Konflikt v Siriji

Sources in Sharm el Sheik reported the captain of the flight reported technical problems and requested to return to Sharm el Sheikh.
Egyptian media report with reference to an Egyptian government meeting that the crew reported engine (V2533) trouble, subsequently lost control of the aircraft and communication ceased.

Smrekar1 je 3. nov 2015 ob 13:47 izjavil:

Po najnovejših novicah bi sodil, da ni bilo gorivo. Letalu je odtrgalo rep, ampak tam ni rezervoarjev goriva. Če je izbruh vročine - eksplozija - res povezana z letalom (kar ni čisto nujno, je pa zelo, zelo verjetno), potem je edina še možna razlaga bomba na letalu.

Zorro je 3. nov 2015 ob 20:15 izjavil:

Rusi naj bi do sedaj zadeli že 12 bolnic, poročajo zahodni mediji.

Sami sicer trdijo drugače.

Tarzan je 3. nov 2015 ob 21:51 izjavil:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world...

Đe dobr da jih ne podpirajo ZDA

Tarzan je 3. nov 2015 ob 20:24 izjavil:

Ja, zadeli naj bi jih v zaselkih, ki svojih bolnic niti nikoli niso imeli. Pa še tista, ki dejansko obstaja naj bi glede na posnetke bila cela, čeprav bi jo naj Rusi med bombardiranjem porušili do tal.

Tarzan je 5. nov 2015 ob 19:06 izjavil:

No ja, eni praijo, da je Asad popolnoma zmešan fliknil kemično orožje par kilometrov stran od komisije, ki jo je sam povabil. Now, how crazy is that?

The Khan al-Assal chemical attack was a chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, Syria, on 19 March 2013, which according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights resulted in at least 26 fatalities including 16 government soldiers and 10 civilians, and more than 86 injuries.
...
The Syrian government asked the United Nations to investigate the incident, but disputes over the scope of that investigation led to lengthy delays. In the interim, the Syrian government invited Russia to send specialists to investigate the incident. Samples taken at the site led them to conclude that the attack involved the use of sarin,[6][7] which matched the assessment made by the United States.
...
UN investigators finally arrived on the ground in Syria in August (with a mandate excluding the evaluation of culpability for the chemical weapons attacks[9]), but their arrival coincided with the much larger-scale 2013 Ghouta attacks which took place on 21 August, pushing the Khan al-Assal investigation "onto the backburner" according to a UN spokesman.[6] The UN report,[3] which was completed on 12 December, found "likely use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal" and assessed that organophosphate poisoning was the cause of the "mass intoxication".

The 20-member team of UN weapons inspectors and public health specialists checked into the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus on Sunday, but declined to speak to reporters on their arrival.

Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told the Associated Press news agency that Syria will "fully cooperate" with the team.

The mandate of the investigating team, led by Swedish arms expert Ake Sellstrom, is limited to reporting on whether chemical weapons were actually used and which ones, but it will not determine responsibility for any attacks.

The Ghouta chemical attack occurred during the Syrian Civil War in the early hours of 21 August 2013. Several opposition-controlled areas in the suburbs around Damascus, Syria, were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people[2] to 1,729.
...
Inspectors from the United Nations Mission arrived in Syria on August 18, three days before the attack. They were present at the Syrian government's invitation to look into previous alleged chemical weapons use.[17](p6) The inspectors were staying in central Damascus, 12 kilometers or less from all three attack sites.[18] The UN requested access to sites in Ghouta the day after the attack.[19][20][21] Syrian government and rebel forces continued to clash in the area on 22 and 23 August,[22][23] the Syrian military continued to shell Ghouta[21] and the UN called for a ceasefire to allow inspectors to visit the Ghouta sites.[19] The Syrian government granted the UN's request on 25 August.[24][25][26] The inspectors visited and investigated at Moadamiyah in Western Ghouta on 26 August and at Zamalka and Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta on 28 and 29 August.[17](p6)[27][28]
...
The evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment necessary to manipulate safely large amount of chemical agents."[30] It also stated that the chemical agents used in the Khan al-Assal chemical attack "bore the same unique hallmarks" as those used in Al-Ghouta attack.

Starodavni je 5. nov 2015 ob 21:12 izjavil:

Če koga zanima.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2014/0...

Ko glede na vso to situacioj v Bližnjem vzhodu cela stvar lahko postane primerljiva s 30 letno vojno, ki je divjala v Nemčiji in Evropi ter korenito preoblikovala zemljevid in demografsko struktro prebivalstva tega predela.

Poceni nafta pa je samo bonus za nas, aja pa savdijcem ne gre nič za nothe, če bi hoteli bi oni omejili ponudbo nafte in tako umetno dvignili ceno le-te. Dumping z nafto izvajajo, da bi uničili ameriške frackerje in ruske naftarje. Pred dnevi sem bral članek da savdijska arabija počasi steguje lovke in prodaja nafto v Evropi z namenom da zamenja rusko nafto in oslabi putinovo vmešavanje v Sirijo.

Američani pa delajo tudi na tem da postanejo energetsko samozadostni in to jim glede na trenutne razmere lepo uspeva, navkljub temu da počasi krčijo število vrtin, kar je pač logično, da je treba oklestiti stroške, ne pa zastonj črpati nafto.

Smrekar1 je 6. nov 2015 ob 11:36 izjavil:

Hm, zanimivo. Situacija na Divjem Vzhodu že nekaj časa propada. Arabska Pomlad je bila bržkone le iskra, ki je zagnala požar, ki se je pacal že dolgo. Spopad med Savdijci in Islamsko državo (šiitsko) bo za sabo pustil dva poraženca: Savdijce in Islamsko državo (šiitsko).

Jarno je 6. nov 2015 ob 11:59 izjavil:

Islamska država (šiitska) ne predstavlja nekakega problema, saj ne širijo globalne Islamske države (sunitske).

Islamska država (sunitska) ima v Evropi ogromno potencialnih sodelavcev, da ne omenjam še severne Afrike in Turčije.

Rusi imajo v tem pogledu prav glede svojih zavezništev, saj gledajo pragmatično. V smislu mind your own business.

Smrekar1 je 6. nov 2015 ob 12:45 izjavil:

Kakšno mnenje imaš do ameriškega zavezništva s Savdijci?