yet you will still believe the lies you've told. Is this how you conduct your life? If it is, then you are a sad person.
Leland said...
Meth, let's agree that deborah doesn't know of what she writes yet decided to make a wisecrack response to ricpic's appropriate analysis to show her stupidity.
Oh, I'll agree to that and that she is still wrong.
Post a Comment