Putin Threaten ISIS With Nukes

[Mutt]

?Hopefully, no nukes will be needed? against ISIS ? Putin

https://www.rt.com/news/325178-putin...missiles-isis/

[wehateporn]

Interesting, he's trying to intimidate ISIS, make them think that one way or another they lose, however this could play into the hands of the Western false flag people, they can set off a nuke there, say it was Putin, then the West demands a Russian ceasefire and Russia get out of Syria, so as the West can get on with their agenda of regime change.

[georgeyw]

Let's face it, we all want *someone* to turn the place into a parking lot.

[Paul&John]

Actually he said: "...precision weapons that can be equipped with both conventional and special warheads, which are nuclear, ... Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,” the president added.

Which at least for me sounds a little bit different than the article's title

[pornmasta]

this is an answer to a possible nuclear threat from isis

or... to warn the friends of isis that could have this kind of weapons.

let me think, what's the best friends of isis ?

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

Actually he said: "...precision weapons that can be equipped with both conventional and special warheads, which are nuclear, ... Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,? the president added.

Which at least for me sounds a little bit different than the article's title

Putin's a very clever man, he was sending a message to ISIS, one way or another you're going down and if you make it necessary I will use a nuke.

There's no other reason for including the nuke capability other than as a threat. He wasn't giving a seminar on precision weapons

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

this is an answer to a possible nuclear threat from isis

or... to warn the friends of isis that could have this kind of weapons.

let me think, what's the best friends of isis ?

Russia doesn't have to remind the United States, it's been fully aware of Russia's nuclear weapons for 65 years.

[k0nr4d]

It's interesting, that they wrote that in quotes - considering it's not at all a quote and he said something completely different and in a completely different context heh

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

It's interesting, that they wrote that in quotes - considering it's not at all a quote and he said something completely different and in a completely different context heh

that's mainstream media in a nutshell. 100% unreliable, 100% propaganda, 100% of the time.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

It's interesting, that they wrote that in quotes - considering it's not at all a quote and he said something completely different and in a completely different context heh

I didn't notice that, i thought they clipped that from a longer quote. That is bad dishonest journalism.

But the actual quote does have the thinly veiled nuclear threat. There was no need for Putin to tell anybody that a cruise missile can be fitted with a nuclear warhead other than to make a threatening point.

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Russia doesn't have to remind the United States, it's been fully aware of Russia's nuclear weapons for 65 years.

isis is the United States?
new islamic state of United States?
as it relates to the United States?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Putin's a very clever man

He is a coward and a fuckin' moron. Believe me, I can see it better from here.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by nico-t

that's wehateporn in a nutshell. 100% unreliable, 100% propaganda, 100% of the time.

Fixed

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Putin's a very clever man, he was sending a message to ISIS, one way or another you're going down and if you make it necessary I will use a nuke.

There's no other reason for including the nuke capability other than as a threat. He wasn't giving a seminar on precision weapons

Not sure if his buddy Assad would be all OK using nukes on his land

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

Not sure if his buddy Assad would be all OK using nukes on his land

That's was just a one more stupid statement that Putin so loves to make. There is no single military necessity to use nukes in Syria. Strategical nukes are intended to completely eliminate the enemy territories (this is a Doomsday weapon). The tactical ones must to be used against dense troop concentrations, nuclear silos, fortified command centers, aircraft battle groups etc. ISIS has nothing of those.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

He is a coward and a fuckin' moron. Believe me, I can see it better from here.

Most of your countrymen love him. If you're right then the world is in great danger, morons with the power he has are dangerous. How is Putin a coward?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Most of your countrymen love him. If you're right then the world is in great danger, morons with the power he has are dangerous.

In fact it is in a very serious danger.

Originally Posted by Mutt

How is Putin a coward?

There is a lot of facts that prove it. E.g.: "The Enemy" - this guy has got 3 years in prison for 4 single pickets like this:



Also Putin has fabricated a false criminal case against Navalny and his brother. He has no balls to send Navalny into prison because the last time he tried to do that, the Moscow citizens have occupied the Russian Parliament (Duma) as an action of protest and Navalny has been released:











So what Putin did? He has sent Navalny's brother to jail (for false "economical crimes") and he uses him as a political hostage. Foe example, today he has decided to "regulate" internet messengers, because he considers them as a threat to his corrupted regime.

Actually there is a ton of similar cases that shows how cowardly he really is. The TV pictures him as a strong leader, but in fact he is very afraid of his own people. I don't trust to a TV picture, I trust to objective facts only.

[ZiggiZiggiCrew]

Originally Posted by cyberseo

that's was just a one more stupid statement that putin so loves to make. There is no single military necessity to use nukes in syria. Strategical nukes are intended to completely eliminate the enemy territories (this is a doomsday weapon). The tactical ones must to be used against dense troop concentrations, nuclear silos, fortified command centers, aircraft battle groups etc. Isis has nothing of those.

Точно такой же небходимости нет хуячить бородатых с подводных лодок и белых лебедей крылатыми ракетами. Понятно, что это мессаджи нашим партнерам(с). Использование тактического яо может быть очереденым мессаджем, тем более что сказано это было после того, как польские военные заговорили о размещении яо на своей территории. Как любит говорить известный медийный персонаж *совпадение? Не думаю*

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

In fact it is in serious danger.



There is a lot of facts that prove it. E.g.: "The Enemy" - this guy has got 3 years in prison for 4 single pickets like this:



Also Putin has fabricated a false criminal case against Navalny and his brother. He has no balls to send Navalny into prison because the last time he tried to do that, the Moscow citizens have occupied the Russian Parliament (Duma) as an action of protest and Navalny has been released:


So what Putin did? He has sent Navalny's brother to jail (for false "economical crimes") and he uses him as a political hostage.

Actually there is a ton of similar cases that shows how cowardly he really is. The TV pictures him as a strong leader, but in fact he is very afraid of his own people. I don't trust to a TV picture, I trust to objective facts only.

It's obvious that more Russians like him than don't or they wouldn't allow him to make himself President/Dictator For Life.

If there was a legitimate fair election for President who would run against Putin and what % of the vote would Putin get?

Silencing your opposition isn't really what I'd call cowardly, it's what dictators do because that's how you remain a dictator.

[Mutt]

Putin's winter fairy tale

Vladimir Putin's position on Syria and Ukraine may have been criticised in the West, but Russia's president is adored and admired by many at home, as Steve Rosenberg discovers on a visit to Volokolamsk.

Putin's winter fairy tale - BBC News

[crockett]

So after Putin bombs Syrian troops a few days ago he now threating to nuke Syria? Some ally he is.. Asad must be feeling pretty questionable at this point..

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

If there was a legitimate fair election for President who would run against Putin and what % of the vote would Putin get?

The same %. People is over-brainwashed by TV, so he will get over 50% of votes in any case. They think that their life was that rich because of Putin during all that past years. They are wrong of course. It was only because of high oil prices.

Originally Posted by Mutt

Silencing your opposition isn't really what I'd call cowardly, it's what dictators do because that's how you remain a dictator.

That's your opinion. In my opinion it is cowardly.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by crockett

So after Putin bombs Syrian troops a few days ago he now threating to nuke Syria? Some ally he is.. Asad must be feeling pretty questionable at this point..

Putin doesn't care about the Syrian people any more than the US does or Assad does. None of this craziness is about people. They're rather they all vanish.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

The same %. People is over-brainwashed by TV, so he will get over 50% of votes in any case. They think that their life was that rich because of Putin during all that past years. They are wrong of course. It was only because of high oil prices.



That's your opinion. In my opinion it is cowardly.

So what do you think - Putin will remain in power until he's 80 if he lives that long?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Tactical nuclear weapons would be of limited value in use against the Islamic Terrorist State.

Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq have substantial civilian populations.
Ramadi is upwind of Baghdad and 60% of the city has been retaken by the Iraqi army.

Al Raqqa, Syria would be the only possible tactical nuclear (probably a neutron weapon) strike target but over 30K civilians would be killed. However, civilians left in Al Raqqa, Syria, the self declared capital city of the Islamic Caliphate, are either hostages or collaborators.

What's fair in warfare? What is legal under international law and under the doctrine of "proportionate response" in warfare by the belligerents?

American doctrine does acknowledge the concept of proportionality.

Field Manual (FM) 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare , specifies, ?Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the objectives are identified as military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate to the military advantage gained.?

The reference to the manual?s preceding paragraph (Chapter 2, Paragraph 40) is noteworthy. There the list of acceptable targets is rather broad, including defended cities and towns, factories, warehouses, ports, railroads, and other places that offer an enemy a military advantage or accommodation, all venues that by their very nature could have large civilian populations.

The proportionality rule does not negate attacks on such facilities so long as a reasonable military necessity exists and that necessity can be reasonably balanced against anticipated civilian casualties

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.arm...ing/keiler.pdf

Page 2, ¶2

I would expect Russian army doctrine to be similar.
The Russians, US, France, UK and Israel all have nuclear capabilities and probably have contingency plans using this option to bring the Islamic Terrorist State to their knees -- and cut off their heads (metaphorically).
Putin is just stating the obvious ...

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

So what do you think - Putin will remain in power until he's 80 if he lives that long?

Nothing is eternal and Russia is a very unpredictable country. Some thought that Soviet Union will least forever and that regime was supported by people here. But... in 1990 a million of Moscow citizens have came to Kremlin to say "fuck you!" to the Soviet Communist Party. It took one more year and the Soviet Union was dissolved. Some stupid peeps on the West (especially in the USA) still think thy won a Cold War, but they are not. A fate of Soviet Union was defined by the Moscow citizens. Here are the guys who have defeated Soviet Union:

[Mutt]

You're a weird guy, you've posted many times on GFY that life was good for most people in Russia as the Soviet Union. Now you're saying the people basically overthrew the Soviet system.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

You're a weird guy, you've posted many times on GFY that life was good for most people in Russia as the Soviet Union. Now you're saying the people basically overthrew the Soviet system.

Looks like you can't read English or there is something wrong with your memory. I've never said that life in Soviet Union was cool. Furthermore, I have mentioned a lot of times that I'm not a commie and I hate commies from my childhood.

P.S. I was living far away from Moscow in 1990, but I was supporting all those people who came to Kremlin with a protest for the Communist Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...t_Constitution

[Spunky]

What about the rest of the brainwashed followers around the world?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Spunky

What about the rest of the brainwashed followers around the world?

There no way to ensure the defeat of an ideology.
You cannot bomb an idea to extermination.

Demagoguery is a discourse that promises stability, certainty, and escape from the responsibilities of rhetoric through framing public policy in terms of the degree to which and means by which (not whether) the outgroup should be punished for the current problems of the ingroup. Public debate largely concerns three stases[s.i.c.; states, mindsets?]: group identity (who is in the ingroup, what signifies outgroup membership, and how loyal rhetors are to the ingroup); need (usually framed in terms of how evil the outgroup is); what level of punishment to enact against the outgroup (restriction of rights to extermination).
Characteristics of Demagoguery | Trish Roberts-Miller

http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-mi...emagoguery.pdf
Demagoguery.pdf^ Do they study this in political science?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by crockett

So after Putin bombs Syrian troops a few days ago he now threating to nuke Syria? Some ally he is.. Asad must be feeling pretty questionable at this point..

It's foolish to think Putin could be a true ally of anyone. He is an ally only until he gets what he wants.

Obama has shriveled into his turtle shell and Putin is out stomping in rain puddles. He's going to get splashed sooner rather than later. One of the key reasons Hitler failed is because he pushed just a little bit too far when he didn't need to. Putin is getting closer and closer to that line. That line is like a vortex though, it's hard to back away from it. He's going to get sucked right in.

[ITraffic]

a population trying to gain information about the world from a ecosystem of link bait headlines and articles that lead to thinly sourced pop-up hells is one poorly informed population.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

Actually he said: "...precision weapons that can be equipped with both conventional and special warheads, which are nuclear, ... Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,? the president added.

Which at least for me sounds a little bit different than the article's title

Precisely. He just said that they are satisfied with precision of rockets on battlefield so Turkey knows what they can get.

[Sednub997]

No nuke all gonna be dead in Syria and the rest of them immigrated in Europe

[seeandsee]

nukes dont help against isis

[femdomdestiny]

They already immigrated. Radiation could only help them to grow in something better.Anyway, tactical nukes, not strategic I guess.

[Paul Markham]

ISIS only understand one thing. Force.

While we sit back and cry over civilians deaths by our forces, they plan to continue slaughtering as many as possible. Until stopped by force.

The other mistake by the West is the delusion the ME can be ruled by moderate leaders not prepared to kill terrorists whatever the cost to innocent lives.

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Nothing is eternal and Russia is a very unpredictable country. Some thought that Soviet Union will least forever and that regime was supported by people here. But... in 1990 a million of Moscow citizens have came to Kremlin to say "fuck you!" to the Soviet Communist Party. It took one more year and the Soviet Union was dissolved. Some stupid peeps on the West (especially in the USA) still think thy won a Cold War, but they are not. A fate of Soviet Union was defined by the Moscow citizens. Here are the guys who have defeated Soviet Union:

Yes it was all possible after Gorbachev was elected.. he started it all and it just fell apart by itself (after loosing the satellite states, perestroika, also USSR ran out of money etc).. An old-style dictator wouldn't let that all happen, so your Moscow citizens aren't that badass as you think

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Looks like you can't read English or there is something wrong with your memory. I've never said that life in Soviet Union was cool. Furthermore, I have mentioned a lot of times that I'm not a commie and I hate commies from my childhood.

P.S. I was living far away from Moscow in 1990, but I was supporting all those people who came to Kremlin with a protest for the Communist Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...t_Constitution

were you living in the Soviet Union?

and yes you have spoken well of life in the Soviet Union, I remember not long ago you posted some old Soviet era photos of a nice vacation area with families enjoying themselves and you said that every citizen/worker got a holiday in one of these vacation areas each year, plus of course 'free' healthcare. I remember this because it interested me very much, I grew up during the Cold War and the propaganda we got about life in the Soviet Union was it was a miserable life for the common people. Only the party members and the famous entertainers and athletes lived well.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

Yes it was all possible after Gorbachev was elected..

He wasn't He was set to power by the Soviet government (regular citizens were not asked).

Originally Posted by Paul&John

An old-style dictator wouldn't let that all happen

It started in Brezhnev's era. Gorbachev has came to power in a country where nobody trusted to the Communist Party. I've lived there and I do remember those times very well. If you think that Gorbachev has wanted to let it happen, then you are very naive person.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

were you living in the Soviet Union?

No, I was living on the Moon during the Soviet era.

Originally Posted by Mutt

and yes you have spoken well of life in the Soviet Union, I remember not long ago you posted some old Soviet era photos of a nice vacation area with families enjoying themselves and you said that every citizen/worker got a holiday in one of these vacation areas each year, plus of course 'free' healthcare.

Yes, I have posted pictures of dachas. Were they nice? They were usual. My parents had a dacha, parents of my wife had a dacha, parents of my friends had dachas and we've spent a lot of good time there. Soviet medicine was also free (today you can choose between free and paid ones). What's wrong with that? This is just a fact and it doesn't change my attitude towards commies.

Originally Posted by Mutt

I remember this because it interested me very much, I grew up during the Cold War and the propaganda we got about life in the Soviet Union was it was a miserable life for the common people. Only the party members and the famous entertainers and athletes lived well.

No, the life in the USSR was not miserable at all. We had free apartments (not luxurious but own), free land for dacha (not too large but free) our parents had paid vacations and were able to spend one month a year in Black Sea resorts etc. It was definitely not something like you can see in North Korea today. Almost all internal restrictions were compensated by Russian mentality - as we say "строгость закона компенсируется необязательностью его исполнения" (the law is strict but you don't have to obey)


From Wikipedia: The family of a worker of the Krasny Khimik plant in Leningrad at their dacha house, 1981


From Wikipedia: Dacha of Boris Pasternak (a banned Soviet poet) in Peredelkino, near Moscow

So you can't say those people had a miserable life in Soviet Union. Not free, not luxurious, but not miserable for sure.

On the other hand, I didn't like the Communist Party, because of falsehood, propaganda and freedom restrictions. For example, why should I spend my vacations on Black Sea if I want to do it at Seychelles?

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

He wasn't He was set to power by the Soviet government (regular citizens were not asked).

He was elected by the government (i didn't said he was elected by the people)...

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

No, the life in the USSR was not miserable at all. We had free apartments (not luxurious but own), free land for dacha (not too large but free) our parents had paid vacations and were able to spend one month a year in Black Sea resorts etc.

It was all nice an cozy for (some) people in the USSR while it was a lot different for the people in the satellite states ;)

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

It was all nice an cozy for (some) people in the USSR while it was a lot different for the people in the satellite states ;)

Sorry, didn't get it. What do you mean on satellite states?

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

No, I was living on the Moon during the Soviet era.



Yes, I have posted pictures of dachas. Were they nice? They were usual. My parents had a dacha, parents of my wife had a dacha, parents of my friends had dachas and we've spent a lot of good time there. Soviet medicine was also free (today you can choose between free and paid ones). What's wrong with that? This is just a fact and it doesn't change my attitude towards commies.



No, the life in the USSR was not miserable at all. We had free apartments (not luxurious but own), free land for dacha (not too large but free) our parents had paid vacations and were able to spend one month a year in Black Sea resorts etc. It was definitely not something like you can see in North Korea today. Almost all internal restrictions were compensated by Russian mentality - as we say "строгость закона компенсируется необязательностью его исполнения" (the law is strict but you don't have to obey)

On the other hand, I didn't like the Communist Party, because of falsehood, propaganda and freedom restrictions. For example, why should I spend my vacations on Black Sea if I want to do it at Seychelles?

and what did your parents do for a living that they could have a dacha PLUS one month a year at a Black Sea resort?

because I grew up in Canada, my friends were working class, middle class and some upper middle class. none of my friends parents owned a cottage, which is what we call a dacha,
and none of their parents got a month at a resort in a tropical place. The average American/Canadian gets less paid vacation than an average European. My working class friends families went on cheap summer vacations, a car trip to visit relatives somewhere in the same province. Middle class friends maybe their family would rent a cottage/cabin for a week or two or go on a car trip to an American or Canadian tourist city. Almost none of my friends parents took a holiday by plane in winter to a warm weather place like Florida. Today things are better, you can be lower middle class and live the way upper middle class did when I was a kid.

What I'm saying is that if you're telling me the average working Joe in the Soviet Union could have an apartment AND a dacha in the country PLUS a MONTH at a Black Sea resort and he had 100% job security - there are many people who were living in capitalist countries like the US and Canada who would have traded much of their 'freedom' for that life.

Capitalism really doesn't benefit the majority, they'd be better off under a communist/socialist system. But they delude themselves, with help from the rich, that the sky's the limit for them if they work hard and are smart. The top 1% do great and then another 20% do good, the rest - FAIL. The US and Canada are now socialist states, so whatever my point was lol ....... is moot. Communism is bad, socialism if you follow the progress of societies through history was inevitable.

[TheLegacy]

I am not surprised honestly since Trump stated he'd do the same.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

and what did your parents do for a living that they could have a dacha PLUS one month a year at a Black Sea resort?

Nothing. My father was working as engineer and my mom was a teacher. We've got a free 3-bedroom apartments and free dacha. Also the company where my father has worked, was paying for our yearly family vacations at Black See (road tickets and hotel). In fact we were a very average family. For example, parents of my friends were cooks, so hay had a lot of goods (a bar with import drinks, Japanese audio recorders, video recorders etc).

Originally Posted by Mutt

because I grew up in Canada, my friends were working class, middle class and some upper middle class. none of my friends parents owned a cottage, which is what we call a dacha, and none of their parents got a month at a resort in a tropical place.

Not a month actually (it was 20+ something days) and I wouldn't call Black Sea a tropical place. As about dacha, so my parents have a 3-level brick cottage. The ground level was a non-living and non-heated basement + 2 living two floors. We were using it during the Summer time only, because it was located in 40km away from our city - living there during a working weak was not a good idea

According to Wikipedia, 50% of Soviet families had a dacha. I guess other 50% were living in villages and had no need in a summer house, or they were too lazy to have a dacha (it was taking a lot of time for maintenance). Actually not every American today has a house like dachas that Soviet people used to spend their weekends or vacations at

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Sorry, didn't get it. What do you mean on satellite states?

I assume he means Eastern Bloc countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary etc

which were never supposed to be subjugated by the Soviet Union, Stalin was a fucking liar, he had agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt that when WWII ended those countries would be free to hold elections to choose their own paths.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Nothing. My father was working as engineer and my mom was a teacher. We've got a free 3-bedroom apartments and free dacha. Also the company where my father has worked, has paid for yearly vacations at Black See (road tickets and hotel). In fact we were a very average family. For example, parents of my friends were cooks, so hay had a lot of goods (a bar with import drinks, Japanese audio recorders, video recorders etc).

Well an engineer and teacher are educated professionals. So I bet you lived better than a factory worker's family.

Road tickets? You mean for a bus? Did the average Soviet family own a car?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Well an engineer and teacher are educated professionals. So I bet you lived better than a factory worker's family.

Unfortunately not. In soviet Union we had a very weird scale (it was called "уровниловка"). So a salary of an engender was the same as a salary of a plant worker (in the bast case). Teachers and medics had the most lowest salaries at all. So I lived in a very average family which was close to the low end.

Originally Posted by Mutt

What I'm saying is that if you're telling me the average working Joe in the Soviet Union could have an apartment AND a dacha in the country PLUS a MONTH at a Black Sea resort and he had 100% job security - there are many people who were living in capitalist countries like the US and Canada who would have traded much of their 'freedom' for that life.

I'm the one who would and who will. I can buy everything I want (apartments, a village house, a car, a ticket to a real tropical sea resort), but please let me decide what I want to do and where I want to go. Freedom is the most important thing in my life.

Originally Posted by Mutt

Communism is bad, socialism if you follow the progress of societies through history was inevitable.

It IS inevitable. Take a look at Sweden.

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Sorry, didn't get it. What do you mean on satellite states?

As Mutt wrote: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany etc.. which are (excluding eastern Germany) still suffering from the consequences of that regime.. (a lot shittier living standards then anywhere in western EU)