Forums Register login What's New?
Israel Declares War
Page 11 of 17
  1. again, there are no underlying principles to religions. it is all up to interpretation. many people think their religions tell them to kill infidels. are they wrong, god didnt tell them that? are we supposed to examine what god actually said? see the problem?

    you cannot deny this is a religious issue. if it wasnt, then why cant israel set up shop somewhere else? it is because it is a HOLY land. no compromises can be made by either side if they think the land is holy.

    i know, that is why it such a huge problem. nobody wants to admit the truth about religion. they cant. it is too hard to accept that our lives are short and meaningless. but they are.


    huh? religion is the cause of more than a small fraction of conflict, especially now.

    i am not kidding when i say it makes me sort of sad that humans are so pathetic when you say that.
  2. I wondered about this after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1990, largely due to the fact that we had armed the Mujahadeen with Stinger missiles and they had about 300 left over that they did not return to the CIA. Yet, not one of these missiles was ever successfully used by the same people against us, Israel or anyone else. A few Stinger missile parts were found in a boat in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war but no firing was noted by anyone.

    So I researched it. It turns out there are several reasons:

    1. Only us and the Russians make a man-portable SAM that actually works and the Soviet missile is simply a less-effective copy of the Stinger. It is extremely difficult and expensive to make a man-portbale SAM. Both countries have serious issues with islamic terrorists and they tightly control access to the missiles.

    2. The missiles have a very limited shelf life and require technical maintenance to keep in good working order. The IR seeker head is super-cooled and the cryogenic fluid doesn't store very long. There are many moving parts that must be carefully lubricated. Solid rocket fuel breaks down over time. Sensitive electronics can not take excessive shock, heat, dust, dampness or static electricity. Storage in caves and buried caches and transport by mules takes its toll.

    3. Plus . . . it would not surprise me if the electronics on an export Stinger had a failsafe disarm date of just a few months. Probably the missiles the CIA gave to the Mujahadeen disarmed themselves after a few months specifically to keep them from falling into third-party hands. Maybe the Russians do this, too.

    But they are a real threat and someday, someone will sucessfully bring a plane down. Several of the Soviet missiles were fired at Israeli airliners in Africa several years ago but were failures. A very classified and sophisticated device that spoofs IR-seeking SAMs is carried by US military transports and Air Force One. The Israelis also put a similar device on their commercial jets. If man-portable SAMS ever emerged as a serious threat domestically, you will see it installed on US commercial jets, too. Some international flights may already have it.


  3. why are you citing sams? rpgs are every terrorists favorite and they're all over the muslim world much like sandals.

    they could easily be used to hit a commercial airline on takeoff or landing with a little effort. they can be rigged with infrared sights and fire off many diff type warheads. these things last forever even in that sand pit and cost hardly nothing.
  4. So . . . why aren't they hitting planes with them? They are cheap and reliable, but completely inadequate against flying targets. It's a rocket-propeled grenade, not a missile.

    1. RPG's don't have enough range. Although technically you can shoot one over 300 meters, their effective range is 50 meters. Even experts have difficulty hitting stationary targets at 150m. A Stinger's range is clasified but is known to have engaged high-flying targets at 8,000 meters.

    2. RPG sights aren't designed to hit a moving target. No range rings.

    3. RPG's cannot be fitted with IR seekers because they are unguided and have no steering mechanism. It is a free rocket, it just goes straight. No moving parts, no electronics.

    4. RPG's have a large back-blast. When you angle one up towards an aircraft, the backblast can fug you up and everyone around you because it hits the ground and kicks up flying debris and hot gas into your legs. The Iraqis tried to use a curved pipe to direct the backblast away but it screwed up the recoiless design and made the launch even more inaccurate.

    RPG's have actually taken down hovering or slow-moving helicopters at a low altitude, but the shooter has to get up on a building or platform where he can manage the backblast and it usually takes a volley of dozens to actually score a hit. Even against ground targets they usually volley fire them because even a small crosswind makes them erratic because their fins make them roll during flight.

    All it really takes to defend jet aircraft against RPG's is a guarded fence with a 150-meter perimeter from the runway and approach clearing.

  6. i know instead of just discussing things like shoptalk and using logic you prefer to search for your answers. stop for a second and think about it. have you ever fired a law, an rpg or even seen one fired upclose? Im sure you've seen one on the news almost daily. they are used to destroy tanks and small armor with relative ease. they all have similar backblasts with little recoil due to the open-end design.

    i think the average range for the 7s that are used the most have something close to 300 meters. With a little training and infrared sights, Im sure i could stand on plank road and knock one of those 737's outta the sky with 5 or 6 shots.

    And yes, an rpg is still a missile because its fired and launched. a lot different than an m203 or other type grenade launcher which merely lobs an actual grenade. yes they were designed to be fired horizontally yet its quite easy fire upwards standing on a platform where you will avoid the downward backblast.

    if you dont believe this can be done, you are very much mistaken. I know for a fact plans have been confiscated upon seizure from terrorists with plans to do just that but it was stopped beforehand. i know thats how blackhawk down was downed and a slow ass plodding airline taking off and landing is a lot like a hovering chopper just much bigger.

    thats why i posed the question and wonder why it hasnt happened.
    Im guessing its their primitive training. it certainly isnt hard to get within a few hundred meters of a plane taking off and landing with the US.


    edited: i wasnt trying to take a shot, i simply meant your posts are much more enjoyable when you speak from the gut and give your own logic based on everything you know instead of summarizing.
  7. :dis: :dis: :dis: I repeat what I said. If we all lived according to the fundamental precepts of our religion - and there are fundamental religious precepts - we would be living in a much better world. It say that there are no underlying principles of religion just goes to show how little you know of the various religions.

    As I said, the issues may run along religious lines, but they are fundamentally political in nature. Territorial issues are political in nature, even if they have a religious basis. Israel cannot just pack and go elsewhere because there is no place to go. The land they occupy is their land - not so much because God gave it to them, but because in 1948 the nation of Israel was created with the blessing of the United Nations. That is political - not religious. Prior to that, the Jews lived on that same land for over 1,000 years before being driven from it. That amounts to an ancient claim. Their belief that it is a "promised land" has little to do with the legal establishment of the nation of Israel. Yes, as far as the Jews are concerned, the Covenant with God on Mt. Sinai gave them ownership of the land and their claim to the land dates back to that Covenant. No doubt about that. But in creating the nation of Israel, the United Nations looked at the fact that they were in posession of it, and their historical connection with the land. The UN did not look at religious issues in establishing the state of Israel, but political ones. And the issues dividing the Jews from the Muslims are political in nature - not religious. It is all about land - not God.
  8. so when the muslim says he kills for allah, your claim is that he doesnt know his own religion? how can you prove that? you are in the position of arguing about what god really wants. cant you see what an an inarguable stance that is?

    of course people dont just kill for islam, they kill plenty for christianity too. as of this moment islam is killing more though.

    there should never be a time when you are arguing with a religious person about what god wants in order to prove to them they are wrong to kill. that is an argument you cannot win. they have faith and so do you and that is it.

    after 9/11 there was a national prayer day, on which people would exalt the very force that is killing them, religion. thats what i cant stand. thats what set me off. people all turn to the magical sky-god and beseech him that he stop allowing the other guys who are also listening to him.

    crazy things like belief in the afterlife, these are the beliefs that facilitate the killing. cant you see that?

    and the diviseness. religion makes for a violent us vs them mentality where there otherwise would not be conflict, and carries that conflict over generations. these crazy beliefs are inherently incompatible, and conflict is inevitable, and we sit on our ****ing hands and pretend these beliefs are sacred and that the bad guys are "misinterpreting" god. it drives me into a furious rage.

    ireland for example. these people are identical to each other, genetically, culturally, everything. and yet they slaughter each other for religion. where there was nothing to cause conflict, religion intervenes and the killing starts.

    and the middle east. a ****ty piece of land that nobody would give a damn about. but call it holy and soon enough the killing begins. and eventually we make the mistake of getting involved, even if only slightly, and we are getting killed over it too. but still, we hang on to our goddamn myths like savages.

    pay attention. this is wrong. this is like saying there are fundamental truths about santa claus. if they claim in other part of the world that santa is actualy a skinny guy in shorts who comes around in march, then how can there be any agreement about that? there is no source of reality. do you understand? if you say religions are about the golden rule, that is fine, but another guy may say religion is about an "eye for an eye" and killing infidels who deserve hell for their disrespect of allah, who is right? where is the "real" answer? THERE ISNT ONE BECAUSE ITS A GODDAMN MYTH.

    so it comes back down to faith. you cannot have it both ways. when you concede your beliefs are based on faith (and you must!) then you no longer have any justification to call out the other guy who has a different faith than your own. when the beliefs are coming from notwere, there is no reference point. that is dangerous. if there is one thing i could beat into all your stupid heads, this would be it.
  9. Well, it was kind of a shot, man. I told you exactly what I felt and the facts were not false because I checked. You just don't think I'm worthy to know military information because I wasn't in the army. Well, tough. I'm aware of more that's going on in this world than what I've actually done. I have opinions and I shared one.

    You make a lot of assumptions about me, my friend, a know a lot more than you imagine about some of this stuff. And when I don't know, I check. I cite the experts when I'm not an expert. I don't like to be wrong.

    You think you can shoot down a 737 with an anti-tank rocket? That's interesting, seriously. I appreciate that you've fired a LAW and it gives you confidence that you can do it. I bet the rags who fire them every day feel the same way. Not one of them have ever done so and that suggests it is a long shot to me.

    Maybe you could do it, but it's my gut feeling that it's not practical. A man-portable SAM is another thing entirely, they take down aircraft routinely. That was my answer to your question and I just listed the facts that influenced my thoughts. You would have questioned my logic without them wouldn't you?

    Look, I've spent a career in R & D writing proposals, research reports, technical papers, articles, etc. I've been trained to make clear statements and back them up with facts and reasoning and with citations and evidence where appropriate. I guess I tend to do that here a lot too. Technical writing is supposed to be authoritative but it can come across as pompous. Mea culpa. But it's just my writing style, tirk, I figure you should be used to it by now.

    One doesn't have to be in the military to know something about it or to have opinions in FSA. If you can offer us more details through your military experience, then that's great. I love to hear that stuff. I just don't understand why you feel you have to put me down if I dare to have an opinion about the military. Get past it, amigo.

    ---

    Incidently, No I haven't fired a LAW or an RPG, but I fired a 75mm recoilless rifle on a tripod looking through a sight with the gun tube about 6 inches from my head. Scared the hell out of me, I almost soiled myself. I wouldn't be an artilleryman for 72 virgins in Paradise. :grin:

  10. no i realized how it came across after i read it so i apologize for that. I certainly wasnt demeaning anything about you, like you said I think its just your writing style where you are used to having to present information similar to a board room. there are other times, though. that when you seem to really just talk you can really get your point across a lot better and it doesnt seem prescribed (for me anyhow). and military history seems to be a favorite of yours which I always find interesting and very thorough when you have something to say on the matter. obviously your knowledge of that stuff is far more extensive than myself so i tend to listen.

    anyhow, I was simply saying although its not necessarily practical, Im sure you realize an rpg is pretty freaking lethal no matter what it hits. of course hitting a plane isnt simple but definitely is far from impossible. and with how readily available they are im just shocked it hasnt been happening or at least attempted more.

    i found this from homeland security by accident which is interesting nonetheless:


    http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...eland+security+rpg-7&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 11 of 17