JJCATM stands for Captive Air Training Missile. So this is a CATM-120C, a training version of the AIM-120C. I din’t know Israel had bought AIM-120C.
JJThe photo I posted is a reduced version, I’ll have to check the original to be sure what the print on the missile actually says. No Derby on display though, the three missiles shown above plus a Spice, a Popeye, a BGU-12, a Litening pod, a Black Sparrow, and one or two other munitions.
BTW, what do you think about my new avatar?
Great avatar, where did you get it? It’s the Operation Opera kill mark, right?
I still have to find one for me, or have someone explain me how to crop an image to the correct size…
JJCould be why they have the seeker covered? Pyhton-5 has a new IIR seeker if I recall correctly. The rest of it is more or less legacy Python-4. Is the missile behind it the DERBY?
No. If my eyes are right the print on the missile says AIM-120C. Was there a Derby on display, Oren?
JJWent to the IDF/AF Museum again yesterday, to see the items on display for Indepedence Day. I was pleasantly surprised to see a Python 5 on display. Should be getting the photos tommorow.
Great! I can hardly wait ’till tomorrow. :p
JJOK, I have an idea. I think that, in the name of fairness, the following should be done:
1) in all threads with a subject even remotely connected to one country or the other, everyone should start whining about what they find wrong with those countries. That is, in a thread related to China, everyone starts about Tibet, in a thread somehow related to Pakistan everyone should start to talk about the oppressive regime there, in threads somehow connected to Belgium everyone should start about the Congo, in threads connected to France about Mururoa, the bombing of Greenpeace ships, and so on. Or,
2) in threads about the IDF/AF everyone should stick to the topic at hand, that is aviation, and leave politics out of it. If you want to discuss Israeli policy, open up a thread in the General Forum, but not here.
JJCan’t we just for once have a thread about the Israeli Air Force without all the political stuff? Sheesh…
JJOriginally posted by SOC
.Pardon me for admitting a mistake in front of one who is obviously intellectually infallible :rolleyes:
I never claimed to be intellectually infallible. My comment was not so much directed at you admitting a mistake but the “it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists”-part, for which you provide no basis whatsoever.
Palestinians want to destroy Israel-why not? Israel after all effectively destroyed what was then Palestine with it’s creation, did it not? Or does turnabout not equal fair play here?
Yeah, but then, Palestine was a British mandate, not a sovereign Palestinian state as you obviously imply. Besides, there was this partition plan where Arabs and Jews would each get half Palestine (or actually what remained thereof after the British gave away what is now known as Jordan, but was until 1923 part of the Mandate of Palestine). Areas where Jews constituted a majority would go to the Jewish state, areas where Arabs constituted a majority would be part of the Arab state. Guess which side rejected the compromize?
Let’s see, do I either a) Ignore this and move on, or b) admit you are right about the Palestinian issue of warning others? After your first response, I’ll avoid another verbal dressing-down and go with a. :rolleyes:
Well, whatever you want. :rolleyes:
You think they wanted to kill all the British people in the hotel?
No, I don’t.
Why the religious labels all of a sudden? I blamed nothing whatsoever on the Jews, I made it clear I was talking about the Zionists. All this looks like is an attempt to make me appear to be some sort of anti-Semite, which I am not.
No, I’m not trying to piant you as an anti-semite. First of, Jews are not necessarily religious men and women. Jews are, first of all a people, like the Dutch, French or American people. Religion has got quite little to do woth it. The reason why, in this specific case I say Jews is, because at the time of the bombing of the King David hotel the State of Israel didn’t exist yet, so obviously I couldn’t say Israelis. Jews seemed to me to be the appropriate label. After all, Jewish people carried out the attack.
As for the Brits not leaving the hotel, the fault is still at the feet of those who blew up the building. You say the Brit’s didn’t evacuate, I say the Zionists didn’t have to blow the building up.
Whether they had to or not I’m not going to argue about here right now. What matters to me is, that you first claimed this act was illegitimate and an act of terrorism because civilians were targetted, while in fact the target was the British military HQ, and thus a legitimate military target.
Again, if that’s what they want where’s the fault in that specific desire (not necessarily the means, but the goal)-Israel was formed at the expense of the territory originally known as Palestine. Granted, Palestine wasn’t an independent state at that point, but lets see how you like it if your landlord comes over one day, kicks you out of half of your house so someone else can live there, and then they proceed to run you out of most of the rest of the house as well.
Sigh, once again, a large majority of Palestinians were not kicked out but left of their own volition. Either because they believed Arab propaganda about massacres and atrocities being committed on a large scale (not arguing there weren’t any), or because they believed the propaganda that said they had to move to make way for the advancing Arab armies. Not Israel’s fault they gambled and lost.
You are right that suicide bombing is not the answer, but if they choose terrorism they still are no better or no worse than the Zionists who helped create Israel.
Yes, they are, for all the reasons Skythe summed up.
Besides, they caused all their own problems from a certain standpoint. Had they not chosen an already inhabited land to claim as their own the Arabs wouldn’t have been so irritated.
Mind you, Jews have been living in Palestine like forever. There has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine. Besides, there was this partition plan I just mentioned…
Do you support the idea of a withdrawl to 1947 borders and giving back stolen land?
I don’t. There must be some corrections. Israel’s 1947 borders (never existed, but I assume you mean the UN partition plan) are indefensible. They gambled, they lost, tough ****. I also do not agree to withdrawing to the 1967 borders, for the same reasons, but do believe that the Palestinians in some ways need to be compensated for land of the West Bank and Gaza Strip they’ll not get.
On a side note, do you believe the US should shrink to it’s original size and that all land stolen from the Natives and Mexicans et al should be returned?
JJOriginally posted by SOC
.Pardon me for admitting a mistake in front of one who is obviously intellectually infallible :rolleyes:
I never claimed to be intellectually infallible. My comment was not so much directed at you admitting a mistake but the “it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists”-part, for which you provide no basis whatsoever.
Palestinians want to destroy Israel-why not? Israel after all effectively destroyed what was then Palestine with it’s creation, did it not? Or does turnabout not equal fair play here?
Yeah, but then, Palestine was a British mandate, not a sovereign Palestinian state as you obviously imply. Besides, there was this partition plan where Arabs and Jews would each get half Palestine (or actually what remained thereof after the British gave away what is now known as Jordan, but was until 1923 part of the Mandate of Palestine). Areas where Jews constituted a majority would go to the Jewish state, areas where Arabs constituted a majority would be part of the Arab state. Guess which side rejected the compromize?
Let’s see, do I either a) Ignore this and move on, or b) admit you are right about the Palestinian issue of warning others? After your first response, I’ll avoid another verbal dressing-down and go with a. :rolleyes:
Well, whatever you want. :rolleyes:
You think they wanted to kill all the British people in the hotel?
No, I don’t.
Why the religious labels all of a sudden? I blamed nothing whatsoever on the Jews, I made it clear I was talking about the Zionists. All this looks like is an attempt to make me appear to be some sort of anti-Semite, which I am not.
No, I’m not trying to piant you as an anti-semite. First of, Jews are not necessarily religious men and women. Jews are, first of all a people, like the Dutch, French or American people. Religion has got quite little to do woth it. The reason why, in this specific case I say Jews is, because at the time of the bombing of the King David hotel the State of Israel didn’t exist yet, so obviously I couldn’t say Israelis. Jews seemed to me to be the appropriate label. After all, Jewish people carried out the attack.
As for the Brits not leaving the hotel, the fault is still at the feet of those who blew up the building. You say the Brit’s didn’t evacuate, I say the Zionists didn’t have to blow the building up.
Whether they had to or not I’m not going to argue about here right now. What matters to me is, that you first claimed this act was illegitimate and an act of terrorism because civilians were targetted, while in fact the target was the British military HQ, and thus a legitimate military target.
Again, if that’s what they want where’s the fault in that specific desire (not necessarily the means, but the goal)-Israel was formed at the expense of the territory originally known as Palestine. Granted, Palestine wasn’t an independent state at that point, but lets see how you like it if your landlord comes over one day, kicks you out of half of your house so someone else can live there, and then they proceed to run you out of most of the rest of the house as well.
Sigh, once again, a large majority of Palestinians were not kicked out but left of their own volition. Either because they believed Arab propaganda about massacres and atrocities being committed on a large scale (not arguing there weren’t any), or because they believed the propaganda that said they had to move to make way for the advancing Arab armies. Not Israel’s fault they gambled and lost.
You are right that suicide bombing is not the answer, but if they choose terrorism they still are no better or no worse than the Zionists who helped create Israel.
Yes, they are, for all the reasons Skythe summed up.
Besides, they caused all their own problems from a certain standpoint. Had they not chosen an already inhabited land to claim as their own the Arabs wouldn’t have been so irritated.
Mind you, Jews have been living in Palestine like forever. There has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine. Besides, there was this partition plan I just mentioned…
Do you support the idea of a withdrawl to 1947 borders and giving back stolen land?
I don’t. There must be some corrections. Israel’s 1947 borders (never existed, but I assume you mean the UN partition plan) are indefensible. They gambled, they lost, tough ****. I also do not agree to withdrawing to the 1967 borders, for the same reasons, but do believe that the Palestinians in some ways need to be compensated for land of the West Bank and Gaza Strip they’ll not get.
On a side note, do you believe the US should shrink to it’s original size and that all land stolen from the Natives and Mexicans et al should be returned?
JJOriginally posted by SOC
Regardless of the details (which I admittedly may have gotten confused, but certainly not deliberately) it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists.
So obvious that you took an example which you now admit don’t know all the ‘details’ about. As if the fact that it was a British military HQ was an unimportant detail. :rolleyes:
My question therefore is still relevant-why are the Palestinian terrorists to be condemned when they are merely following in the footsteps of the “freedom fighters” who came before them?
Israelis fought for their freedom against Arab people and Arab nations that wanted the Jewish nation destroyed, while Palestinian terrorist fight to destroy that nation, not for their freedom. They could have had that freedom already in 1948, and on other occasions after that, the latest being at Taba in 2001. They chose to fight to continue to attempt to destroy Israel, and their means are targetting civilians.
As for the hotel, telling someone you’re about to blow up a building in no way detracts from the terrorist nature of the act.
It was a British military HQ, thus a legitimate military target. Besides, it also proves that Jews were trying to avoid loss of innocent life. When was the last time Palestinian terrorist phoned Israeli police to inform them that a pizza parlor was about to be blown up, and should therefor evacuate the place. Let me make it easy for you, when was the first time Palestinian terrorists warned Israeli police about a place that was about to be blown up?
All that says is that the Zionists wanted to make sure that the British knew who was behind it, and they wanted to be able to blow up the building without causing a loss of life sufficient enough to warrant a forceful response from the British.
They could have told the Brits afterwards if they wanted them to know who was behind the act. As for the second part of the statement: you’re just second guessing and have no proof whatsoever to back up that claim.
That’s called survival instinct. Unfortunately their regard for human life must not have been too high in the end (I won’t say it) as they chose to blow up the building, occupants and all, anyway.
The Brits did not evacuate, is that the fault of the Jews now too?
Now, the Palestinians, on the other hand, have a good reason not to share their intentions with the Israeli’s today. For one, it’s not exactly a major secret who is responsible. Secondly, the Israeli security is much more stringent than the British was way back when. In order for them to be able to use terrorism to achieve their goals (in theory) they have to operate differently.
Perhaps ypu should tell them that suicide bombing is not going to make Israel disappear ;). Seriously, they could have achieved what you understand to be their goal (a Palestinian state next to Israel) a long time ago. Unfortunately, their goal is a Palestinian state instead of Israel.
JJOriginally posted by SOC
Regardless of the details (which I admittedly may have gotten confused, but certainly not deliberately) it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists.
So obvious that you took an example which you now admit don’t know all the ‘details’ about. As if the fact that it was a British military HQ was an unimportant detail. :rolleyes:
My question therefore is still relevant-why are the Palestinian terrorists to be condemned when they are merely following in the footsteps of the “freedom fighters” who came before them?
Israelis fought for their freedom against Arab people and Arab nations that wanted the Jewish nation destroyed, while Palestinian terrorist fight to destroy that nation, not for their freedom. They could have had that freedom already in 1948, and on other occasions after that, the latest being at Taba in 2001. They chose to fight to continue to attempt to destroy Israel, and their means are targetting civilians.
As for the hotel, telling someone you’re about to blow up a building in no way detracts from the terrorist nature of the act.
It was a British military HQ, thus a legitimate military target. Besides, it also proves that Jews were trying to avoid loss of innocent life. When was the last time Palestinian terrorist phoned Israeli police to inform them that a pizza parlor was about to be blown up, and should therefor evacuate the place. Let me make it easy for you, when was the first time Palestinian terrorists warned Israeli police about a place that was about to be blown up?
All that says is that the Zionists wanted to make sure that the British knew who was behind it, and they wanted to be able to blow up the building without causing a loss of life sufficient enough to warrant a forceful response from the British.
They could have told the Brits afterwards if they wanted them to know who was behind the act. As for the second part of the statement: you’re just second guessing and have no proof whatsoever to back up that claim.
That’s called survival instinct. Unfortunately their regard for human life must not have been too high in the end (I won’t say it) as they chose to blow up the building, occupants and all, anyway.
The Brits did not evacuate, is that the fault of the Jews now too?
Now, the Palestinians, on the other hand, have a good reason not to share their intentions with the Israeli’s today. For one, it’s not exactly a major secret who is responsible. Secondly, the Israeli security is much more stringent than the British was way back when. In order for them to be able to use terrorism to achieve their goals (in theory) they have to operate differently.
Perhaps ypu should tell them that suicide bombing is not going to make Israel disappear ;). Seriously, they could have achieved what you understand to be their goal (a Palestinian state next to Israel) a long time ago. Unfortunately, their goal is a Palestinian state instead of Israel.
JJOriginally posted by SOC
Oh please, the original suicide bombers over there were the Zionist terrorists killing people when the area was still under British administration. Saying the Palestinians lost credibility for adopting a Zionist tactic, which seemed to have worked by the way, is ludicrous.
Care to give an example of e Jewish suicide bombing?
As for your example of the King David hotel bombing:
1) The hotel was located in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv
2) There was a British HQ there, and that HQ was the target of the bombing (thus definitely a legitimate military target)
3) The people who carried out the operation specifically stated that they informed the British that there was a bomb in the hotel and that they should evacuate. The British, for some reason, did not respond. Before someone starts the “oh, that’s just an excuse”-line: warning the British of one of their compounds was about to be blown up was standard practice for the group that carried out this attack.
JJOriginally posted by SOC
Oh please, the original suicide bombers over there were the Zionist terrorists killing people when the area was still under British administration. Saying the Palestinians lost credibility for adopting a Zionist tactic, which seemed to have worked by the way, is ludicrous.
Care to give an example of e Jewish suicide bombing?
As for your example of the King David hotel bombing:
1) The hotel was located in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv
2) There was a British HQ there, and that HQ was the target of the bombing (thus definitely a legitimate military target)
3) The people who carried out the operation specifically stated that they informed the British that there was a bomb in the hotel and that they should evacuate. The British, for some reason, did not respond. Before someone starts the “oh, that’s just an excuse”-line: warning the British of one of their compounds was about to be blown up was standard practice for the group that carried out this attack.
JJOh no, not again :rolleyes:
JJSo this is from Jane’s? Well, I didn’t consider them to be very good anyway, but now I’m wondering: what the hell are they smoking there?
Google: No, I’m Roman :D. Seriously though, I’m half Israeli, half Dutch, and I live in The Netherlands. ‘Carthago delenda est’ is just a metaphor.
JJOriginally posted by skythe
Here, this also appeared there. I do believe these were originally scanned for us by JJ.
Yup, I scanned them for yuor last request of pics od SyAAF aircraft IIRC ;).
Sign In
