The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Th head of the rebels posted on his twitter account that they had shot down a cargo plane within minutes of the airplane going down. then he deleted it.

The Beeb has been broadcasting the phone calls (with translation) which the Ukrainian Security Services claim they intercepted from separatists discussing the plane. The tapes start with separatist units being first on the scene of the crash as they appear to realize they've shot down a commercial liner rather than a military transport. The guy on scene actually says "why does it say Malaysian Air on the side"? and his interlocutor (presumably his handler back at rebel HQ) says "well, that must mean they were carrying spies -- there's no other reason for them to be in our air space." The USS goes on to match the speakers with what they claim to be the voice signatures of known rebels from other intercepted calls.

The BBC linguist found the tapes very compelling for matching dialect, accent, and idioms from the area (she said it's basically a stream of local idiomatic profanities as they realize they've fucked up).

Either that's what happened or the Ukrainians should subcontract out for providing outstanding QRC false flag services.

[LynahFan]

I seriously doubt it cost the russians a million 1958 dollars to develop the SA 2.
And I bet you could get one now for very cheap from the vietnamese.

??? A million in 1957 would only be worth about $8.5M today. You are at least 2 orders of magnitude too low for the cost of development. I couldn't find a reference for th initial development cost of PATRIOT, but during the block 3 upgrade (around 1990), there was a development cost *overrun* of $775M.

I can well believe that the purchase price per SA-2 missile could have been around $1M in 1957. $8.5M in today's dollars is in the right ballpark - a PATRIOT goes for $2-3M. Also don't forget that that is really just the cost of the bullet - the real cost is in all the ground-based radar systems and command and control infrastructure.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The word "pewling" as the present participle of the archaic "to pule" (to whimper feebly), is spelled "puling."

Good word, though.

gracias

[geezer]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I don't get all the outrage over Limbaugh's statement. First, if you read through it he seems to be saying that 1) "the media" will welcome a chance to distract from Obama's failures and 2) that it wasn't an accidental crash. He's not saying here that Obama himself ordered it shot down, or even that it was U.S. forces that shot it down in the first place.
Also, remember that Limbaugh is an entertainer. No matter what he says, it's not worth your health to get too enraged about it. It's entertainment.
This whole ginned-up "scandal" reminds me of his infamous "the media is desirous that a black quarterback do well", another perfectly true statement that was so SHOCKING it gave definitive proof Limbaugh is the devil and the world is ending.... relax.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Also, remember that Limbaugh is an entertainer. No matter what he says, it's not worth your health to get too enraged about it.

They actually created a word for his shtick (and that of many copy cats): he's an "irritainer." His audience gets off on hearing their opinion restated as a fact, and they wriggle with glee that those mean old (pick the opposition of the day) spit blood when they hear him. It's just Bill Maher's act, transposed 5 grade levels lower.

When people cite Rush now they aren't aghast, they're just using him as a pointer to the idiocy that sells to his audience. It's not an angry "how could that man say that?!" but a resigned "good lord, people like hearing this drivel?" It's like posting a Tyler Perry clip.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I don't get all the outrage over Limbaugh's statement. First, if you read through it he seems to be saying that 1) "the media" will welcome a chance to distract from Obama's failures and 2) that it wasn't an accidental crash. He's not saying here that Obama himself ordered it shot down, or even that it was U.S. forces that shot it down in the first place.
Also, remember that Limbaugh is an entertainer. No matter what he says, it's not worth your health to get too enraged about it. It's entertainment.
This whole ginned-up "scandal" reminds me of his infamous "the media is desirous that a black quarterback do well", another perfectly true statement that was so SHOCKING it gave definitive proof Limbaugh is the devil and the world is ending.... relax.

And makes multi millions off his 'entertainment' to the detriment of this country.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And makes multi millions off his 'entertainment' to the detriment of this country.

Think of it this way. Every nickle the Echo Chamber sucks out of the herpa-derps goes to hookers and blow instead of guns and ammo. We wind up with a few sclerotic old rich guys' hearts exploding instead of innocent bystanders killed by the slack-jawed set.

The country wins.

[geezer]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

They actually created a word for his shtick (and that of many copy cats): he's an "irritainer." His audience gets off on hearing their opinion restated as a fact, and they wriggle with glee that those mean old (pick the opposition of the day) spit blood when they hear him. It's just Bill Maher's act, transposed 5 grade levels lower.

When people cite Rush now they aren't aghast, they're just using him as a pointer to the idiocy that sells to his audience. It's not an angry "how could that man say that?!" but a resigned "good lord, people like hearing this drivel?" It's like posting a Tyler Perry clip.

I guess you're right, but I was a bit surprised that Salon (it was Salon, right?) was picking this up as if it were a real story. I didn't see an actual conspiracy theory in there.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I guess you're right, but I was a bit surprised that Salon (it was Salon, right?) was picking this up as if it were a real story. I didn't see an actual conspiracy theory in there.

What makes you think Salon isn't irritainment, too?

[geezer]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

What makes you think Salon isn't irritainment, too?

I don't read it, but had the vague idea it was a more responsible outlet.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I don't read it, but had the vague idea it was a more responsible outlet.

I was kinda kidding, kinda not. Salon is certainly partisan, and all partisan outlets have an element of "let's adhere to our clubhouse rules, all those other clubhouses suck." The main difference between Salon and Rush is the demo of the audience: Salon is trying to appeal to people with college degrees or above who self-define as clever so the game is, if you miss miss high. Rush's audience is the Strayer MBA or the Noble Savage trucker so the game is, if you miss miss low.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Salon sometimes has some good articles when they can avoid going off the deep end on partisanship. I read their articles sometimes. Sometimes I really like their articles, other times I'll stop reading after a paragraph or two.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Think of it this way. Every nickle the Echo Chamber sucks out of the herpa-derps goes to hookers and blow instead of guns and ammo. We wind up with a few sclerotic old rich guys' hearts exploding instead of innocent bystanders killed by the slack-jawed set.

The country wins.

Are you comparing Kennedys to Cheneys??

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

School kids taught that "wives must have sex or go to hell".

Texas? Utah? Nope

Birmingham (UK)

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And makes multi millions off his 'entertainment' to the detriment of this country.

Another ringing endorsement of the First Amendment, uttered through clenched teeth.