Science of MH17 reconstruction
Discussion
tvrolet said:
Not quite sure how the Russians can still be denying an involvement in this...
I think history has shown us repeatedly Russians don't see the same cowardice in lying that we do. Another thing I find curious is when you listen to Russian representatives talk about Syria it becomes apparent we have a huge cultural divide. The Russian party line seems to be that the "West" is the problem, as we don't choose sides, and we're therefore incapable of ending conflicts and thus increase loss of life despite our good intentions. I actually struggle to disagree with this.
The Russians by contrast will back Assad, knowing he is an evil little
, because they believe the ends justify the means. They'll ignore trifling matters such as a gassing, a few aid trucks being blown up, or passenger planes being downed for the same reason. Perhaps unsurprising given their history, the Russians clearly have a very different attitude towards sacrifice than we do.I think that's why they'll win personally.
I hardly heap praise on the Russians given their mid and short term history in conflicts they've meddled with.
They are as bad as "the west" they're always pointing the finger at.
The only reason they're propping Assad up is to protect their own interests in the area and keep their only Med naval base.
They are as bad as "the west" they're always pointing the finger at.
The only reason they're propping Assad up is to protect their own interests in the area and keep their only Med naval base.
Regardless of the videos true meaning, it does show that pretty much an airliner would have no warning, but those who directly witnessed the explosion wouldn't have known about it any longer than seeing the missile in flight... Horrific weapon indeed - just an airborne claymore.
With regards to the wars... Politics are similar to religion. People will always argue their side is right with blind ignorance to the conditions. The unfortunate truth is that our forays into the middle east has served only to damage it further - with a catastrophic loss of local populous life.
What remains now is hardly democracy.
Whatever you think is irrelevant - you don't live there and have a western influenced view on life there as a result. Governments shouldn't send planes, tanks and infantry to back 'rebels' when their job is to speak to governments and affect change that way. Armies are an extension of politics when politics fail. In almost all instances, politicians didn't even do their job.... Russia and the West are as bad as each other - except that Russia IS supporting a government, whilst the west is supporting rebels and fighters with links to IS/AQ. When the inevitable happens and we're sent in to instil 'democracy' no doubt those fighting us will be as well or better armed than us. As history has proven in the area repeatedly.
Back onto topic, would it not be prudent to at least fit some form of missile defence in the form of a lock and flare/chaff dispenser module to planes at risk?
With regards to the wars... Politics are similar to religion. People will always argue their side is right with blind ignorance to the conditions. The unfortunate truth is that our forays into the middle east has served only to damage it further - with a catastrophic loss of local populous life.
What remains now is hardly democracy.
Whatever you think is irrelevant - you don't live there and have a western influenced view on life there as a result. Governments shouldn't send planes, tanks and infantry to back 'rebels' when their job is to speak to governments and affect change that way. Armies are an extension of politics when politics fail. In almost all instances, politicians didn't even do their job.... Russia and the West are as bad as each other - except that Russia IS supporting a government, whilst the west is supporting rebels and fighters with links to IS/AQ. When the inevitable happens and we're sent in to instil 'democracy' no doubt those fighting us will be as well or better armed than us. As history has proven in the area repeatedly.
Back onto topic, would it not be prudent to at least fit some form of missile defence in the form of a lock and flare/chaff dispenser module to planes at risk?
Israeli El Al airliners are supposed to have a defensive suite onboard, but that's meant to defend against man-portable AA systems low to the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpbTkdfyHg4
Against a sophisticated system like a Buk, whose missile can easily out turn and out perform an airliner, they would have no chance at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpbTkdfyHg4
Against a sophisticated system like a Buk, whose missile can easily out turn and out perform an airliner, they would have no chance at all.
Hedgehogfromhell said:
The unfortunate truth is that our forays into the middle east has served only to damage it further - with a catastrophic loss of local populous life.
What remains now is hardly democracy.
Whatever you think is irrelevant - you don't live there and have a western influenced view on life there as a result.
I don't live there, but thankfully I'm able to read and I've heard many accounts of those that do, especially in Iraq. As much as it's easy to criticise conduct of operations in the middle-east subjectively, it's far harder to actually prove they were of no benefit. What remains now is hardly democracy.
Whatever you think is irrelevant - you don't live there and have a western influenced view on life there as a result.
The burden is on you to prove a world where possibly the worst dictator in history, Saddam Hussein, would have increased stability in the region, especially given his likely armament with nuclear weaponry after annexing Kuwait. A world with Osama Bin Laden, the eloquent well funded murderer, had full use of his amassing forces. Where the Taliban could continue to rape, torture and kill the local populace whilst selling opium.
Just briefly back to Saddam, I'm not sure people who make such statements realize how f
ked up that guy was. Real example, you make a public speech he did not approve of, you return home to find your daughter is missing. You ring the police but no one responds. A video is dropped off, it's your daughter, you get to watch her being raped and tortured again and again and again. This is actually the thin end of the wedge, this is man who tortured and murdered his right hand man's brother to ensure his loyalty through fear, and wanted nuclear weaponry so wanted to annex Kuwait to get the funds. Do we really believe for a second the world would be better off had we not intervened?Prof Prolapse said:
I don't live there, but thankfully I'm able to read and I've heard many accounts of those that do, especially in Iraq. As much as it's easy to criticise conduct of operations in the middle-east subjectively, it's far harder to actually prove they were of no benefit.
The burden is on you to prove a world where possibly the worst dictator in history, Saddam Hussein, would have increased stability in the region, especially given his likely armament with nuclear weaponry after annexing Kuwait. A world with Osama Bin Laden, the eloquent well funded murderer, had full use of his amassing forces. Where the Taliban could continue to rape, torture and kill the local populace whilst selling opium.
Just briefly back to Saddam, I'm not sure people who make such statements realize how fked up that guy was. Real example, you make a public speech he did not approve of, you return home to find your daughter is missing. You ring the police but no one responds. A video is dropped off, it's your daughter, you get to watch her being raped and tortured again and again and again. This is actually the thin end of the wedge, this is man who tortured and murdered his right hand man's brother to ensure his loyalty through fear, and wanted nuclear weaponry so wanted to annex Kuwait to get the funds. Do we really believe for a second the world would be better off had we not intervened?
BLUF/TL:DR: Middle East is fThe burden is on you to prove a world where possibly the worst dictator in history, Saddam Hussein, would have increased stability in the region, especially given his likely armament with nuclear weaponry after annexing Kuwait. A world with Osama Bin Laden, the eloquent well funded murderer, had full use of his amassing forces. Where the Taliban could continue to rape, torture and kill the local populace whilst selling opium.
Just briefly back to Saddam, I'm not sure people who make such statements realize how f
ked up that guy was. Real example, you make a public speech he did not approve of, you return home to find your daughter is missing. You ring the police but no one responds. A video is dropped off, it's your daughter, you get to watch her being raped and tortured again and again and again. This is actually the thin end of the wedge, this is man who tortured and murdered his right hand man's brother to ensure his loyalty through fear, and wanted nuclear weaponry so wanted to annex Kuwait to get the funds. Do we really believe for a second the world would be better off had we not intervened?ked and has been for a long time - nothing we can do other than let them sort themselves out and use political power to exercise influence on the region - similar to Iran and its nuclear weapons programme - except we didn't and we've lost plenty of lives on both sides of the fence and achieved nothing except removed any form of government (that could be liaised with directly and pressure applied to) and created a power vacuum allowing an insurgency to thrive which is now spilling across nations - despite intentions to instil a west-friendly governance and provide the nation with security. The tribal system over there means there is constant conflict - even without bell ends with access to nasty st in power.Having been to both countries on several occasions i can tell you it wasn't a picnic for the interpreters we used, even without Bin Laden/Saddam there.. Hence why many completed their tours with a pass to Europe or the US with their families for protection... or didn't make it. That's just a snapshot in time - plenty of villages go up in smoke because of collusion then and now.
Switching to now and looking at various sources across all mediums, its pretty much the same except all you have to do now is not subscribe to Daesh way of life and religion to get that effect... Or did the video of women, children, men and babies with det cord wrapped around their bodies/getting shot/genocide of ethnic groups previously living 'happily' get missed? (It was on Facebook - so easy enough to miss if you don't subscribe to narcissism.com). Broad strokes genocide and annihilation of the kaffir.
The middle east is an exceedingly complex organism - I'm in no way defending Saddam/Osama, but to go in, create a vacuum (because the Iraqi army and government aren't capable) and then leave isn't the way... Then again neither is occupation as that breeds insurgency... Nor is equipping a rebel force that inevitably ends up joining the cause against the western forces (MANPADs in Afghan spring to mind)...
There's no one fit solution. There isn't really a hard solution at all. Only soft solutions that i can fathom. (Hard = Military, Soft = Politics and Influence for those unaware). There's nothing to say that events like the Arab spring wouldn't have occurred in Iraq/Afghan when they had enough of the oppressive regimes given the time.
We instilled a slightly more capable government in Afghanistan than we did Iraq - but backed it with an army predominantly from the north, posted for 5 years on what is viewed as a punishment posting internally. They have 5 days leave a year and it takes nigh on two to get home... Helmand is also the most kinetic province for the ANA so the likelihood of seeing home from the position of the focus of a funeral party is significantly higher.
GIROA essentially played the west quite well - getting what they wanted and then disappearing off and the army did as good a job as it could under the circumstances. The ANP (Police) were corrupt as corrupt can be mind you, often taking golden paychecks for green on blue - Nahr-e-saraj had at least two instances of this when i was last there.
When we started the withdrawal, the Taliban simply moved in a few months later into the remnants of the abandoned FOB/MOB and took control again - thats no secret. Neither is the fact that opium production reached all time highs during the conflict - the main source of Talib income aside from OGN input (Iran).
Exercise:
How would you feel if Teresa May dropped a Nuke on Birmingham and Liverpool for instance. Pretty horrified and angry. So you do something about it. Then measures like you mentioned are used by her as a retaliatory shot and enforcement of her will. This repeats over time to hundreds of people who are alienated, angry and have a personal call to arms.
Eventually you will find someone will blow the keg. This creates a vacuum and the strongest group wins. They then enforce their power using hard tactics to ensure no one challenges them.. Exactly like the one that you just overthrew. Or, they install a competent government that achieves control and security all naturally. Alternatively it all goes down the pan and people die during the overthrowing of Mrs May - who them enforces martial laws and hit squads.. aka Iraq during Saddams reign.
Now how about if someone marched an army in and wiped out our government and instilled a bunch of random guys they wanted in. You were happy that the b
d has gone but where you were in charge of every aspect of your town but now you have to relinquish 90% to a central government and its rules. Random guys from the North start patrolling on your streets and if you speak to them or the foreign army you get a hard knock late at night and your life is destroyed by an insurgent force fighting for "your cause". You have a personal call to arms... against all enemies, both foreign and domestic in that country.. It all goes down the pan pretty quickly.Its f
ked. That's why its pointless discussing it from the comfort of our sofas, sat in our pants, with a beer in hand. Even with the input i've had from physically experiencing their culture i can't see any solution other than letting them decide what they want. Oh and as a final input - to add balance... In some areas (Sangin and the outlying areas) the old story of "man love thursday" isn't just something people spin - it's a reality. Most often or not its not an 'opt in' evening for the victim. Hardly in keeping with Islam, but it's dealt with as just normality over there.. In other areas that's viewed as abhorrent as it is so they take those that do it, beat them to death and leave them in the street as a warning. If someone did that over here, they'd be put through the judicial system, not beaten to death and left hanging - it's so far removed its hard to describe.
Neither you or i can actually have any effect on the middle east in general - unless voting for dropping "precision" weapons on civilian neighbourhoods is an effect you want? Precision is a term used to replace "Less civilian casualties than iron bombs". There's not much precision in a 500lb bomb. Even less in a 1000lb.
I'm going back to my sofa with pizza, beer and pants - i've said what personal experience and understanding i have and what i wanted to on the region in response to your quoted reply - now on with life...
Edited by Hedgehogfromhell on Sunday 9th October 19:35
I'm not wishing to be rude but your point is very meandering. I think it's fair to say your point centres around a moral vacuum and the inability of foreign intervention to resolve complex conflicts, and that as we are not directly involved in the conflict we cannot understand, yet you reference your own experience in the region as an argument from authority. I won't engage with your analogy about "bombing Birmingham".
I think I've sidetracked the thread enough, but I would describe ISIS as opportunistic rather than as a result of a power vacuum. I also think that not intervening would be an immoral act in itself. Whilst I am a layman, I think once we have eye witness accounts, and reports from the people you claim are the only ones who can understand, then we ourselves are capable of doing so. Lastly, saying "it's still st, so it was a waste of time", isn't proof of anything in itself, after all how do you quantify it? And, who's to say an alternate timeline wasn't much worse?
I think I've sidetracked the thread enough, but I would describe ISIS as opportunistic rather than as a result of a power vacuum. I also think that not intervening would be an immoral act in itself. Whilst I am a layman, I think once we have eye witness accounts, and reports from the people you claim are the only ones who can understand, then we ourselves are capable of doing so. Lastly, saying "it's still s
t, so it was a waste of time", isn't proof of anything in itself, after all how do you quantify it? And, who's to say an alternate timeline wasn't much worse?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff