politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: BREAKING : Mark Levin “You Should Be Very Proud of Your President -a REAL Commander in Chief”
Source:
truthfeed.com
URL Source: http://truthfeed.com/breaking-mark- ... real-commander-in-chief/63246/
Published: Apr 8, 2017
Author: Amy Moreno
Post Date: 2017-04-08 09:56:09 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 14502
Comments: 81
Conservative talk show powerhouse Mark Levin praised President Trump’s airstrikes against a Syria airbase, saying, “that’s a real leader.” After eight years of feckless, dithering foreign policy from Obama and his administration, it’s refreshing to see STRENGTH and confidence back in the White House. On Thursday President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase believed to be housing chemical weapons. The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack on Tuesday that killed innocent women and children.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 75.
#6. To: Gatlin (#0)
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad.
There is absolutely no proof that the attack was ordered and orchestrated by Assad. And there is absolutely no proof that a Tomahawk missile attack was ordered and orchestrated against Assad. Latest reports show him alive and well….he was not attacked. However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter. There are reports of heavy damage …
There are reports of heavy damage … There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions.
There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: There were fighter/bombers taking off from it today to fly bombing missions. Of course there were Syrian aircraft taking off today from the air field. It was never expected there would not be. In fact two Syrian jets already took of from the air base on Friday that was hit by the 58 Tomahawk missiles early Friday morning. They also took off yesterday….and again today, as you stated. But there were 26 less Syrian aircraft available to ever take off from that air base….since they were destroyed in the missile strikes. There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot. All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. It was never the intent to pothole the runway to prevent usage. That would have been a waste of missiles since all potholes could have been repaired within hours anyway….for any surviving aircraft to start taking off Friday and continuing through the weekend. But take a look at this … This was the damage done only by two missiles. Stop and visualize this kind of damage to 56 other facilities and you should have a very good idea of what was meant by the usage of the term “heavy damage.” Again: All this means heavy damage in English and the same أضرار جسيمة in Arabic. You disagree? Are you saying there was not heavy damage? Edit Add: Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. Another report says nine Syrian jets were destroyed.
Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos. If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?
Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos. For every question….there is a logical answer. The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs. That’s exactly what happened …
That’s exactly what happened … You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."
That’s exactly what happened … You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...." Then “once upon a time” [last Friday morning] Tomahawk missiles went through the roofs of these two aircraft shelters …. And the Tomahawk missiles destroyed the aircraft in those shelters without destroying the roofs of those shelters. There, Catfish….that’s exactly what happened and I am telling the story the way you want it to be told. You like it better that I started the story that way….huh? Good, then … At 0:41 in the video below, you will see the Syrians drive past the two aircraft shelters in the picture I posted. Continue watching that video and at 1:15 you will hear one Syrian say to another Syrian in Arabic … Here is a picture of one Mig-23 showing what one looks like before it met up with a Tomahawk missile … Ah, but I digress from “once upon a time.” Sorry about that, back to the “once upon a time” story … Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh … Here is the Syrian video … And so, Pete, it happened exactly the way I first told you it happened and now you have heard the story told the way you wanted it to begin … So, as with another story from the past … Pete, did you like it better when I tell the story by starting with “once upon a time?” And, I also politely ask you once again … Maybe you and Tooconservative should start a new ping list, called: “Skeptics Anonymous.” I am sure that Deckard would also be prequalified to sign up on it.
I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling. A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads. I'd like to see all of these missile bodies. They have to be somewhere. I notice this particular video offers nothing to support the idea that half of our missiles missed the airbase.
I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling. A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads. Au contraire, on what you say about the Tomahawk penetration ability. The Tomahawk was far past my time, so I only know what I read. I dealt with 5 nukes with the B-58 and eighty-four 500-pound bombs in the B-52 over Nam….with a year in the AC-130 gunship at the end of hostilities, it had the 105 and Gatlin gun. So, maybe redleghunter has the expertise to help us here, if he will. I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation. I don’t belive that is a Tomahawk in this video, but it shows that a missile can penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation….same point. Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.
I see the much smaller SDB is claimed to penetrate 3' of concrete. See video at 02:48.
Yes a GMLRS and Excalibur have the same types of penetrators. But you are missing the point. The aircraft were not fully protected. Think of the entire explosive chain of a 1,000lb unitary warhead. No over 50! The blast and frag from just a point detonating fuze would have done the necessary damage. Plus all this talk about looking for missile bodies and counting craters. Total bush league discussion. I would gather 3-5 Tomahawks were used as "drones" what we call ISR collectors for BDA. Some were the submunition variant spreading hundreds of dual purpose bomblets with smaller penetrators to damage or destroy air defense weapons. The unitary warheads used to either blast and frag around the bunkers thus destroying the aircraft or using delay penetrator fuzes to send the heat and blast down into the bunker. This is a 1,000 lb warhead for heaven's sake. With a near vertical angle of attack, 1000lbs of explosives, proper fuze setting and not to mention speed of the missile, the TLAM can penetrate that girly bunker. However, why do that when blast and frag gets the job done.
I saw no mention of any real air defenses at the base. No mention of the location and disposition of S-300 systems either. You would think the media would display a little curiosity as to whether our missiles avoided the S-300's or flew right over them. You would think a gas attack would naturally make that base a target of the West. Yet we see nothing to indicate that Syria or Russia anticipated any such retaliation. It does seem like overkill to assign an entire Tomahawk to penetrating the roof of those hangars if all they wanted was to disable the aircraft inside. Supposedly, they were reworking some jets there and scrapping one or more others. I suppose that makes those hangars handy to have but they don't seem to to provide much real shelter. I think those are some very old hangars. Maybe they would protect aircraft from old dumb bombs if the saturation level of the attack wasn't too high. But in an era of smart bombs, they seem ridiculous. Perhaps we wanted to punch holes in them to make Assad look powerless to stop us. It doesn't seem to be degrading his air force too much. Russia probably has a thousand of those old jets in storage if Syria needs them.
You would think a gas attack would naturally make that base a target of the West. Yet we see nothing to indicate that Syria or Russia anticipated any such retaliation. There has been no confirmation of this, that I have seen. However, since the Russian ADS reportedly can detect missile fire from 400 kilometers away and then destroy the missiles when they get into range….I therefore believe the statement is true. JMO - I think this because Russia either correctly anticipated a strike they damned well knew had to be coming, or Russia was informed earlier than the stated one hour, and wanted no part of an active engagement against U.S. forces by downing Tomahawk missiles. Great job…Navy! Additional info – Personal Story –
These powerful radars used for the S-300 are probably easily detected from Turkey. As a NATO member, they would be familiar with their operating characteristics. It seems the missiles arrived at the airbase over the course of a half-hour. Most of the S-300 control/radar units can control and target 4-6 AA missiles at airborne targets at once. They do have one high-end model that can handle over thirty at once. They can track twice as many targets as they can target with missiles simultaneously. If the missiles did take a half-hour to arrive and were fairly evenly spaced, then a single S-300 might theoretically take out most of them or even all of them. We don't know which model of the S-300 is on the ground. There was a rumor of having a few S-400 batteries too but no confirmation of those at all. If there are S-400s there, it would probably be only a few batteries to protect the most important Russian airfield. I don't believe I've ever seen any real info on the disposition of the S-300 in Syria. Apparently, no one is releasing that info. Probably the info is out there as the active radars on those S-300 units should be pretty easily pinpointed.
I believe that was the point I was suggesting in my post….at least I tried to. But, rest assuredly….we know if they are there and where they are, if they are there. Ah, memories … No, I did not serve in the RC-135. However, my terminal assignment upon returning from SEA while awaiting retirement was to refuel the RC-135s from the KC-135 off the coast of Russia.
I think that when they turn on their radars, we do see the S-300s. So do the Israelis and probably the Turks. Perhaps they can use passive radar signals and only go live when they detect a threat. But they do operate a tracking and targeting radar system in each S-300 cluster group, depending on what they deploy and how. If they actively track/target incoming craft, I think the S-300 radar has to go active and stay active. It is a powerful ground radar station so you can't really hide it. The enemy sees it the moment you really start to use it. Russia has sold a S-300 defense to Iran and it is functioning now. I'm not sure how many units (clusters) they bought or what models Russia let them buy (purchased after 0bama gave that $150 billion back to Iran). I notice that Russia supposedly ended S-300 production in 2016 and will manufacture only S-400 unit in the future. So these S-300 are still not their most modern systems. And it is likely that Iran and Syria only have the export version of the S-300. Russia keeps its best versions for itself and markets lesser versions overseas, sort of a pattern with them going back to the Soviet era.
#79. To: Tooconservative, Deckard (#75)
But then the assholes wised up and used AAA radar for tracking and turned on their SA 2 fire control radar at the very last second to momentarily launched the SAMs. Then they go even smarter. They would toy with the Wild Weasel by coming up with the SA 2 radar at a site in front of the Wild Weasel and then fire a SAM from another site behind the Wild Weasel. It was always a cat-and-mouse game….The Wild Weasels won some, while the SA 2s won others. Here is a story about a Wild Weasel loss while SAM hunting….where my friend, Bob Panek, bought the farm. Bob was in the B-58 class behind me and we both reported to our new Hustler wing at the same time. He went to Thailand a couple years ahead of me to the Wild Weasels at Udorn and I went to the Spectre Gunships at Ubon. BTW, Deckard was stationed at Udorn, but I think it was a couple years after Panek was shot down.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
(Edited)
The U.S. attack was retaliation for a Syrian chemical attack
#18. To: Gatlin (#8)
However, the Syrian air base from which the chemical attack was launched is a different matter.
#20. To: sneakypete (#18)
(Edited)
There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
Russia said only 23 of the 59 missiles fired from US warships hit their mark, but that six Syrian jets and several buildings were destroyed in the attack. There are reports of heavy damage …
In a photo released by the Russian state-owned news outlet, Sputnik, the remains of two planes are seen
underneath a shelter following the U.S. missile attack on an air base in Syria, April 7, 2017.
#25. To: Gatlin (#20)
Are you saying there was not heavy damage?
#27. To: sneakypete, redleghunter, Tooconservative (#25)
Are you saying there was not heavy damage?
Uh, hello Pete, they were not destroying the shelters….they were destroying the aircraft in the shelters. If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?
#34. To: Gatlin (#27)
The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.
#36. To: sneakypete, redleghunter, Tooconservative, All (#34)
The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.
If you say so, and that is what you need to hear to start the story … So the missiles came through the top [meaning the roof, of course], right?
Then at 1:19 you will hear the other Syrian say … Yea, it broke through the roof of the hanger.
At 1:29 you will hear one Syrian ask another Syrian, as they stand by a heaping pile of burned out wreckage in the aircraft shelter where the missile went through … Is this the burned down Mig-23?
And at 1:23 you will hear the Syrians ask and answer … And all of the hits came through the roof? Yes, exactly.
At 1:34, you will hear a Syrian say … It is the same in the other hanger.
And 1:34 you also see a picture of what is left of the afterburner nozzles of the burned out Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 [Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-23] “Flogger”….a Soviet made single-engine single-seat swing-wing supersonic jet fighter. 
Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room.
I hope you can now wake up to reality and fully comprehend that the Tomahawk missiles did indeed penetrate through the roofs of the aircraft shelters and destroyed the Mig-23s without ever destroying the roofs of those shelters….leaving only holes. Pete, are you saying there was not heavy damage?
#39. To: Gatlin, sneakypete, hondo68 (#36)
Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …
Here is the Syrian video …
At least they showed us a couple of Tomahawk missile bodies and some parts with Raytheon serial numbers.
#41. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete, redleghunter, All (#39)
(Edited)
Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …
Always the cynic. Picky-Picky. Will you ever give up …
#44. To: Gatlin (#41)
#63. To: Tooconservative (#44)
#65. To: redleghunter (#63)
I would gather 3-5 Tomahawks were used as "drones" what we call ISR collectors for BDA. Some were the submunition variant spreading hundreds of dual purpose bomblets with smaller penetrators to damage or destroy air defense weapons.
With a near vertical angle of attack, 1000lbs of explosives, proper fuze setting and not to mention speed of the missile, the TLAM can penetrate that girly bunker. However, why do that when blast and frag gets the job done.
#67. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#65)
(Edited)
I saw no mention of any real air defenses at the base. No mention of the location and disposition of S-300 systems either. You would think the media would display a little curiosity as to whether our missiles avoided the S- 300's or flew right over them.
It was reported that Abdullah Hayri Torun, deputy CEO of major Turkish weapons maker Roketsan, claimed that Russia had shut down its air defense system in Syria ahead of the U.S. strike the airbase. It does seem like overkill to assign an entire Tomahawk to penetrating the roof of those hangars if all they wanted was to disable the aircraft inside.
Expending a US$1.59 million Tomahawk to destroy a Mig 23 that reportedly sold for between US$3.6 million and $6.6 million depending on the customer [why the variant is unstated] that could continue to kill hundreds of people and probably [based on past history] drop another of the “gas bombs” that left some 100 men, women, and children dead and more than 500 injured….makes one Tomahawk for one Mig 23 more than fair exchange and definitely money well spent.
I heard the Tomahawk strike destroyed 20% of the Syrian Air Force aircraft. This is unconfirmed.
It was indeed a strange sight years ago that gave me a rather eerie feeling when I would drive on the Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard in Scottsdale and pass the end of the runway at Scottsdale Airpark where I would continually see a changing number of Migs always parked along side of the runway behind the fence just 30 yards away. The story behind the Migs in Scottsdale is here if you are interested.
#68. To: Gatlin (#67)
It was reported that Abdullah Hayri Torun, deputy CEO of major Turkish weapons maker Roketsan, claimed that Russia had shut down its air defense system in Syria ahead of the U.S. strike the airbase.
However, since the Russian ADS reportedly can detect missile fire from 400 kilometers away and then destroy the missiles when they get into range….I therefore believe the statement is true.
#73. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#68)
It seems the missiles arrived at the airbase over the course of a half-hour. Most of the S-300 control/radar units can control and target 4-6 AA missiles at airborne targets at once.
Not if the complete ADS is turned off.
[…]
If the missiles did take a half-hour to arrive and were fairly evenly spaced, then a single S-300 might theoretically take out most of them or even all of them. I don't believe I've ever seen any real info on the disposition of the S-300 in Syria. Apparently, no one is releasing that info.
It would be stupid for either side to do so.
It would be stupid for the Russians to let the U.S. know where they are.
And it would be stupid for the U.S. to let the Russians know that we know where they are. America’s Most Important Spy Plane That Isn’t an SR-71 Blackbird
It’s the …
#75. To: Gatlin (#73)
It would be stupid for the Russians to let the U.S. know where they are.
Replies to Comment # 75. I think that when they turn on their radars, we do see the S-300s. So do the Israelis and probably the Turks. Perhaps they can use passive radar signals and only go live when they detect a threat. But they do operate a tracking and targeting radar system in each S-300 cluster group, depending on what they deploy and how. If they actively track/target incoming craft, I think the S-300 radar has to go active and stay active. It is a powerful ground radar station so you can't really hide it. The enemy sees it the moment you really start to use it.
They got smart in Nam when the Wild Weasels were “ferreting” their asses out….challenging them to lock on and fire at them. When SA 2 locked on, they were dead ducks because the Wild Weasel fire rockets at them before they fired the SAMs.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 75.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]