Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles - Video's

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles - Video's

    Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles

    By Michael Snyder, on September 2nd, 2013

    Russia has sold Syria highly advanced rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles. In fact, the P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has equipped Syria with are the most advanced anti-ship missiles that Russia has. When the United States strikes Syria, they might be quite surprised at how hard Syria can hit back. The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far. From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean and can even reach air bases in Cyprus. If the U.S. Navy is not very careful to stay out of range, we could easily see footage of destroyed U.S. naval vessels sinking into the Mediterranean Sea on the evening news. And once the American people see such footage, it will be impossible to stop a full-blown war between the United States and Syria.
    Syria has highly advanced weapons systems that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya did not have. Anyone that thinks that we can just sit back and lob cruise missiles at them is being naive. Syria has weapons that "have never before been seen" in the Middle East. The following is from a recent article by Mac Slavo...
    According to the report from Syrian-based Dam Press and the Dyar Newspaper, the Russians aren’t backing off their Syria policy and they are getting ready to double down by supplying Assad’s military with weapons the have never before been seen in the middle east.
    If and when Western forces engage the Syrian army you can be assured that it will be nothing like the 1991 conflict in Iraq when a hundred thousand of Saddam Hussein’s soldiers surrendered without firing a shot. Nor will it be a no-fly zone free-for-all where air forces will be able to target military assets as they did in Libya without being challenged.
    No, this time will be different.
    Posted below are some excerpts from a translation of the article from Syrian-based Dam Press that Mac Slavo mentioned...
    The Patriot Missiles will be hit and repealed with S300 SAM [already installed in Syria]. Putin also threatened to deliver the more advanced S400 anti-aircraft missiles
    -----
    He added that Russia will also supply Syria with state-of-the-art 24-Barrell rocket launchers which have a range of 60 km ranked as the most developed artillery weapon of its kind.
    -----
    Putin clearly stated that the Middle East is going to witness a significant change. Syria will be armed with weapons that have never been seen before [in the Middle East] including computer guided smart missiles that never miss their target.
    He also added that Russia will supply Syria with Skean 5 ground-to-sea missiles that are capable of hitting and sinking any target up to 250 km off the Syrian coast.

    The weapons systems mentioned in that article are very powerful. For instance, the video posted below contains footage of the rocket launchers mentioned in the article...




    But of most immediate concern for the U.S. military are the anti-ship missiles which Syria has reportedly acquired.
    According to the New York Times, the P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has sent to Syria are equipped with highly advanced radar capabilities...
    Russia has sent advanced antiship cruise missiles to Syria, a move that illustrates the depth of its support for the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad, American officials said Thursday.
    Russia has previously provided a version of the missiles, called Yakhonts, to Syria. But those delivered recently are outfitted with an advanced radar that makes them more effective, according to American officials who are familiar with classified intelligence reports and would only discuss the shipment on the basis of anonymity.
    These missiles have a range of approximately 180 miles, and they can do an extraordinary amount of damage...

    The missiles are about 22 feet long, carry either a high-explosive or armor-piercing warhead, and have a range of about 180 miles, according to Jane’s.
    They can be steered to a target’s general location by longer-range radars, but each missile has its own radar to help evade a ship’s defenses and home in as it approaches its target.
    Two senior American officials said that the most recent shipment contained missiles with a more advanced guidance system than earlier shipments.
    Posted below is video footage of a test firing of a P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missile...




    And yes, these missiles have the range to hit targets in Cyprus. Perhaps someone should tell U.S. military planners that it is probably not a good idea to be parking so much air power at bases there.
    It also looks like the Syrians are going to have plenty of naval targets to shoot at as well. According to Reuters, a U.S. carrier group will soon be joining the five U.S. destroyers that are already parked in the eastern Mediterranean...
    The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its strike group are heading west toward the Red Sea to help support a limited U.S. strike on Syria, if needed, defense officials said on Sunday.
    The Nimitz carrier strike group, which includes four destroyers and a cruiser, has no specific orders to move to the eastern Mediterranean at this point, but is moving west in the Arabian Sea so it can do so if asked. It was not immediately clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea, but they had not arrived by Sunday evening, said one official.
    "It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed," said the official.
    In addition, ABC News says that an amphibious ship "with several hundred Marines aboard" is also parked in the eastern Mediterranean...
    On Friday, the USS San Antonio, a Navy amphibious ship with several hundred Marines aboard, was ordered to remain in the eastern Mediterranean though defense officials said it too was not part of the U.S. military planning for a limited strike against Syria. Defense officials described the move as “a prudent decision should the ship’s capabilities be required.
    The San Antonio was originally to be in the Mediterranean as part of a long-scheduled commitment to support U.S. Africa Command, several officials said. The ship was on its way to a port call at the U.S naval base at Souda Bay on the Greek Island of Crete when it was ordered to remain in the area.
    The San Antonio has resources that could prove useful in future operations in the region. For example, the ship has several hundred Marines aboard from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), as well as several helicopters or V-22 Ospreys that could be useful in helping to rescue downed pilots.
    So what do you think will happen if the Syrians are able to hit any of our ships or any of the air bases in Cyprus?
    Do you think that there is any chance that we will be able to avoid a full-blown war at that point?
    Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below...


    September 2nd, 2013 | Tags: Anti-Ship Missiles, Michael T. Snyder, P-800 Yakhont Anti-Ship Missiles, Russia, Syria, The Middle East, The U.S. Navy, War, War In The Middle East, War With Syria | Category: Commentary


    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...-ship-missiles
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Unintended Consequences From Potential Syrian Attack Continue To Grow

    Bob Adelmann
    The New American
    September 7, 2013

    Following an informal meeting on Thursday between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin made clear that he would continue to provide all manner of military aid to Syria’s President Assad.

    S-300 similar to ones given to Assad by Russia. Credit: ShinePhantom via Wikimedia Commons

    Such aid would include completing delivery of the S-300 defense missiles ordered by Syria but temporarily delayed over payment issues. The S-300 radar system can simultaneously track up to 100 different targets and deploy as many as 12 missiles in retaliation inside five minutes.

    Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) quizzed General Martin Dempsey, chairman of Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the dangers of such an action: “We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally.…

    [What would the United States do] if Russia decided to strike at us…?” Dempsey demurred, saying only that “it wouldn’t be helpful in this setting to speculate about that.” But a retaliatory action of some sort by Russia is one possible consequence of a U.S. attack on Syria.

    Another possible consequence came to light when the State Department intercepted an order from the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qasem Soleimani, to Shiite militia groups operating in Iraq, telling them that that they must “be prepared to respond with force” if the United States does launch an attack on Syria. An attack on Syria would put the U.S. embassy in Iraq’s capital city, Baghdad, one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world, at severe risk. In addition, Iran’s fleet of small, fast, highly maneuverable, and dangerous water craft could target one or more of the American destroyers currently lying off the coast of Syria awaiting instructions from Washington. The U.S. military is taking precautions to aid in the evacuation of American diplomatic compounds in the area, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, has already begun “making preparations … for potential retaliation against U.S. embassies and other interests in the Middle East and North Africa.”

    Some of those “interests” are located inside Israel, which has promised to retaliate against any attack mounted in response to Obama’s “punitive war” against Assad.

    Other consequences of Obama’s saber-rattling are beginning to show up in polls taken over the Syrian issue. Just since the middle of July, NBC News, CBS News, and Quinnipiac polls have shown Americans’ increasing unhappiness with Obama’s latest adventure, with the big Mack-daddy of them all, Gallup, showing that 53 percent of those polled disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy moves, while just 40 percent approve, a remarkable negative spread of 13 percent.

    Such dissent is showing up in Congress as well. On Tuesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted underwhelmingly, 10-7, for a watered-down version of a resolution allowing Obama to proceed with his plans to attack Syria, but with just a 60-day window with a possible 30-day extension before requiring him to cease operations. In addition to the demand for “no boots on the ground,” the resolution required the White House to come up with plans to install a negotiated settlement of differences between warring parties at the end of those 60 days. Of the 18 members of the committee, five Republicans and two Democrats voted “no” while liberal Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) voted “present.”

    Liberals in the House of Representatives are also beginning to feel the heat and are starting to see the light. Liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told reporters, “I am not voting [for] my party. I am not voting [for] my president. I am voting [for] my country.” Echoing that sentiment was Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus (who also signed a letter last week urging the president to seek authorization before attacking Syria), who said, “If I had to vote today, I would cast a ‘no’ vote.” Liberal Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) not only is opposing Obama’s adventure — saying, “I am more convinced than ever that this will be a tragic mistake” — but he is also actively working to round up support against such authorization.

    The president is sitting on an ice cube that is melting. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced the results of its own poll of 55,000 of its members on Wednesday, showing that 73 percent oppose Obama taking action in Syria. It sent a memo to all Democrats in Congress entitled “Your base opposes military action in Syria” and launched a telephone campaign to those members to pressure them to vote “no.”

    When the Washington Post conducted a “whip count,” it found that of the 371 House members it contacted, 204 of them were either against authorization or leaning that way, while it could find but 24 members in favor. And when interviewed by Newsmax, veteran pollster Matt Towery of Insider/Advantage Polling, remarked: “I think the president is in extraordinarily deep trouble, as are the House members [John Boehner and Eric Cantor] who put their necks out on this.”

    Obama is finding that there are unintended consequences of his desire to validate his “red line” warning issued last summer by punishing Assad for allegedly murdering more than 1,000 civilians with chemical weapons. He’ll also discover that the quagmire of conflicting interests in the Middle East guarantees him no easy exit without significant damage to his credibility and prestige. In what the Washington Post called one of the “most amazing letter[s] to the editor ever written,” well-known Egyptian blogger The Big Pharaoh explained the president’s predicament:

    Sir:
    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

    Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against [Egypt’s] General Sisi.

    But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against the Muslim Brotherhood!

    Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing the Muslim Brotherhood!

    Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!

    Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

    Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

    With Obama’s resolution barely squeaking by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and with mounting opposition to such unilateral adventurism, there are additional unintended consequences. Wrote Democratic pollster Doug Schoen:

    Obama will seek to blame the Republicans if he loses the vote on Syria, as he has with issue after issue, time after time. On this occasion, I believe the strategy will fail — if only because as the United States comes to look weaker and weaker, so too will President Obama.

    I don’t think this will be a history-making failure on Obama’s part, because I think his presidency is basically at a point where it is viewed as ineffective and pretty much at its end anyway.
    [But] it would be very difficult for Boehner and Cantor to be reelected to leadership in the House, with this sort of revolt on their hands.

    With the piling up of unintended consequences over Obama’s threatened military action against Syria, there appears to be only one conclusion: Obama’s image as savior and statesman will have been irrevocably shattered, Republican leadership in the House will likely have to be find other work after the 2014 elections, and Syria will be left to its own devices without the military “assistance” of the United States.

    This article was posted: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Tags: domestic news, foreign affairs, war


    http://www.infowars.com/unintended-c...tinue-to-grow/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Naval Forces Face Each Other Off Syrian Shores

    RT
    September 7, 2013

    Mounting pressure for a Western strike on Syria has seen naval forces both friendly and hostile to Damascus build up off the embattled country’s coastline.

    Credit: Public Domain

    The potential of a US strike against Syria in response to an August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb gained steam on Wednesday, when a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

    President Obama has decided to put off military action until at least September 9, when the seemingly recalcitrant US House of Representatives reconvenes to vote on the measure.

    Following the August 21 Ghouta Attack, which killed anywhere between 355 to 1,729 people, the diplomatic scramble to launch or stave off a military strike on Syria was mirrored by the movement of naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.

    The deployment of US and allied naval warships in the region has been matched by the deployment of Russian naval warships in the region.

    While the Western vessels have in many cases been deployed in the event a military strike against Syria gets a green light, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.

    Below is a brief summary of the naval hardware currently amassed off Syria’s shores.

    USA
    The US Navy has five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers off the coast of Syria, which its top admiral says is “fully ready” for a wide range of possible actions.

    The USS Ramage, USS Mahan, USS Gravely and USS Barry are each armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,151 miles) and are used for precise targeting.

    The ships are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the vessels from air attacks.

    On August 29, the USS Stout was sent to relieve the USS Mahan, but a defense official told AFP that both ships might remain in the area for the time being.

    Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday that the US ships are prepared for what he called a “vast spectrum of operations,” including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Syria, as was done in Libya in 2011, and protecting themselves in the event of retaliation, AP reports.

    In addition to the destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines off the coast of Syria. At one time these subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Nowadays, they are capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    It was also announced on Monday that the US had deployed the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport ship, to the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The USS San Antonio, with several helicopters and hundreds of Marines on board, is “on station in the Eastern Mediterranean” but “has received no specific tasking,” a defense official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

    The deployment of the USS Antonio comes despite promises from President Obama that no amphibious landing is on the agenda, as the US has ostensibly ruled out any “boots on the ground.”

    While the wording of the draft resolution set to be put before the House does not permit a ground invasion, the wording of the text could potentially allow troops to carry out non-offensive operations within Syria, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.

    On Monday, it was also announced the USS Nimitz super carrier had moved into the Red Sea, though it had not been given orders to be part of the planning for a limited US military strike on Syria, US officials told ABC News.

    The other ships in the strike group are the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS William P. Lawrence, USS Stockdale and USS Shoup.

    The official said the carrier strike group has not been assigned a mission, but was shifted in the event its resources are needed to “maximize available options.”

    The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and strike group is also in the northern Arabian Sea.

    Russia
    Russia, Syria’s longtime ally and primary arms supplier, has its only overseas naval base located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which has reportedly been used to support Russia’s growing number of naval patrols on the Mediterranean. However, Russia insists recent efforts to bolster its naval presence in the region are not in response to Western threats of a military strike.

    Reported movements of many Russian ships in the region are coming from anonymous Russian defense ministry sources and have not been confirmed. RT contacted the Russian Navy to ask for confirmation of the reported ship movements, though no comment was forthcoming.

    On Friday, for example, the large landing ship, Nikolai Filchenkov, was reportedly dispatched from the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it is eventually expected to reach the Syrian coast, a source told Interfax News Agency.

    “The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.

    RIA news agency quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying on Friday that the frigate, Smetlivy, would leave for the Mediterranean on September 12-14, and the corvette Shtil and missile boat Ivanovets would approach Syria at the end of the month.

    The Russian destroyer Nastoichivy, which is the flagship of the Baltic fleet, is also expected to join the group in the region.

    Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was unable to comment on specific reports, said on Thursday the Russian navy currently had a “pretty strong group” there.

    “The Russian navy does not intend to take part directly or indirectly in a possible regional conflict,” he told the state Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

    “Our navy vessels are a guarantee of stability, guarantee of peace, an attempt to hold back other forces ready to start military action in the region.”

    Also reportedly in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.

    They are expected to be joined by the guided-missile cruiser Moskva.

    The Moskva, set to arrive in a little over a week’s time, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region.

    “The plans of the naval unit under the command of Rear Admiral Valery Kulikov had to be changed a little. Instead of visiting a Cape Verde port, the cruiser Moskva is heading to the Strait of Gibraltar. In about ten days, it will enter the eastern Mediterranean, where it will replace the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev as the flagship of the operative junction of the Russian Navy,” a source told Interfax on Wednesday.

    Panteleyev incidentally, only arrived in the east Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after leaving the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March 19 to join the Russian standing naval force as its flagship.
    The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship, Priazovye, is also reportedly on its way to join the group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accompanied by the two landing ships, Minsk and Novocherkassk, the intelligence ship passed through the ‘Istanbul Strait’ on Thursday, which helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia.

    France
    On August 31, French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, and the transport ship, Dixmude, were in the Mediterranean. French officials denied they are in the region to participate in military action against Syria, but were rather taking part in training and operation preparations.

    Despite their presence in the region, France currently has no ship-based missiles, so any offensive action would come from the air in the form of long-range Scalp missiles, similar to those the nation used in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, Time reports.

    Italy
    Two Italian warships set sail for Lebanon on Wednesday in a bid to protect 1,100 Italian soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Syria’s southeastern neighbor, Agence France Presse reported.

    The Italian ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat departed from Italy’s southeastern coast on Wednesday and would provide additional protection to the soldiers in the event the Syrian conflict further deteriorates.

    UK
    As of August 29, the Royal Navy’s Response Force Task Group was deployed in the Mediterranean as part of long-planned exercise Cougar 13. The force includes helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious, type-23 frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Montrose, amphibious warship HMS Bulwark and six Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.

    The Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was also believed to be in the area at the time, after it was detected in Gibraltar.

    On the same day that British media started touting Britain’s “arsenal of military might” which would be available in the event of intervention, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes. In light of the shocking parliamentary defeat, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would only be able to offer the US “diplomatic support.”

    The UK’s Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the UK would not seek a further vote on action in Syria.

    This article was posted: Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Tags: domestic news, foreign affairs, war


    http://www.infowars.com/naval-forces...syrian-shores/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    U.S. NAVY Destroyers, Air Force B-2 and B-52 Bombers All-Set

    IntelliHub.com
    www.IntelliHub.com
    September 7th, 2013
    Reader Views: 2,290
    Comments (21)


    WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 06: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (C) talks to members of the media after a members-only closed briefing on Syria for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives September 6, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. U.S. President Barack Obama will address the American people on Syria from the White House on Tuesday. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
    By Shepard Ambellas
    Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on the brink of nuclear war. Will WWIII commence?

    Key reports reflect that the Obama Administration is determined to strike within Syria and likely by Tuesday, when the President is set to address the Nation.

    According to circling information at least four U.S. Navy Destroyers are waiting to unleash a hellacious blitzing melee of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles while long-range B2 and B-52 Bombers implore selective carpet-bombing likely reducing Syria to a pile of rubble. The reports claim that Obama plans to wage a much larger strike than initially thought.

    The coming attack is projected by some to cause more damage to the Syrian President’s resources and defenses then all attacks Syria has suffered in the past few years.

    According to PressTV.ir, “The B-2 and B-52 bombers are equipped with joint air-to-surface missiles, designed to destroy both mobile and fixed targets. The missiles’ primary advantage is that they allow pilots to operate outside the lethal range of most hostile air defense systems. “[1]

    Even scarier yet, is the fact that Infowars.com broke a story Tuesday, exposing the fact that nuclear warheads have indeed been transferred to the East Coast, possibly “South Carolina”, off a West Texas base in preparation for some type of impending attack. Alex Jones and Anthony Gucciardi wrote, “According to the high level military source, who has a strong record of continually being proven correct in deep military activity, the Dyess Air Force Commander authorized unknown parties to transfer the nuclear warheads to an unknown location that has been reported to be South Carolina, where the warheads will then be picked up and potentially utilized.

    This is of particular interest not only due to the fact that the Syrian situation has escalated to the point of a very realistic hot war scenario, but due to the fact that Dyess has repeatedly denied the existence of nuclear warheads inside the base.”[2]

    Does the U.S. truly expect to unleash nuclear weaponry on the Syrian people?

    Sources:

    [1] US will bomb Syria with long-range bombers, official says – PressTV.ir

    [2] Exclusive: High Level Source Confirms Secret US Nuclear Warhead Transfer - Infowars.com

    Shepard Ambellas founder, director and editor-in-chief of Intellihub.com, is a researcher, investigative journalist, radio talk show host, activist, and filmmaker.

    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    Contributed by IntelliHub.com of www.IntelliHub.com.
    We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

    Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide


    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/u-s-n...all-set_092013
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    France Backs off Support for Syrian Strike

    Sep 07, 2013
    Military.com| by Richard Sisk
    More at the Page Link

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...an-strike.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Putin Rubs It In Obama’s Face, Offers To Sell Iran Advanced S-300 Anti-Aircraft Missiles, Build Second Nuclear Reactor…



    It’s almost like Mitt Romney was right when he said Russia is our enemy.

    AFP
    – Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday.

    Putin will renew an old offer to supply Iran with five of the sophisticated ground-to-air missile systems at a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani on Friday, Kommersant said, quoting a souce close to the Kremlin.

    Putin is set to meet Rowhani at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held in Kyrgyzstan on Friday.

    Russia in 2007 signed a contract to deliver five of the advanced ground-to-air weapons — which can take out aircraft or guided missiles — to Iran at a cost of $800 million.

    In 2010, then-president Dmitry Medvedev cancelled the contract after coming under strong US and Israeli pressure not to go ahead with the sale of the weapons system, drawing vehement protests from Tehran.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/11/p...clear-reactor/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •