Det handlar inte om att på förhand “frikänna Ryssland” eller något liknande. Det handlar om att vissa specifika propagandamönster på alla sätt och vis är förväntade, så man får ha det i åtanke innan man på förhand anklagar Ryssland för saker och ting (var mycket noga med att lägga märke till att de ursprungliga anklagelserna var förhastade på precis samma sätt som du nu varnar om). Vidare så vore det på alla sätt väldigt märkligt om Ryssland klev in i Syrien enbart för att skaffa sig en massa “badwill” (badwill via urskillningslösa bombangrepp på civila) bland de länder som Ryssland bara för någon enstaka dag sedan försökte åter närma sig diplomatiskt efter en kylig period.

Skepticismen är så att säga inte obefogad.

But, this is an English-language forum and I’m pretty damn sure that I’m gonna get some kind of infraction for this lengthy post in a Scandinavian language that happens to be my mother tongue. Wink wink. I’ll take it anyway, so in a sense I’m making a show out of proving my point here (for everybody to see).

Russia does not care about badwill, it is there to protect its naval base in Syria. And since it is the rebels, not IS that is threatening its base i suggest that the Russian claim of attacking IS is bogus. This has been confirmed by the strikes on the opposition. Why you se the interest of defending Russia in a move that can have no positive effect on ending the war is at best strange.

Haha! När jag bodde där var det Hullsta gård, men jag var bara tonåring. Inget klubbröj eller liknande på den tiden. 😉 Vi brukade festa på Risön annars.

I dag er det bowlingen, men du er nok Svensk likevel.

Hvorfor bruker du propagandametoder som å på forhånd å latterliggjøre poster om sivile offer av bombing. Om du ikke har en investert interesse av å frikjenne Russland på forhånd, kan du i det minste vente å se til meldigene er bekreftet/avkreftet ?

If Russia acts like that, they’re gonna receive a whole lot of flak… Their stated mission is to strike IS and (I presume) well known AQ-affiliated groups. If they stick to that, it’s tough to twist around as those are universally despised even in the “developed world” as you so eloquently put it. And believe me, Russia is definitely not interested in things that can easily be twisted around right now, they’re almost down there with IS and AQ already in terms of popularity. 😀

Now, my comment that so many of you seem to misinterpret was about the fact that the minute Russia moved in, they allegedly found and struck the utterly chivalric “moderate rebels” that apparently have eluded everyone else for so long. I just found that rather curious.

Try me. 😀 Do you use Skype per chance?

Hvilket land og by er du fra ?

Question, if the Russians prove to misbehave themselves, how hard is it to hand a couple of artillery pieces over to the opposition with just about enough ammunition to keep the airfield near Latakia permanently holed ?

Not only could you mess it up for the Russians, but it would also be cheap 😉

You are aware that the su-24 is rough field capable. How about pretending in this discussion that the Argentinians use the su to its best effect ? Multiple strike waves to drag the defenders out of fuel. Mobile logistics to resupply the strikers. The only way to defend against this is for Britain to bolster its defences significantly.

So tell me where the stockpiles went, if i am wrong, i will admit it.

In Sweden (and the other countries) they just deactivated the bombs and dropped them in the baltic sea.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/miljo/article3361803.ece
For instance, in “Lilla Bält” between Skåne and Denmark, there is about 4’000 tonnes of tabun (nervgas) dumped in the water. Outside of Germany, in the Baltic Sea, we have ~1,6mil tonnes.

Are the Brittish more thurough in their destruction?

You are comparing 1945 to 1999, and there is a huge difference.

No question that the British planning and execution was superior to the Argentine. My protest was merely to point out that it had nothing to do with the Mirage as such.