Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Interesting. People claiming that Syria has been able to to knock out 73 out of 101 State of the Art Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and that the Russians have a pod that can completely disable the entire NATO naval Fleet and a Death Star Death Ray, is accusing the rest of is as being USA cheerleaders and the ones capable of critical thinking.

You wouldn't write about it in a million years the sheer stupidity of some people.

[Robin Hood]

Interesting. People claiming that Syria has been able to to knock out 73 out of 101 State of the Art Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and that the Russians have a pod that can completely disable the entire NATO naval Fleet and a Death Star Death Ray, is accusing the rest of is as being USA cheerleaders and the ones capable of critical thinking.

You wouldn't write about it in a million years the sheer stupidity of some people.

You should check out the process of critical thinking ..........

The last thing that applies to you is the ability to think critically. First reason is that you instantly know who the guilty party (The Problem) is without question, the mere accusation suffices. Secondly, you decry any sources and/or authors that are likely to have an opinion or provide information that will most likely not agree with yours. Thirdly, as a consequence you never consider the need for evidence, cannot therefore make any comparisons and thus can never reach a reasoned conclusion. That is why you never answer any questions by applying logic, based on a reasoned analysis of available and credible facts and/or evidence.

So you do not meet any of the requirements that would identify your posts as being thought out critically and arrived at on the basis of probability ..... if a reasoned conclusion does not agree with your concept then you, and other ‘MSM/official line apologists’ don’t really have a counter view, only a repetition of your firmly held belief that your opinion is without question correct. Repeat it often enough, as it has been to you by your chosen singular sources, and you will believe it without question.

I suggest that the following are achieved by the process of critical thinking ....... you should read them and you will see what I mean.

Critical thinking example #1:

Dear Salafist Wahhabist Apologists - By Paul Larudee
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49282.htm

Critical thinking example #2

The Mainstream Media Fueled Military Action in Syria, Reprisals Against Russia over the Skripal Affai - By Philip Giraldi
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mainstream-media-fueled-military-action-in-syria-reprisals-against-russia-over-the-skripal-affair/5637459

Critical thinking example #3

What Will Weapons Inspectors Find in Syria…and Does It Matter? - By Rep. Ron Paul
https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-will-weapons-inspectors-find-in-syriaand-does-it-matter/5637564

[Paphitis]

Yes, an ECM pod that is capable of stopping the entire NATO Naval Fleet.

A Death Star Death Ray that can incapacitate the entire 6th Fleet Battle Group.

And Syrian Air Defence that can knock out 71 out of 103 Cruise Missiles.

And what were we saying about critical thinking?

Delusions on a grand scale more like. Sorry, but you are insane!

I am extremely comfortable with Western Military capabilities. I know very well, what the West is capable of doing. It seems others are grasping at straws without any evidence at all.

[Pyrpolizer]

Turkey is able to fight Russia and is strong enough to give Russia a very bad day. We saw a glimpse when they shot down a Russian aircraft too.


Nobody can fight a nuclear power don't be ridiculous

But let's assume you are correct and Russia is far stronger.

Much stronger than who???

We are far more willing to accept that. But Turkey is oly one member of NATO. There are another 28 countries that are members. Including France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the UK.

You should have concentrated on my argument that NATO is not as solid as you think, there has been no evidence so far that NATO will ever protect any of it's members, individual NATO members have been aggressive against other nations, and NATO did not bind itself to support the individual aggressor. Furthermore you missed my whole point that the the USA is the only Nato member that constantly initiates new wars.

You said GDP doesn't define a countries power.

I actually said that "GDP by itself doesn't define a nation's military power". This is self proven by the fact that e.g the UK having a GNP of 2661M whereas Russia only 1522M.
Do you really expect a response to your hypothesis that Russia won't be able to sustain a long term war because of her low GNP, when such a war will never happen because it would end up nuclear on the first place? (let aside the other reasons)

Sorry but at this point I have to give up in responding any further because there's not a single statement in your much elongated response that is not part of a false hypothesis.

Let me just tell you an educational true story:
At the first year in Uni, there was a girl in my class who went crying to the professor asking him why she got a zero on her report. Admittedly the report was pages upon pages long and as such looked very elaborate. She further told him that at high school she was always getting straight 100s on similar work.
The professor, had a look at her paper, smiled and told her:
Oh, yes I remember you paper. Sure, if you were at high school you would still deserve a 100. But NOT HERE !



Well Syria has one of the lowest GDP's in the world, but has been at war for 7 years, but Syria is not comparable to any NATO member including Greece, which btw is militarily no slug either. Greece has some very good capabilities. It has a good Air Force and Navy. And even greece all alone is extremely useful to NATO and it can hold its own and do Russia a lot of damage.

GDP is an indication of a States ability to sustain long term warfare such as what we saw in WW2. That war was heavily impacted by certain State's ability to finance the war, and manufacture the hardware needed to sustain the effort.

For instance, the USA was instrumental in building Ships, Tanks, and Aircraft. Also manufacturing bullets, bombs and guns. It eventually out did Germany because the Germans would lose their industrial capacity in bombardments. So they lost the war eventually.

Russia however would not go to war with NATO. they have nothing to gain. They will not win. They can only lose. If they do decide to take such a risky gamble, it would be a war that is very short, sharp and sweet. As mentioned though, Russia isn't going to war with the countries that buy their produce or trade with them. It will not turn out for them at all. And they will be humiliated. A war with Russia will involve all of NATO through Article 5 - that includes Greece and Turkey. It will not be the USA that will start it. It has never threatened Russia with war. But the Russians have given a couple of threats of their own, which have so far proven to be a bluff. Sometimes its better to say nothing than to be proven as being all talk only - or holding a false deck of cards in a poker game.

There will be only 1 possible outcome from any war between Russia and the West. It will not go Pootin's way.

In addition, if we are to believe that Russia has these super weapons, and that it completely disabled the AEGIS equipped USS Donald Cook (and I don't), then the Russians wouldn't have used it in the Black Sea.

There is also no evidence provided here that can prove that Russia has any such capability, and if it does it literally is news to all countries still building AEGIS equipped Destroyers. That includes the USA. All you have are these huge claims, and the cheerleaders accepting it as fact.

The UK is a power. They fact that it launched only 4 Tornadoes really isn't something to scoff at. The UK doesn't need to provide anything. There are 90+ Fast jet's just with the US 6th Fleet, and many Cruisers, and Destroyers that can launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. The French also have their Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf and there are another 45 Fast Jets on that.

Russia only has about 50 Fast Jets in all of Syria. That's it.

There are only 700 odd Russian Fighter Aircraft. There are more Fast Jets in the USN alone, before even looking at the USAF.

The UK's participation was only a political statement.

nevertheless, we are suppose to believe that a sole Russian frigate that sets off from the pacific and arrives in Syria is able to disable the entire US 6th Fleet with a Death Ray, or that the Russians have an ECM pod that can stop US Destroyers dead in the water and that they can shoot down 73 out of 101 Cruise Missiles or that the American technology is so inferior that it is substandard. have a closer look at these US weapons and tell us if they are really inferior - things like F117, B1, B2, SR71, F22, F35, F18F, F15, A10, B52, MQ-1, MQ-2, AWACS, P8, Nimitz Class, Wasp Class, San Antonio Class, Ticonderoga Class, Zumwalt Class, Ashleigh Burk Class (like the USS Donald Cook), Ohio Class, and Virginia Class etc etc

[Londonrake]

RH

You say it's "Trolling" I believe though that it's calling a spade a spade. Whatever, it's all a matter of record.

As far as my earlier post goes? That, as far as I know, in 8 years you have never once - ever - admitted to being wrong? Well if you can prove that's incorrect..............

The difference? And why I have always had a problem with you?

There are some on here who agree with your views. GR, of course. Yialousa1971. Pyrolizer, et al. That's understandable.

The difference between them and yourself though is that - as far as I have seen - and although saying it is perhaps a bit "politically incorrect" - they are all patriots. They love their country and, despite all it's travails, wish it the best for the future. As do I and probably most others, like us non-entity expats - who are seeing out their twilight days here.

You will certainly never hear one of the GC side talk in admiration about the dictatorship of Erdogan. You will never hear them speak about what a great Statesman he is and how the Turkish election results reflect his enormous support. You will certainly never hear any of them expressing glowing admiration for the Turkish forces, their marvelous and justifiable action in taking northern Cyprus, bombing the Kurds plus - moreover - speaking in glowing terms about their military conquests and how formidable their armed forces and equipment are.

I believe though that you are guilty of all those things.

As far as I have witnessed, you've always hated your own country. Cloaked in the excuse of it being something to do with a long ago colonial past. Really though, IMHO, more to do with personal grudges. You have always seemed to me to be consumed with bitterness and anger, provided with an outlet for that via internet forums. Otherwise, I picture you as the old sandwich-board man "The end is nigh!"

Nowadays I read all your posts and mostly just pity you. Without Paphitis and myself you would be aimless.

There's no need to read RT or Sputnik. It all comes straight from you and the story of the humiliation of the Donald Cook is actually, yet another, Russian conspiracy theory float.

As always, those that wish to believe it will though.

[Paphitis]

Turkey is able to fight Russia and is strong enough to give Russia a very bad day. We saw a glimpse when they shot down a Russian aircraft too.


Nobody can fight a nuclear power don't be ridiculous

But let's assume you are correct and Russia is far stronger.

Much stronger than who???

We are far more willing to accept that. But Turkey is oly one member of NATO. There are another 28 countries that are members. Including France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the UK.

You should have concentrated on my argument that NATO is not as solid as you think, there has been no evidence so far that NATO will ever protect any of it's members, individual NATO members have been aggressive against other nations, and NATO did not bind itself to support the individual aggressor. Furthermore you missed my whole point that the the USA is the only Nato member that constantly initiates new wars.

You said GDP doesn't define a countries power.

I actually said that "GDP by itself doesn't define a nation's military power". This is self proven by the fact that e.g the UK having a GNP of 2661M whereas Russia only 1522M.
Do you really expect a response to your hypothesis that Russia won't be able to sustain a long term war because of her low GNP, when such a war will never happen because it would end up nuclear on the first place? (let aside the other reasons)

Sorry but at this point I have to give up in responding any further because there's not a single statement in your much elongated response that is not part of a false hypothesis.

Let me just tell you an educational true story:
At the first year in Uni, there was a girl in my class who went crying to the professor asking him why she got a zero on her report. Admittedly the report was pages upon pages long and as such looked very elaborate. She further told him that at high school she was always getting straight 100s on similar work.
The professor, had a look at her paper, smiled and told her:
Oh, yes I remember you paper. Sure, if you were at high school you would still deserve a 100. But NOT HERE !



Well Syria has one of the lowest GDP's in the world, but has been at war for 7 years, but Syria is not comparable to any NATO member including Greece, which btw is militarily no slug either. Greece has some very good capabilities. It has a good Air Force and Navy. And even greece all alone is extremely useful to NATO and it can hold its own and do Russia a lot of damage.

GDP is an indication of a States ability to sustain long term warfare such as what we saw in WW2. That war was heavily impacted by certain State's ability to finance the war, and manufacture the hardware needed to sustain the effort.

For instance, the USA was instrumental in building Ships, Tanks, and Aircraft. Also manufacturing bullets, bombs and guns. It eventually out did Germany because the Germans would lose their industrial capacity in bombardments. So they lost the war eventually.

Russia however would not go to war with NATO. they have nothing to gain. They will not win. They can only lose. If they do decide to take such a risky gamble, it would be a war that is very short, sharp and sweet. As mentioned though, Russia isn't going to war with the countries that buy their produce or trade with them. It will not turn out for them at all. And they will be humiliated. A war with Russia will involve all of NATO through Article 5 - that includes Greece and Turkey. It will not be the USA that will start it. It has never threatened Russia with war. But the Russians have given a couple of threats of their own, which have so far proven to be a bluff. Sometimes its better to say nothing than to be proven as being all talk only - or holding a false deck of cards in a poker game.

There will be only 1 possible outcome from any war between Russia and the West. It will not go Pootin's way.

In addition, if we are to believe that Russia has these super weapons, and that it completely disabled the AEGIS equipped USS Donald Cook (and I don't), then the Russians wouldn't have used it in the Black Sea.

There is also no evidence provided here that can prove that Russia has any such capability, and if it does it literally is news to all countries still building AEGIS equipped Destroyers. That includes the USA. All you have are these huge claims, and the cheerleaders accepting it as fact.

The UK is a power. They fact that it launched only 4 Tornadoes really isn't something to scoff at. The UK doesn't need to provide anything. There are 90+ Fast jet's just with the US 6th Fleet, and many Cruisers, and Destroyers that can launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. The French also have their Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf and there are another 45 Fast Jets on that.

Russia only has about 50 Fast Jets in all of Syria. That's it.

There are only 700 odd Russian Fighter Aircraft. There are more Fast Jets in the USN alone, before even looking at the USAF.

The UK's participation was only a political statement.

nevertheless, we are suppose to believe that a sole Russian frigate that sets off from the pacific and arrives in Syria is able to disable the entire US 6th Fleet with a Death Ray, or that the Russians have an ECM pod that can stop US Destroyers dead in the water and that they can shoot down 73 out of 101 Cruise Missiles or that the American technology is so inferior that it is substandard. have a closer look at these US weapons and tell us if they are really inferior - things like F117, B1, B2, SR71, F22, F35, F18F, F15, A10, B52, MQ-1, MQ-2, AWACS, P8, Nimitz Class, Wasp Class, San Antonio Class, Ticonderoga Class, Zumwalt Class, Ashleigh Burk Class (like the USS Donald Cook), Ohio Class, and Virginia Class etc etc

Don't kid yourself. A war between Russia and NATO isn't impossible. It's possible, but it won't be a war that NATO will start or the USA will start. If it starts at all, it will be Pootin who will make the first move. There have been flash-points in the last few years, but cool heads on our side prevailed. That might not be the case forever.

It's just that war is unlikely, because Pootin isn't crazy. Any war would be very short, sharp and sweet affair if anything because it would turn out to be quite one sided after a short time. Sure the Russians will cause damage, but in the end, they just will not be able to cope. It is in Russia's interest that a war does not occur. Neither NATO or Russia will go Nuclear. That prospect is pure fantasy. In all likelihood, Russia will start begging for peace talks and a way out to save face, and that will be something NATO and the West would in all likelihood accommodate. It's not in our interests for such a war to go long and protracted either.

I was referring to Russia being much stronger than Turkey. The actual reality is that Russia is just stronger than Turkey but certainly not much stronger. Turkey will give Russia a blood nose and a black eye. In fact, I believe that Turkey will defeat the Russians if attacked. But I agreed that Russia is much stronger just to keep you happy. My point though was that whilst Turkey's military capabilities are substantial, Turkey is still only one NATO member. There are 28 others, and some are powers in their own right - Italy, Spain, France, UK, and Germany for instance. Even Greece and Turkey are quite strong and considered good middle powers. Do not under-estimate Greece either. They are quite strong in their own right.

I was trying to explain that a country with higher GDP has more ways of financing a long and protracted war than a poor country of low GDP. They also have a greater manufacturing base to sustain their military with the materials and equipment necessary to keep them going. WW2 was a good example of this. The USA was instrumental in WW2 and you could even say had manufactured its way to victory in Europe and the Pacific.

The USA for instance just has a massive industrial capacity and can sustain themselves far better than Russia can and that is a huge advantage. It is however unlikely there would ever be a long and protracted war. Any war in my opinion would not be something that the Russians can seriously entertain under any circumstances whatsoever. They do not have the capability or the power to fight the West and expect to win and because of that, the Russians will only undermine themselves and risk everything. They will end up eating their arseholes and sucking their thumbs. Sorry!

All you can say about the Russians is that they are just strong enough to have a great deterrence from Western Power. That is basically it. But they are in no position to fight the West and expect to win.

[miltiades]

General, you can not possibly consider yoir views as well balanced.
For starters you are consumed with an immeasurable hatred for Russia. You can not even bring your self to spell their Presidents name correctly.
Nobody can possibly take you seriously.
You seem to forget that any views expressed on this forum are personal, you on the other hand seem to be attributing your comments as if you were the slightest bit involved. You are not, just an armchair general. Do please note that the entire world knows the name of the Russian President is Putin, so stop this fucking bullshit, you sound Pathetic !!

[Robin Hood]

Yes, an ECM pod that is capable of stopping the entire NATO Naval Fleet.

So, once again I ask you to explain how the SU-24 managed to shut down the Donald Cook .....

A Death Star Death Ray that can incapacitate the entire 6th Fleet Battle Group.

Your being childish as the thought that the Russians could well have mastered an advanced jamming system which could make the US military aviation and cruise missiles obsolete, is alien to you. What is amusing is that people like you regard your electronic capability to be the ultimate and then accuse the Russians of Cyber warfare against you that you seem incapable of preventing. One attitude seems to clash with the other!

And Syrian Air Defence that can knock out 71 out of 103 Cruise Missiles.

The Russian MoD is now displaying the parts of the cruise missiles shot down You still avoid like the plague explaining why the damage from these missiles is so minor compared with the tonnage dropped. No answer .... I assume.

And what were we saying about critical thinking?

Exactly ...... you obviously lack that ability.

Delusions on a grand scale more like. Sorry, but you are insane!

No .... it's called critical thinking based on a broader view than just the headlines of popular Western news sources! Is it fact .... who knows but I think on the balance of probability much of the comments these people make are credible.

I am extremely comfortable with Western Military capabilities. I know very well, what the West is capable of doing. It seems others are grasping at straws without any evidence at all.

We know the West thinks it reigns supreme but it has been many years since they have demonstrated their supremacy in combat against a determined enemy. Maybe, just maybe, you and others that have a singular view and feel comfortable ...... could well find out that you are not really that good after all. Let us hope you never have to find out?

[Londonrake]

Yes, an ECM pod that is capable of stopping the entire NATO Naval Fleet.

So, once again I ask you to explain how the SU-24 managed to shut down the Donald Cook .....

A Death Star Death Ray that can incapacitate the entire 6th Fleet Battle Group.

Your being childish as the thought that the Russians could well have mastered an advanced jamming system which could make the US military aviation and cruise missiles obsolete, is alien to you. What is amusing is that people like you regard your electronic capability to be the ultimate and then accuse the Russians of Cyber warfare against you that you seem incapable of preventing. One attitude seems to clash with the other!

And Syrian Air Defence that can knock out 71 out of 103 Cruise Missiles.

The Russian MoD is now displaying the parts of the cruise missiles shot down You still avoid like the plague explaining why the damage from these missiles is so minor compared with the tonnage dropped. No answer .... I assume.

And what were we saying about critical thinking?

Exactly ...... you obviously lack that ability.

Delusions on a grand scale more like. Sorry, but you are insane!

No .... it's called critical thinking based on a broader view than just the headlines of popular Western news sources! Is it fact .... who knows but I think on the balance of probability much of the comments these people make are credible.

I am extremely comfortable with Western Military capabilities. I know very well, what the West is capable of doing. It seems others are grasping at straws without any evidence at all.

We know the West thinks it reigns supreme but it has been many years since they have demonstrated their supremacy in combat against a determined enemy. Maybe, just maybe, you and others that have a singular view and feel comfortable ...... could well find out that you are not really that good after all. Let us hope you never have to find out?

Dracarys

[Robin Hood]

RH

You say it's "Trolling" I believe though that it's calling a spade a spade. Whatever, it's all a matter of record.

Well .... if you believe it's just calling a spade a spade, it must be! Have you ever been wrong?

As far as my earlier post goes? That, as far as I know, in 8 years you have never once - ever - admitted to being wrong? Well if you can prove that's incorrect..............

The problem with your hypothesis is that YOU have never shown me to be wrong and it gets up your nose! I certainly have apologised if I make a mistake or misunderstand another members post.

The difference? And why I have always had a problem with you?

You have a problem .... I don't! I call a spade-a-spade but based on evidence/opinion you reject on principal as you can't stand anyone standing up to your often insulting, pompous and sarcastic responses.

There are some on here who agree with your views. GR, of course. Yialousa1971. Pyrolizer, et al. That's understandable.

Apart from Paphitis, there do not seem to be many that agree with your views, although your views are mainly of individuals rather than the topic .... as here for example!

The difference between them and yourself though is that - as far as I have seen - and although saying it is perhaps a bit "politically incorrect" - they are all patriots. They love their country and, despite all it's travails, wish it the best for the future. As do I and probably most others, like us non-entity expats - who are seeing out their twilight days here.

Unlike you I have not been part of your Empire since the early 70's. I saw what was happening to my country in the 80's and it was obvious then that they would end up in just the situation they are now. I decided to move to Cyprus in 1990 and make Cyprus my home and unlike you I have no wish to return to the UK. This is not just a long holiday for me it is a life choice which I do not regret.

I hoped that coming out of Europe would be the rebirth of the UK as a nation .... but they have f*****d that up as well. Now they go and illegally bomb a sovereign state. Tell me ... what is there to be proud of when the country can afford missiles costing over a £1m each to bomb the s**t out of another country and can't even provide for their sick, homeless, jobless and even their ex-service men. The UK has an escalating crime rate, the education system has gone down the drain and the social standards that I remember have collapsed. What is there to be proud of? I am neither blind or stupid. The fact that this annoys me so much is maybe because I feel a lot more for my country of birth than you do. It saddens me to see it being dragged into the gutter.

You will certainly never hear one of the GC side talk in admiration about the dictatorship of Erdogan. You will never hear them speak about what a great Statesman he is and how the Turkish election results reflect his enormous support. You will certainly never hear any of them expressing glowing admiration for the Turkish forces, their marvelous and justifiable action in taking northern Cyprus, bombing the Kurds plus - moreover - speaking in glowing terms about their military conquests and how formidable their armed forces and equipment are.

Erdogan is the President of a country that occupies 37% of the Republic of Cyprus. Your comparison shows how you bend the argument. Does Putin occupy any part of the UK, the Empire, or any lands that belongs to anyone else? Has he attacked and bombed another country without just cause? Has he threatened the UK or any other country? His actions in Syria have been overwhelmingly applauded by the Syrians .... had it not been for Putin's interventions in Syria it would now be another Libya. (Another great FUKUS venture). So please spare me the patriotism ..... when was the last time UK forces fought for Queen (King) and Country as opposed to US Imperialism?

So try comparing like with like.

I believe though that you are guilty of all those things.

No doubt you do! What you think is an irrelevance because it is merely your opinion!

As far as I have witnessed, you've always hated your own country. Cloaked in the excuse of it being something to do with a long ago colonial past. Really though, IMHO, more to do with personal grudges. You have always seemed to me to be consumed with bitterness and anger, provided with an outlet for that via internet forums. Otherwise, I picture you as the old sandwich-board man "The end is nigh!"

You have your head so far up your own ass you must have a glass belly button!

Nowadays I read all your posts and mostly just pity you. Without Paphitis and myself you would be aimless.

True .... the two of you make a very good comedy act, without you I would be completely lost for light entertainment. I save the serious stuff for others that have a broader view of the events that interest me and maybe them also. They are less prolific posters because all of them give their posts some thought and consider the broader picture ..... they don't just spew Western propaganda as you two do. You just like stirring as you never really contribute anything of note to a thread.

There's no need to read RT or Sputnik. It all comes straight from you and the story of the humiliation of the Donald Cook is actually, yet another, Russian conspiracy theory float.

Is it? You have some proof? It even got the US experts worked up and the same is happening with two multi-million dollar attacks on Syria where many of these sophisticated missiles just seemed to disappear ...... but shhhh ....... WE don't talk about failures, it's not patriotic!

As always, those that wish to believe it will though.

No .... most consider these aspects of events as a probability. Of course there were all the patriotic idiots that backed Bush and Blair on their War on Iraq and called those that questioned the decision traitors and conspiracy theorists and, as a result, bombed Iraq back to the stone age, and they all got their info from the same sources you do!

Didn't pan out so good did it .... especially for the Iraqi's ..... and the Libyans ..... and the Syrians ..... but those evil Russians invaded, occupied and annexed Crimea and subjected the population to peace, jobs, higher wages and a much higher standard of living than the Ukraine they decided to quit, as was their right under the UN Charter to self determination.