Is Ablarc still posting? I hope nothing unfortunate happened. Lrfox- Anyone tried PM-ing him?
I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences.
To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore up to here this is all factual and true.
Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.
And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV.
For the rest of us, there are three options: This option requires you to believe in coincidences. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored. What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase.
There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed.
There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar. Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack. Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past.
You can read everything about this plan here and here. American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning.
At this point the accounts begin to differ. The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield.
Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. That is a fact.
It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear. The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping.
There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable.
There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles: That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia.
The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions.
Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS radar visibilityespecially in the frontal sector.
I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.See also the pages.
The poetry of Seamus Heaney: flawed success Seamus Heaney: ethical depth? His responses to the British army during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, bullfighting, the Colosseum, 'pests,' 9/11, IRA punishment, the starving or hungry, the hunger strikers in Northern Ireland. A critical reading of Ted Hughes's 'The thought-fox' in relation to the conflict in his poetry between violence and tenderness.
This poem is often read at funerals.
The author, Henry Scott-Holland ( - ), a priest at St. Paul's Cathedral of London, did not intend it as a poem, it was actually delivered as part of a sermon in The sermon, titled, Death the King of Terrors was preached while the body of King Edward VII was lying in state at Westminster.
of poems “On Drinking” (Yinjiu), he recounts how he “asked my old friend(s) to copy the poem out, so as to provide some diversion”.
By the beginning of the northern song, there existed a large number of manuscripts copies of Tao Yuan-Ming writings, according to a colophon written to Tao Yuan-Ming’s collection by Song Xiang ().
Poetry is a compact language that expresses complex feelings. To understand the multiple meanings of a poem, readers must examine its words and phrasing from the perspectives of rhythm, sound, images, obvious meaning, and implied meaning.
Dear Twitpic Community - thank you for all the wonderful photos you have taken over the years. We have now placed Twitpic in an archived state.