Lol. Another fail! I'm partially of native minority race of a non-US country. It's so funny to watch you. You have *zero* facts, and the statements you make are trivially debunked (as I have done). So, lacking anything else you make show your true colors as an anti-white racist. Funny thing is, I'm part native. What a loser you are. Like I said, you clearly have below average IQ. If only you would understand this you might listen long enough to learn some facts from people who know (instead of the insane falsehoods you splurt out, eg. the utterly counter-factual stupidity you displayed about Iranian missiles). No wonder you are so angry with the World, you haven't yet worked out that the problem local problem is your attitude. Chill bro.
Lol. very good.
But yes, we need to defend our *existing* laws/Constitutions and values; kinetic action is only needed for those no laws can't reach [eg. the increasing incidents of violent immigrants who refuse to recognize the judiciary and sovereignty of the countries they move to].
No that quoted hate text was from you from the post directly above it so that's an especially stupid lie.
No you fool, I have never ever advocated putting Muslims in camps. It is a disgusting and repulsive idea. It is clear either you are incompetent and misattributing (very likely) or you are in the business of fabricating (a typical tactic of low-intelligence leftists, which all evidence points you to being). Stop with the false slander. If we were in the same country you would be slapped with a lawsuit because of your falsehoods - yes, I *know* I have never advocated putting Muslims in camps. So stop being evil. Then end does not justify the means (only socialists, communists and Islamists seem to think that).
Also the missile question is mindless since they come from very different sources and are of very different ages - incompatibility you idiot - it's not like loading a
Absolute bullshit. Warheads can be adapted for different missiles you idiot. Man alive you are stupid! The reason why cartridges don't work in different guns is that it is not generally worth the effort to re-bore a firearm. Warheads and other complex missile components are routinely re-engineered for different systems. For example, the Harpoon anti-ship missile was re-engineered into the SLAM, a surface-attack missile. Nuclear warheads get migrated to different bodies all the time. The nuclear cores are reprocessed and can be used to build new warheads.
Unless you mean the other ridiculous thing with no range, payload size, type of missile and a few other unknowns that you were bluffing with since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.
You couldn't answer. In fact, you are so stupid you couldn't even google to find out simple things like this:
Look at all the huge payloads on the Iranian missiles. Plus, for the short ranges from Lebanon to Israel you can increase the throw weight hugely. To bad wikipedia is too complicated for you to use. Otherwise you would have discovered that Iran has already supplied "hundreds" of M-600 ballistic missiles and attempted to supply Fatah-110 missiles to Hezbollah (fortunately the Israelis are busy destroying the WMD platforms to the racist genocide against Israelis you desperately want to support cannot be carried out):
since neither of us have a clue what a "single nuclear device" weighs.
You lose again. The mass of the US M62 170 kiloton-yield MIRV warhead is 253 pounds / 115 kg. The mass of a M56 is 600 pounds / 272 kg and has a yield of 1.2 MT. So if you follow the references I gave you will see that the Iranian missiles can easily carry even a crude nuclear warhead to Israel. Notice also the range of the Shahab-3. With smaller warheads the two dozen Iranian missiles based in Venezuela may be able to hit the southern USA.
I gave you a chance to prove you knew anything at all, or could even work Google and wikipedia. But you can't. I've also destroyed your arguments about "old Iranian missiles" being used by Hezbollah not being able to reach Israel with a nuclear weapon. All your arguments have failed (as in other threats), because they are based on your opinion and not on facts (and it turns out your opinions are formed from your weak lines of reasoning; trying to assert that nuclear warheads would not fit on on different missile bodies based on an analogy of a rifle - how stooopid is that!). Your apologies for the genocidal intentions of Iran and Hezbollah have failed, because the excuses you made have failed. The sad thing is not that you made a mistake (everyone can do this), the sad thing is you won't learn from it - realise you are being evil by defending evil - and will instead switch to your usual mode of fury and inventing slander in a personal attack (since you are unable to debate on facts, and you have demonstrated that you can't/won't even use Google or wikipedia in the simplest way to defend your position).
Your parents really would be disgusted with you if they read your posts on this site.
Lol, is that the best you can do? You make up lies about "old" missiles (that are brand new and perfectly capable of delivering genocide in atomic form) and get thoroughly and incontrovertibly spanked for your foolishness, and this is all you can come up with? pathetic again. For a start, I don't live in my parent's basement - I own a rather large and nice house with my wife. Second, I'm a grown man and don't care what my parent's think. Thirdly, if you must know, my parents take great pleasure in my research and financially successful accomplishments - plus they also like that I am a proponent for *true* liberty and equality for all races, genders, creeds (without racism towards Israelis, not animosity towards Muslims practicing personal superstition/faith provided they abandon the evils of Sharia and jihad). But I know why you bring this up. We've already discussed your grandfather fighting in World War II for liberty. I already know how disgusted he would be that you try and defend the Islamic ideology that is indistinguishable from Naziism/National Socialism, and that you have just tried to weaken arguments about Hezbollah's terrorism and Iranian intentions to commit nuclear holocaust against the Jews. Everyone can see the evil way you try to defend this with your falsehoods about Iranian missiles.
I wasn't going to mention this because it is not fair and and accident of your birth. It is clear you have lower than average IQ (this is not intended as an insult, I know it sounds like one, it is an observation over out two dozen interactions). Perhaps you ought to consider winding your evil statements back a bit, yeah? it is very clear you simply can't hold a debate in a public forum like this without embarrasing yourself. Even if I give you lots of hints to try and make you use reference and look up facts (where you would discover for yourself how wrong your statements are) you still are completely unable to get any facts right. While you have the perfect right to speak and present your point of view, I'm embarrassed for you. Perhaps you should consider doing research before posting, yeah? Sorry to bring this up, and it's not your fault about your below average IQ (after all, half of the population is like this, by definition), but it is rare around here. Stick to the facts and you'll be ok.
Your nazi shit about putting all Muslims in camps so they can be watched to find that minority of criminals comes to mind.
I have never, ever said that. You are slandering me with made up shit.
What is most amusing is when you called me racist when I quoted your own terrible words right back at you with only the name of the group to be picked on changed, and that was right after some text saying that was purely to illustrate how disgusting the things you are calling for are - and there is no way you could possibly be so stupid as to miss that yet you pretend to be since it was more convenient to so so. Calling me racist for throwing your own words back at you? Clearly you have no shame and anything goes since you've gone into full wartime propaganda mode. If you're going to shove such white supremacy bullshit in my face I'm not going to keep quiet and let you corrupt the gullible here with your slime.
The funny thing is that the quote you posted was from someone else, not me. But you are so retarded you didn't even notice you had made this mistake.
So, can you answer my question about the missiles? since you made three false statements about them.
Well, the military often understands what the public does not. Some of the public do understand why some wars need to be fought. The rest of the people either don't know, don't care or have a wrong understanding. These sheep don't matter in the decision making process.
Just remember, this isn't a video game.
That's true. Life should not be thrown away. However, it is also "not a video game" in the sense that there really are evil people who really do want to kill you just because you don't follow their crazy ideology (eg. Islam). The last Pew survey estimated the number of people worldwide that want to do this at 25% of the global Muslim population (which means around 400 million people want to kill you because they think Allah told them they had to). Life is not a video game. If a jihadi kills you then you and your family don't get to respawn. You have to defend the one life you have against the hatred of that evil ideology. Think about it.
Only the British ever really managed to contain it with their moto of: 'Don't fight or we will kill you'. Remove the "evil" dictator who is supressing the groups and you soon find yourself with out of control groups willing to spend the next 1000 years fighting each other of patches of sand.
Think about why this is. Look at the Qur'an and hadiths. Mohammed had Muslims not under his direct control killed (burned them alive in the unauthorized mosque they built without his permission, he discovered it when they asked him to come and bless it). This set the example for all Muslims that sectarian warfare is not only ok, it is mandatory to fight against other apostates, which are other Muslims. That's why when people say if Islam ruled the world there would be peace. That is false, besides the violent jihad against non-Muslims, and the severe oppression of Muslims, there would also be endless sectarian warfare. This shows up in the bloody statistics of Muslims killed every day by Muslims of another sect and in the fighting of Sunni vs Shia in Syria:
Most of the West never knows or cares about the colossal amount of violence that wracks all of the Muslim World. It is the political ideology of *Islam* that is driving this constant violence. Islam is not a religion of peace as the ignorant or taqiyya-practicing liars tell you. Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology of oppression, exploitation and violence. It is against all the human rights we hold dear. Don't let the liars fool you. Oppose Islamicization of the West.
Your earlier posts made it very clear and now you think readers are so stupid that they will think Syria is buying stuff to give away in the middle of a very bloody and senseless no holds barred civil war instead of fighting with it?
Have you been living in a cave? The Israeli Air Force destroy a Russian-built, Iranian paid for and Syrian-supplied SA-17 Buk medium range surface-to-air missile complex that was being stored in Syria and transferred to Hezbollah. They destroyed it on the Lebanese border before it could cross. Everyone who has been following the facts of the war knows this. Why don't you?
You are deliberately skewing things to push your own unrelated barrow. This "kill all Muslims" shit is exactly the sort of divide Bin Laden was pushing for (before he died - for the benefit of the poor reasoning skills of another poster here). Also now the "missing WMD" - WTF? Moon landing hoax next?
You keep putting up this strawman despite me explicitly and repeatedly saying that I wish no harm to come to non-jihadi Muslims. The other Slashdotters can see that in all my previous posts. I don't know why you keep on with this strawman - I suppose when your understanding is so poor you think that the 50000 ballistic missiles and rockets that Iran supplied to Hezbollah are "old" (despite some of the designs only being a few years old, so they missiles were manufactured and supplied after the 2006 war), then you thought that they are too light to carry a nuclear warhead, and now you think that Syria is not supplying weapons to their ally Hezbollah despite the Israelis destroying a SA-17 battery about to move across the Lebanese border and other hits around Damascus on weapons storage facilities (guarded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a lot of whom have been killed) where Russian-built, Iranian-funded, Syrian-supplied weapons are stored for Hezbollah and are now being transferred as the situation in Syria deteriorates.
The destruction of the SA-17 battery and the weapons depots before Hezbollah could get them is *why* Russia has said it would supply the an even more powerful S-300 Triumph battery. The Russians are hoping to tip the scales towards the Assad+Iran+Hezbollah side because they are "their" terrorists as opposed to the SLA which are "our" terrorists. It is all a mess. There is a precedent for the Russians supplying S-300s to belligerents. They installed a S-300 for years in Sukhumi, Abkhazia which is a breakaway region that is internationally recognized as a part of Georgia. The funny thing is the Russians give these very powerful weapons to separatists and then complain about events in Kosovo (not that the Russians are wrong on the last one, but it is still amusing to see their ruthlessness and utter hypocrisy).
So, back to previous posts. We know your statement about "old" missiles is utter bollox. Your claim that the missiles are too small has been debunked but you still haven't even come up with an estimate of the throw weight of the Iranian missiles that were supplied to Hezbollah since 2006. I know you want to always argue without checking references or facts (which is why you are always so wrong), but if using Google is too hard for you how about an estimate, eh? That way you will see that your second statement about the missiles was also woefully wrong, in addition to your false statement that the Syrians are not transferring very powerful weapons to Hezbollah. Wouldn't it be so much easier and more accurate if you started arguing based on research and facts instead? then you wouldn't look like such a fact-free muppet.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The point of the S-300 surface-to-air missiles is to enable Hezbollah to act with much greater impunity from air attack when they launch the 50000 surface-to-surface *ballistic missiles* they have.
At the moment Hezbollah are deterred from launching the missiles at Israeli population centers because they know they would get a pounding from the Israeli Air Force as they did in 2006 (which is why Hezbollah have not attacked since).
With the top-of-the-range S-300 Hezbollah can both launch missile attacks and commit terrorism with less risk of the IDF responding (eg. for terrorist/jihadi attacks consider the the Hezbollah bombing of civilians in Burgas, Bulgaria; and all the other attacks they have carried out around the world, eg. Georgia, India, Cyprus [foiled], Thailand [where the attackers were caught, so there is no question what was going in], several times in Buenos Aires Argentina; and Europe has been warned it can be attacked anywhere at any time by Hezbollah).
However, even surface-to-air missiles can be dangerous in a surface-to-surface role. The US Navy has its fire-control electronics so that it can use its SAMs in an anti-ship role (eg. for causing sailor casualties and destroy delicate electronics). It would be wasteful of an S-300, but still possible to do some harm.
They are rockets from Iran made several years ago - thus "old Iranian rockets", and unlikely to work with anything new from Russia.
Those are *new* rockets you ijit. Clearly you don't know jack about munitions.
It appears that you must have picked up your "kill all Muslims" shit, the kind of stuff that plays right into Bin Laden's hands, from the sort of emerging genocidal fascist in Israel that it's founders would want to shoot on sight.
False. The same strawman you keep trotting out. I believe in killing *jihadis*. When identified. Before they murder civilians. Non-jihadi Muslims should not have a hair on their head touched. We can defeat them by supporting the US Constitution and the UN Declaration Human Rights (note: but not the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which is pro-Sharia and opposes the UN Declaration of Human Rights). So, you can repeat your slander all you want - but it doesn't make you falicious arguments true or lend your personal opinions any scientific meri .
from the sort of emerging genocidal fascist in Israel that it's founders would want to shoot on sight.
Blah Blah. Yeah, we already know you are a racist anti-Semite from your other posts. No need to repeat your racist statements - we haven't forgotten.
So, how about you answer my perfectly scientifically simple question about the throw weight of the 50000 Iranian missiles that Hezbollah claims to have. Ya know, the ones you tried to downplay as "old" because they were manufactured a few years ago (lol), at least within the last five years or so (after new bunkers were made for them after the 2006 Lebanon War). So, what is the throw weight of the flavours of Iranian-supplied missiles? you will see they are not only enough to carry even a crude nuke or chemical weapons (you know, the "missing" Iraqi WMD that were shipped to Syria before the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and have been used by the Al Qaeda rebels against their own civilians in Syria for propaganda purposes in the last fortnight). You can't answer without calling in Google to try mask your ignorance. Why don't you admit that you have failed *again*, and made a false statement *again* because if you had known anything about the subject (ballistic missiles) you simply wouldn't have made the ridiculously false statement you did based on the known data of Iranian rockets supplied to evil Hezbollah (who I came into contact with a a neutral tourist in Lebanon, and I'm guessing you have not even been there yet still think you know more than someone who has been there; that's simply another fail to add to your litani [see what I did there, lol, if you'd been in-country you would get it]).
You are right, there are sellers who make a lot of money selling arms from guys that want to buy them. What is significant is not the suppliers of arms. They don't create demand (as was your assertion), they merely satisfy it. The cause of the conflict is not the suppliers, it is the Sunni-Shia civil war that is playing out in the Middle East. No, the mainstream media doesn't cast their news reports in those terms, but that is part of what is going on with the "Arab Spring". The other part is the restoration of the Caliphate (which Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are quite open about, if you care to listen to what they say without going through the sanitization by the Western media).
You really think these people do all of this for free? War is a business, buddy. A dirty business... If you're swimming in it, I wouldn't expect you to notice.
You are right again. However you have to follow the money back to the source. What is the source? Saudi, Qatari and Iranian petrodollars for the most part, with some US taxpayer dollars in for good measure while the US thinks it can tame the beast of Islamism (pro-tip: you can't, ask the pro-Islamist Ambassador Stevens just how well it works out; or any of the Muslims killed by other Muslims in sectarian violence on this list: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ where *20851* fatal attacks have been carried out across the globe by Islamists since 2001-9-11 "9/11").
You are a smooth talker I'll give you that.
I could take that as a soft ad-hominem, but I'll take it as a compliment instead. Cheers, and to your good health!
Could even write a few pro war editorials for the Times there.
That's a parochialism. Which "Times" are you talking about, there are so many around the globe? perhaps the quite-leftist New York Times, no not likely; maybe the Times of London, yes? Well, I wouldn't know, I try to read from a wide spectrum of news sources (with known left and right biases), but the Times is unremarkable for its reporting so I don't visit it often.