The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Are views expressed by Paphitis on ANYTHING reasonable

Poll ended at Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:28 pm
Note: Your vote in this poll is NOT confidential. Your username will be displayed under the option(s) you select

1. Yes they are.
2
33%
 
Get Real!, Schnauzer
2. No they are a load of old cobblers.
1
17%
 
miltiades
3.
3
50%
 
GreekIslandGirl, kurupetos, repulsewarrior
 
Total votes : 6

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby kurupetos » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:50 pm

Kikapu wrote:Cyprus can install hundreds of decoy missile radars without missiles, mixed in with the radars with missiles, to defend against Turkish Jets. That will confuse TAF a little on which target to take out!

You are a certified Cypriot nationalist. :mrgreen:
User avatar
kurupetos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 18116
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Cyprus

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Robin Hood » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:19 pm

Paphitis wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Newly Revealed Russian Weapons Systems: Political Implications

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48928.htm


A biased article but I think I have the common sense to filter it out.
Quoting some undeniable truths:

a) The problem is that the entire US political system and economy are completely dependent on a permanent state of war. TRUE
b) The Russian end-goal is simple and obvious: to achieve a gradual and peaceful disintegration of the AngloZionist Empire .Imo it will disintegrate by itself without any Russian interference. How much longer can they sustain trillions of deficit, and endless wars all over the place?


All the wars around the place have nothing to do with us. Syria for instance was not a war we started or were involved in or even wanted to get involved in.


I previously listed all the wars the US has started but you denied it. Syria for instance was started by the Muslim Brotherhood, who were armed by the CIA, The US has supported the anti-Assad Rebels (aka. terrorists) to get them to invoke regime change which the US has had planned for years. Now the US announces that they will maintain a permanent military force in Syria, that's called military occupation of a sovereign state.


Also, there is no such thing as Anglo Zionist Empire. That is just pure sensationalist bullshit for the plebs that swallow such bullshit.

Its plebs that can't see the wood for the trees that are the idiots. They just believe what their master tells them ..... and that Master IS the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

Americans are more Gaelic and Germanic than Anglo. Also Latin and African. But it really doesn't matter what they are. What matters is that we have common bonds with them and other countries throughout the Western World.

The bond you have is that of Master and slave. YOU are the slaves ..... the US is the Master! You do what the US tells you to do or approves of.


The Russians are responsible for funding the US and Western Arms Industry more than anything else. It is because of Russia and China everyone is buying arms for their defence. For as long as there is a Pootin, Arms Dealers will be making a killing.

Neither Russia or China are aggressors ...... the US and its poodles are.


Secondly, our empire is the Alliance of several countries. It is neither an empire of conquest or a single power dictating to the rest. It is an alliance of many nations with similar values and outlooks. It is just a group of countries cooperating and working together in unison and with a common understanding.

It is not an alliance! You are mercenaries for the US fighting their wars and imposing their rule on those that resist. It is a group of countries that take their orders from the US ...... that is the understanding.


Yes, the article is complete nonsense as are most articles from that site. I think we have all had enough of Pootin's boasts of supposedly indestructible weapons. If he was that far ahead, no one would be publishing it in propaganda sites like the above. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

The article makes far more sense than the rubbish you spew out on here. At least this guy knows something about the subject and like all articles there is a degree bias.


Pootin is so insecure, he even sent in prototype aircraft into Syria for testing. You will never see that from a Coalition country.

I think the last thing you could say about Putin is that he is insecure.

You sent your super Aegis destroyers into the Black Sea to threaten the Russians and they switched them OFF, left them dead in the water and gave them a low level flying display. The Russians even offered to tow them back to base ...... and once again you denied it happened even though within weeks the whole of the US carrier force were back in base having emergency repairs carried out. Funny that .... or maybe just a coincidence? :roll:








Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:04 am

Kikapu wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Pyrpolizer wrote:Neither you Milti nor Paphitis have served in the army hence you have no idea.
The truth is that if Turkey attacks she might lose half her fighter jets in 24 hours.
As for her navy, ha,ha,ha.
In a nutshell Turkey will suffer tremendous loses.
But we won't win in the end she has 80 million to spare.

As for Paphitis' views I don't really care if they are reasonable or not.
I try to respect all views as long as the person is not getting spastic, boring, insulting and repetitive.
I like hearing innovative views.


Lose half their jets. I hope that is true but I don't think so.

It might lose a few but losing half its jets is a little too optimistic.

What is likely, is that the CNG will lose 90% of its Air defense in 24 hours, but that isn't that important either. It would not result in a defeat.

And again, Turkey will be using American HARM Missiles to disable the CNG's Air Defence and that would be something that would outrage the Americans again. The Americans would not like it one bit. There Congress would be having babies as they talk about American manufactured Technology bombing an EU member State.

Oh and mate, I did 11 years in the Army plus 6 in Coast Watch (Coast Guard). You were only a conscript.


Cyprus can install hundreds of decoy missile radars without missiles, mixed in with the radars with missiles, to defend against Turkish Jets. That will confuse TAF a little on which target to take out!



It could. The problem with that is that the Radar's are a hell of a lot more expensive than the BUK Missiles, and the HARM Missile it would have attracted. Nice thought though. :lol:

Weapon's manufacturers have a lot of technology under testing. Some really far out and innovative stuff. They probably got something like this in the wings but the issue is making it commercial a lot of the time. Unless the radar becomes cheap and expendable, no one will go for it. Because they cost a lot, they are not an expendable item.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am

miltiades wrote:More crap from General wewe Malakas.
Wake up stupid. You are on a public forum
Stop playing the We and Us bullshit.
Its the West stupid, its not your place to tell us that the west will do this or that. You have no say in the mattet, stick to your job as a bloody Stewart or are you really a fuvking pilot !!! Fool some boy not me.


Asiktir Malakas!

We and us you fuckwit means we as in the friggin allies, of which Australia is probably at the forefront. If people want to talk about an "Empire" then that empire includes Australia which is an ally, and dozens of other countries too.

I do not see an Empire other than a group of allies cooperating with each other. No one will see such an "Empire" again.

This "Empire" has never invaded any country and annex them permanently or steal their EEZ or done anything like that.

Get it VLAKA!
Last edited by Paphitis on Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:12 am

Get Real! wrote:
Kikapu wrote:Cyprus can install hundreds of decoy missile radars without missiles, mixed in with the radars with missiles, to defend against Turkish Jets. That will confuse TAF a little on which target to take out!

We have plenty of S2A systems and of a wide variety but our best are probably the French Mistral Manpads, which we have also installed ourselves on gunboats.

France has a tiny non-permanent naval base in Paphos and we got the Mistrals by the dozens in return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_(missile)

The downside is that they only work up to 6km high so once the Turks lose a dozen jets they’ll probably figure out that they need to attack from a higher altitude in which case we have other; mostly Russian, systems that strike much higher.

What we’re currently lacking is good anti-ship technology where I think we’ve only got surface-launched Exocet MM40 Block 2 missiles… we should get block 3 which can strike beyond 120km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

For such a tiny place we have a lot of military hardware in our inventory, unlike the Kurds who are running around with archaic Kalashnikovs and RPGs making the Turks look good!


The Turks are not even looking good with the Kurds.

All they are doing is bombing the Town of Afrin. Taking over the town is another story altogether.

ISIL had a Kurdish Border town surrounded for months and its fall was supposedly imminent but it never fell. And most of the Kurdish Fighters there were females because the men were fighting elsewhere and only females were left in that town. So ISIL got done by female Kurdish Fighters with a little help from Coalition Air Strikes as well.

The Turks will also get done because these Kurds are hardcore. No matter how strong you are, you just can't fight against them. Turkey will need to throw thousands of troops into an urban combat environment of Afrin and they will be coming out in convoys of body bags. But they probably won't do it because they know the hell that would await them.

Not even Coalition ground troops like going house to house, street to street. Even with all our technology, drones, surveillance you just never know what is behind the next door that is kicked in.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby miltiades » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:23 am

So therefore when you say "we" and "us" and " our" you are merely stating your own personal opinion, as in " we would never negotiate with Assad " , it would be simpler if you could say , " the coalition will never etc etc.
You see General, you have NOTHING to do with either the coalition or decisions by the west. You can not say we this and we that because General you are not privy to any decisions taken. Put those toy soldiers down and understand that nobody on this forum considers your views to be reasonable.GR felt sorry for you .
Im pro west and always have been so when you say we it fucking annoys me as Im not part of your wewewewe.
Get it Malakas ?
User avatar
miltiades
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16681
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:35 am

miltiades wrote:So therefore when you say "we" and "us" and " our" you are merely stating your own personal opinion, as in " we would never negotiate with Assad " , it would be simpler if you could say , " the coalition will never etc etc.
You see General, you have NOTHING to do with either the coalition or decisions by the west. You can not say we this and we that because General you are not privy to any decisions taken. Put those toy soldiers down and understand that nobody on this forum considers your views to be reasonable.GR felt sorry for you .
Im pro west and always have been so when you say we it fucking annoys me as Im not part of your wewewewe.
Get it Malakas ?


No it isn’t a personal opinion.

What I stated there is a fact. Assad isn’t someone we can negotiate with. It would have to be done through intermediaries and other representatives, unless of course he wishes to negotiate a peace treaty with the Coalition and others and agree to transition of power in Syria. A trabnsition of power that his ally (Russia) can scrutinize in order to give them peace of mind.

Coalition’s position has been very clear up to this point.

Yes we do have something to do with the Coalition. When I say we or us, I do not mean me or you personally but friggin Australia in my case and Britain in yours and not only that, but Cyprus too which is a supporter of the Coalition.

My country IS the Coalition. Can’t get any more Coalition than Australia with 1500 sorties to date and about 700 weapons releases.

Malakas!
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby miltiades » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:22 am

"Assad isn’t someone we can negotiate with. It would have to be done through intermediaries and other representatives, unless of course he wishes to negotiate a peace treaty with the Coalition and others and agree to transition of power in Syria."

Says who General ? Your stating a personal opinion, is there a link whereby the coalition says what you say ?. Stop playing toy soldiers, Trump hasnt said this YOU say this.
User avatar
miltiades
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16681
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:32 am

Pyrpolizer wrote:
Paphitis wrote:All the wars around the place have nothing to do with us. Syria for instance was not a war we started or were involved in or even wanted to get involved in.

For a moment I thought the "us" was just a typo for the US!
You must be joking really. Name me one American president who hasn't started a new war.
ISIS itself is an army of mercenaries paid and armed by the Americans. Until they got out of control...



Also, there is no such thing as Anglo Zionist Empire. That is just pure sensationalist bullshit for the plebs that swallow such bullshit.
Americans are more Gaelic and Germanic than Anglo. Also Latin and African. But it really doesn't matter what they are. What matters is that we have common bonds with them and other countries throughout the Western World.

You are wrong. It has nothing to do with the origin of the Americans. It has to do with who rules the US. The elitists are all AngloSaxons and Jews.The UK itself plays the role of the US ambassador in Europe. That's why Putin feels so much contempt for the "little island" as he calls the UK, who still thinks it's an empire

The Russians are responsible for funding the US and Western Arms Industry more than anything else. It is because of Russia and China everyone is buying arms for their defence. For as long as there is a Pootin, Arms Dealers will be making a killing.

Secondly, our empire is the Alliance of several countries. It is neither an empire of conquest or a single power dictating to the rest. It is an alliance of many nations with similar values and outlooks. It is just a group of countries cooperating and working together in unison and with a common understanding.

I think it's more than obvious that the whatever "alliance" is about controlling the world's energy resources. Controlling means getting it for free by the Americans via the petro-dollar system (=we print as much as needed to get it totally free). For the rest of the 'alliance" it's about getting it at as low a price as possible (about the same price the cows produce milk).
Therefore make sure you know what you are talking about when saying "we are working together in unison and with a common understanding. "
It has nothing to do with common values of liberty or democracy It has to do about stealing by the Americans, whereas the rest of the alliance gets something from the loot as well.

In this respect Russia and China are the so called enemies. Why? The Russians because they have their own energy resources, the Chinese because they consume too much without been part of the alliance and without at least buying made in the USA weapons...
The whole world is waking up Paphitis. Even stupid Turkey.




Yes there have been a few wars, but most of them were not started because the US just woke up one day and decided it was a good idea to start a war. Take September 11 for instance. The Americans were always going to start a war for that, but arguably the war started on September 11.

And no, Islamic State were not created by or supported and paid for by the United States or any of the Coalition Allies - unless of course you are referring to perhaps Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan as well as perhaps Turkey but even that is very Grey and open for debate.

But let's say it is true. it is completely no different to Iran paying the Mercenaries of Hezbollah.

You see what I am getting at here? It takes 2 to tango. Sunnis have as much right to defend themselves too, and the fact they chose Islamic State to do it is irrelevant as Islamic State and Hezbollah are just the apposite sides of the same coin. They are both as bad as each other.

But no, the US never funded or created Islamic State. It never liked Islamic State. ISIL kept provoking the US and the West in General and were even killing our citizens on YouTube with blunt kitchen knives. They would not do that to the hand that feeds them. ISIL had an anti West agenda as do Hezbollah and we hate both of them.

But at the same time, US and its allies never really wanted to enter the war until the provocations became too much and even then we didn't want to send troops because we didn't want to get stuck in Syria. In the end however, we enter the Syrian War somewhat reluctantly, to fight ISIL and it was the Coalition that defeated ISIL. That is a FACT!

Just remember this. Russia and Syria only confronted ISIL in and around Palmyra. The Coalition fought ISIL everywhere else and even liberated the self-proclaimed Capital of ISIL. Our Ground Allies still control these areas that were formerly controlled by ISIL. We took their capital = we win the war, as far as meeting our objectives are concerned. Our objective was to fight and degrade ISIL's capabilities. We have done that and we have comprehensively defeated them in Syria and Iraq.
Last edited by Paphitis on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Are views expressed by Paphitis reasonable

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:33 am

miltiades wrote:"Assad isn’t someone we can negotiate with. It would have to be done through intermediaries and other representatives, unless of course he wishes to negotiate a peace treaty with the Coalition and others and agree to transition of power in Syria."

Says who General ? Your stating a personal opinion, is there a link whereby the coalition says what you say ?. Stop playing toy soldiers, Trump hasnt said this YOU say this.


Say's the Coalition countries, our leaders and Governments. We do not have any diplomatic relations with Syria.


We can not be complicit with a regime that kills his own people and commits war crimes against The Geneva Convention and other Crimes Against Humanity. This is a very big deal for us.

We only negotiate with Russia not Syria. Russia is our intermediary to Assad.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 22117
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest