World War 3 incoming! Trump challenges Russia to shoot down American missiles!

[LeGenD]

Lol, a traitor calling other traitor? You are a disgrace to all Pakistanis. Professional white boot locker. Sell out Pakistan to Uncle Satan.

Back to your pathetic behavior?

You are an arrogant bitcher here; utterly clueless about various developments across the world.

I am being vocal against atrocities of Bashar al-Assad. He is responsible for deaths of over 500,000 Syrians till now.

Your country is the largest trading partner of Uncle Satan by the way. So much for your virtousness - hypocrisy...

...has the US & Ally chickened out after Russia issued warning?

No, major military buildup of NATO in the Med. Sea observed.

The buildup had a profound impact over developments across Syria. Assad has shifted his most prized assets to Iran; Russia has reduced its footprint in Syria; Iranians have abandoned their stronghold; Rebels seem rejuvenated.

NATO forces are ready for action but mission needs to be defined. Relevant discussions and probing ongoing. Word is that US is trying to smuggle bodies from Dourna for further examination. Some are arguing that 'regime change' should be on the cards.

Let us see.

 

[Arsalan 345]

They vacate almost all strategic positions and shifted them to Russian strongholds.problem is what America will achieve after targeting a vacant airbase? They are scratching their heads.

 

[LeGenD]

They vacate almost all strategic positions and shifted them to Russian strongholds.problem is what America will achieve after targeting a vacant airbase? They are scratching their heads.

Even Russian footprint is reduced across Syria; 11 ships left Syria recently. Assad is a coward but clever like a fox.

However, US can decide to plant new administration in Damascus.

 

[Metanoia]

Even Russian footprint is reduced across Syria; 11 ships left Syria recently. Assad is a coward but clever like a fox.

However, US can decide to plant new administration in Damascus.

Alrighty, let us wait even more and see what transpires. Time will tell soon enough.

Just to elaborate a bit, ships are quite useless docked, i.e. they can not fight. I suppose no Navy in the history of this world has ever fought a war docked at some port.

Secondly, when confronted with a technologically and numerically superior foe(s), it is best not to expose yourself. In such scenarios, tactics change.

 

[$@rJen]

They vacate almost all strategic positions and shifted them to Russian strongholds.problem is what America will achieve after targeting a vacant airbase? They are scratching their heads.

Thry'll strike the remaining targets... and re-organise the rebels.. do you think after that Russia and Assad will try again to have a full control !!!??? it close to impossible... I've been saying this for the past 2 days.. the show of force by US and Allies are not for strike but have a agreement for Assad to leave Syria. Assad will settle either in Iran or Russia.

Even Russian footprint is reduced across Syria; 11 ships left Syria recently. Assad is a coward but clever like a fox.

However, US can decide to plant new administration in Damascus.

As for the new administration by US !! its not going to happen without the nod of the Iranians and the russians... they won't allow anyone who'll bow down to only American

 

[LeGenD]

Alrighty, let us wait even more and see what transpires. Time will tell soon enough.

Just to elaborate a bit, ships are quite useless docked, i.e. they can not fight. I suppose no Navy in the history of this world has ever fought a war docked at some port.

Secondly, when confronted with a technologically and numerically superior foe(s), it is best not to expose yourself. In such scenarios, tactics change.

Fair.

Russians were spotted moving some of their ground-based assets out of Syria.

However, situation is very tense since NATO is on an unpredictable trajectory. Word is that Russian assets will not be spared if they resist.

Much of the bluster is for public consumption but Russians are in touch with NATO and pressing for Middle Ground arrangement.

Time will tell.

 

[war&peace]

Fat chance. Lets settle for basic skills like Aviation. Cooking is way ahead of me

Learn how to live in a forest or a cave....survival skills..Cooking is important.

 

[LeGenD]

Russians are in touch with NATO: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-hotline-in-use-by-russia-and-us-says-kremlin

 

[vostok]

Guys, relax. No ww3 is coming. Go drink some bear or smoke hookah if you don't drink.

 

[gambit]

If your goal is to save the civilians from isis then what is the point of taking the civilians out with the isis? If you are not certain, why would you bomb them? How is it that you kill 90% civilians and then claim "good intentions". If you are this bad at your job where you fail 90% of the time, kill more civilian than isis does, then clearly the terrorist is you.

If I wear brown shirts, brown trousers, and brown cap that says 'UPS' in the front, odds are very good that I work for UPS, you think?

Likewise, it is the same with combatants. The Geneva Convention says that in order for you to be an 'authorized' combatant, meaning you can kill without legal consequences, you must...

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Item B, that of displaying distinctive sign recognizable from a distance is called a 'uniform'. Maybe you have heard of it?

Technically speaking, the correct word is 'combatant'. A civilian can be a combatant but a soldier cannot be a civilian. A civilian combatant is someone who is not a formal member of a military but engages in fighting for a cause, usually a nationalistic one. As long as he and others conforms to the above conditions, all of them will be granted 'authorized' combatant status. There are plenty of precedents for this.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS do not conform to the Convention. They CHOSE not to. So when they mingle with non-combatants, those you call civilians, a lot of people will die. Combatants and non-combatants.

It is not that we are 'bad' at our jobs, it is that ISIS fighters are too chickenshit to wear distinctive signs like uniforms and fight like real soldiers.

 

[bête noire]

If I wear brown shirts, brown trousers, and brown cap that says 'UPS' in the front, odds are very good that I work for UPS, you think?

Likewise, it is the same with combatants. The Geneva Convention says that in order for you to be an 'authorized' combatant, meaning you can kill without legal consequences, you must...

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Item B, that of displaying distinctive sign recognizable from a distance is called a 'uniform'. Maybe you have heard of it?

Technically speaking, the correct word is 'combatant'. A civilian can be a combatant but a soldier cannot be a civilian. A civilian combatant is someone who is not a formal member of a military but engages in fighting for a cause, usually a nationalistic one. As long as he and others conforms to the above conditions, all of them will be granted 'authorized' combatant status. There are plenty of precedents for this.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS do not conform to the Convention. They CHOSE not to. So when they mingle with non-combatants, those you call civilians, a lot of people will die. Combatants and non-combatants.

It is not that we are 'bad' at our jobs, it is that ISIS fighters are too chickenshit to wear distinctive signs like uniforms and fight like real soldiers.

Really? As if no one has ever seen the tapes that were leaked by Chelsea Manning. As if we don't know how your soldiers work. As if we don't know how they first kill without being sure then kill the first responders including ambulances.

Above all, if everywhere you went and every time it resulted in either millions dead, slavery back, death and destruction and then no stability on site, WHO THE FUK gives you the right to then decide you can add any other country you want with your shittiest record. If you went to those countries to "save the people" and resulted in more people killed by YOU and then permanent instability then why would you go to another country for the same?

What's your best result? You killed minimum 200,000 in Iraq, killed 100s of thousands in Afghanistan, killed many in Libya and bought slavery back (why di you leave Libya now? weren't you gonna liberate them? Can anyone ask the Libyan people which one they prefer, Qaddafi rule before invasion or American intervention result? You go away as soon as the country turns to permeant turmoil). America is the biggest terrorist if you count the bodies they have murdered or countries they invaded. Far surpasses all the other terrorist group put together.

How about, fuk off? No one needs your "freedom" in syria like you gave to all the other countries.

If I wear brown shirts, brown trousers, and brown cap that says 'UPS' in the front, odds are very good that I work for UPS, you think?

Likewise, it is the same with combatants. The Geneva Convention says that in order for you to be an 'authorized' combatant, meaning you can kill without legal consequences, you must...

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Item B, that of displaying distinctive sign recognizable from a distance is called a 'uniform'. Maybe you have heard of it?

Technically speaking, the correct word is 'combatant'. A civilian can be a combatant but a soldier cannot be a civilian. A civilian combatant is someone who is not a formal member of a military but engages in fighting for a cause, usually a nationalistic one. As long as he and others conforms to the above conditions, all of them will be granted 'authorized' combatant status. There are plenty of precedents for this.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS do not conform to the Convention. They CHOSE not to. So when they mingle with non-combatants, those you call civilians, a lot of people will die. Combatants and non-combatants.

It is not that we are 'bad' at our jobs, it is that ISIS fighters are too chickenshit to wear distinctive signs like uniforms and fight like real soldiers.

Also, geneva convention? You are pretending US abides by law? Guantanamo bay? Illegal Iraq war where there were no WMD or anything of that sort? HAHA. Law abiding "US". You are a joke

 

[vostok]

In general, we have Russia, which is dangerous because it has nothing to lose and America, which is dangerous, because it has world hegemony to lose.

 

[Avicenna]

If I wear brown shirts, brown trousers, and brown cap that says 'UPS' in the front, odds are very good that I work for UPS, you think?

Likewise, it is the same with combatants. The Geneva Convention says that in order for you to be an 'authorized' combatant, meaning you can kill without legal consequences, you must...

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Item B, that of displaying distinctive sign recognizable from a distance is called a 'uniform'. Maybe you have heard of it?

Technically speaking, the correct word is 'combatant'. A civilian can be a combatant but a soldier cannot be a civilian. A civilian combatant is someone who is not a formal member of a military but engages in fighting for a cause, usually a nationalistic one. As long as he and others conforms to the above conditions, all of them will be granted 'authorized' combatant status. There are plenty of precedents for this.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS do not conform to the Convention. They CHOSE not to. So when they mingle with non-combatants, those you call civilians, a lot of people will die. Combatants and non-combatants.

It is not that we are 'bad' at our jobs, it is that ISIS fighters are too chickenshit to wear distinctive signs like uniforms and fight like real soldiers.

Lotta BS in there bud.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

https://twitter.com/x/status/984841342487613442

 

[Basel]

In general, we have Russia, which is dangerous because it has nothing to lose and America, which is dangerous, because it has world hegemony to lose.

What will Russia do? Get out of way and struck deal through back channels or respond if Syria is attacked?