Cronica unui tărăboi anunțat..

In jos

Cronica unui tărăboi anunțat..

Mesaj Scris de Admin la data de Dum Apr 15, 2018 4:19 am

Atac cu rachete de croazieră în Siria. Ca să nu se zică, vezi Doamne, că marile democrații – far nu fac nimic împotriva ”dictatorilor”. Adică nimic. Pentru că, practic, este ultimul gest ce lipsea pentru ca acțiunile SUA, Marii Britanii și Franței să-și piardă orice urmă de legitimitate. Coana Merkel a stat pe coada ei. Dintr-un calcul cât se poate de practic: decredibilizarea celor trei duce la creșterea influenței, și capacității de negociere, ale RFG


Un nou pas în creșterea dezordinii mondiale, încă un cui în coșciugul ordinii post-belice, bună, rea, cum a fost ea, care ne-a ferit de un conflict generalizat timp de mai bine de șapte decenii. De acum vom merge din rău în mai rău. Cu toate costurile aferente.
…………………………………………………………………………………………

Încă ceva, despre atac: rușii au dizlocat în Siria mijloace importante de contramăsuri electronice, inclusiv de genul celor care modifică semnalul sateliților GPS. Aceste mijloace sunt responsabile, în mare măsură, de ratarea țintelor. O rachetă de croazieră este dirijată acum prin GPS, având o serie de rectificări de traiectorie, bazate pe viteza față de sol, și pe cartografierea terenului. În faza terminală este dirijată de cartografiere: calculatorul compară imaginea din memorie cu imaginea de pe teren. Or, odată deviate de la țintă cu alterarea semnalului GPS, ce mare lucru este să construiești ceva care să semene cu presupusa țintă? Doar nu credeți că poza din memorie chiar este la o rezoluție de revistă glossy?
Apărarea AA a evoluat, cuprinde mai multe straturi, și o gamă extinsă de mijloace. Contramăsurile electronice devin esențiale, în caz de atac cu rachete de croazieră și cu avioane, sau drone. În cazul rachetelor balistice-n-au fost folosite în Siria-lucrurile se schimbă. Or S 400 este folosit în primul rând împotriva obiectelor balistice, cu viteză mare. De asta nu s-au deranjat rușii. Iar sirienii au folosit intens nu S 300, ci bătrânul(vorba vine!) Buk, și nou-nouțul Pantir S.
Să vedem acum bilanțul și pagubele. Dincolo de astea, rămâne lipsa de legitimitate a atacului. Și pe asta n-o rezolvă nici Dracu!
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Cele o sută de rachete de croazieră lansate noaptea trecută, costă, ele singure, între 150 și 200 de milioane de euro. Plus costul orei de zbor(în medie 20.000 de euro de aparat), plus costul orar al operării grupării navale americane, franceze și engleze, ajungem la vreun miliard de euro distracția de astă noapte. Ce puteau face cu banii ăștia în reconstrucția Siriei și în reconcilierea din zonă! Să punem la socoteală și costurile răspunsului armatei siriene, mai mici, dar tot ajung pe la vreo 20 de milioane de euro. Dar de ce să nu mai pună pe el niște slană complexul militar industrial? Să fie primit! Investești câteva mii de euro într-un filmuleț cu ”atrocități”, și se urcă pe tine banii! Asta e democrația liberală, nu?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Tot atacul de astă-noapte, împotriva Siriei, a fost un teatru prost, menit să salveze fața celor trei idioți, care au vorbit fără să gândească. Nu am văzut până acum nicio referire la faptul că atacatorii (care au lansat rachete nu doar de pe nave/submarine, ci și de pe avioane) au folosit rachete anti-radar. De obicei un astfel de atac începe prin a neutraliza apărarea anti-aeriană a inamicului, prin mijloace combinate, pomenitele rachete anti-radiație, și prin contra-măsuri electronice, active și pasive.
Sirienii au folosit arme vechi, din anii 50-70 ai secolului trecut, modernizate în parte. Radarele sunt niște ținte uriașe, raportate la ceea ce știu să facă actualele mijloace de detecție. Faptul că au interceptat/distrus circa 70% din rachetele de croazieră lansate este o performanță remarcabilă. Care n-ar fi fost posibilă dacă americanii ar fi atacat întâi apărarea antiaeriană. Ce s-a jucat, e greu de înțeles. Oricum lucrurile sunt complicate și fără gesticulația asta războinică de prost-gust.
Autor: Constantin Gheorghe
avatar
Admin
Admin

Mesaje : 5162
Data de înscriere : 05/11/2012

Vezi profilul utilizatorului http://amintiridespreviitor.forumgratuit.ro

Sus In jos

...America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria under no circumstances." Trump uses double negative to hide intent?

Mesaj Scris de Admin la data de Dum Apr 15, 2018 4:22 am


Damascus Attacked by FUKUS
(France, UK and US)


I didn't watch Donald Trumps "Address to the Nation" on Friday Night when he ordered the False Flag attack on Syria, but ran across this interesting quote from it in The National Post yesterday:

"...In his nationwide address, Trump stressed that he has no interest in a longtime fight with Syria.


“America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria under no circumstances,” he said. “As other nations step up their contributions, we look forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home.”


The U.S. has about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria as advisers to a makeshift group of anti-Islamic State fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. They are in eastern Syria, far from Damascus. A U.S.-led coalition has been conducting airstrikes in Syria since September 2014 as part of a largely successful effort to break the IS grip on both Syria and Iraq."


*****************
First of all, Trump says he wants "other nations" to step up. Who are these other nations? Israel and Saudi Arabia? The reason I ask is because, as Dr. Bashar Jaafari, the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations so eloquently pointed out yesterday in his address to the Security CouncilThe United States is currently occupying no less than one third of Syrian Territory.If it's going to leave Syria as Trump says, who is it going to relinquish the territory it is now illegally squatting on to? The rightful owner--Syria?  Israel? Saudi Arabia, The Kurds?



That's why the pathetic "double negative" grammatical error in Trump's important "address to the nation" is such a weak and sick joke.
In other developments, here is an important analysis on the Security Council rejection of the Russian resolution regarding the upcoming OPCW investigation into the False Flag accusation that Assad is "gassing his own people".(TM) Please read and I will have final comments to follow:
*****************
What Just Happened






Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
What happened right after the second direct U.S.-missiles invasion of Syria, which had occurred on the night of April 13th, could turn out to have momentous implications — far bigger than the attacks themselves.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headlined on April 14th, in the wake of this U.S.-UK-France invasion of Syria that was allegedly punishing Syria’s Government for allegedly having used chemical weapons in its bombing in the town of Douma on April 7th, “OPCW Fact-Finding Mission Continues Deployment to Syria”, and reported that:
The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will continue its deployment to the Syrian Arab Republic to establish facts around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma.
The OPCW has been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Department of Safety and Security to assess the situation and ensure the safety of the team.
The OPCW is not part of the U.N., nor of any country; it, instead (as introduced by Wikipedia):
is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997. The OPCW, with its 192 member states, has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.
In conformity with the unchallenged international consensus that existed during the 1990s that there was no longer any basis for war between the world’s major powers, the Convention sought and achieved a U.N. imprimatur, but this was only in order to increase its respect throughout the world. The OPCW is based not on the U.N. Charter but on that specific treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was formally approved by the U.N.’s General Assembly on 30 November 1992 and was then opened for signatures in Paris on 13 January 1993. According to the Convention’s terms, it would enter into effect 180 days after 65 nations signed it, which turned out to be on 29 April 1997.
So, although the treaty itself received U.N. approval, the recent Russian-sponsored resolution at the U.N.’s Security Council to have the U.N. endorse the OPCW’s investigation of the 7 April 2018 Douma incident, did not receive U.N. approval. It was instead blocked by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, though without a U.N. endorsement, the OPCW investigation into the incident will move forward, despite the invasion. This fact is momentous, because a credible international inspection, by the world’s top investigatory agency for such matters, will continue to completion, notwithstanding the effort by the U.S. and its allies on the U.N. Security Council, to block it altogether. This decision was reached by the OPCW — not by the U.N.
Among the 192 signers of the Chemical Weapons Conventionare U.S., Russia, and Syria, as well as China, Iran, and Iraq, but not Israel, nor North Korea and a very few other countries. So: all of the major powers have already, in advance, approved whatever the findings by the OPCW turn out to be. Those findings are expected to determine whether a chemical attack happened in Douma on 7 April 2018, and, if so, then perhaps what the specific banned chemical(s) was(were), but not necessarily who was responsible for it if it existed. For example, if the ‘rebels’ had stored some of their chemical weapons at that building and then Syria’s Government bombed that building, the OPCW might not be able to determine who is to blame, even if they do determine that there was a chemical attack and the chemical composition of it. In other words: science cannot necessarily answer all of the questions that might be legal-forensically necessary in order to determine guilt, if a crime did, in fact, occur, there.
If the investigation does find that a banned chemical was used and did cause injuries or fatalities, then there is the possibility that its findings will be consistent with the assertions by the U.S. and its allies who participated in the April 13th invasion. That would not necessarily justify the invasion, but it would prove the possibility that there had been no lying intent on the part of the U.S.-and-allied invaders on April 13th.
However, if the investigation does not find that a banned chemical was used in the Syrian Government’s bombing of that building, then incontrovertibly the U.S.-and-allied invasion was a criminal one under international laws, though there may be no international court that possesses the authority to try the case.
So: what is at stake here from the OPCW investigation is not only the international legitimacy of Syria’s Government, but the international legitimacy of the Governments that invaded it on April 13th. These are extremely high stakes, even if no court in the world will possess the authority to adjudicate the guilt — either if the U.S. and its allies lied, or if the Syrian Government lied.
For us historians, this is very important. And, for the general public, the significance goes much farther: to specific Governments, to their alleged news media, and to the question of: What does it even mean to say that a government is a “democracy” or a “dictatorship”? The findings from this investigation will reverberate far and wide, and long (if World War III doesn’t prevent any such findings at all.)"



*****************







Greencrow says: This is a critical aspect of the manufactured false flag that I didn't understand before. I thought that the OPCW was another UN agency, subject to the same intensive corruption campaign as, say, UNESCO and WHO. But I was wrong. According to Zuesse, the OPCW is independent of the UN, although it was approved by the UN in a General Assembly resolution. That is why, and this is important, even though FUKUS voted down Russia's security resolution to mandate the OPCW's investigation of the False Flag accusations that led to the Friday night missile attack on Syria--the OPCW is still able to go into Syria and do its investigation regardless. As Zuesse says, their findings will "reverberate far and wide". I would like to think they would...but knowing the way the Main$tream Media operates these days...their findings will likely be strangled and smothered in their cradle...by some monstrous "new crisis" that conveniently overwhelms the "newz" cycle.



Oh, and BTW, according to PressTV this morning, that government research center in Damascus that was directly hit by FUKUS missiles? It was being used to research cancer drugs...which have been denied to Syria under Western sanctions and thus prevented from reaching Syrian cancer patients. Yes, folks, that's how FUKUS "rocks and rolls"
avatar
Admin
Admin

Mesaje : 5162
Data de înscriere : 05/11/2012

Vezi profilul utilizatorului http://amintiridespreviitor.forumgratuit.ro

Sus In jos

Sus


 
Permisiunile acestui forum:
Nu puteti raspunde la subiectele acestui forum