quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: And like I said, you are the bare red butt of a clown, and will forever be a bare butt of a clown on ES. You did this to yourself.
Or do you think otherwise? Right, you are not qualified to think.
ES members are able to make conclusions. You imploded. Yea. you did. You went on and on and on, squirmed and squirmed, about how SAAF was better than EAF.
You're a bloody pig now, and you know what, I will leave you alone. Just squeal oink oink to your own content.
You have no respect here on ES. Anyone who gives you respect it's out of mercy.
posted
ES members are able to make conclusions. You are fuckhead. Yea, you are. You went on and on and on, squirmed and squirmed about stuff you don't know jack about. You couldn't tell you ass apart from your head, if you were pressed on it.
You're Gaddafi's bloody cunt now, and you know what, I'll leave your cum smelly self alone. Just squeal oooo yah oooo yah to your own content to your fuckhole plugger.
You have no respect here on ES. Anyone who gives you respect its out of mercy.
Believe that!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: ES members are able to make conclusions. You are fuckhead. Yea, you are. You went on and on and on, squirmed and squirmed about stuff you don't know jack about. You couldn't tell you ass apart from your head, if you were pressed on it.
You're Gaddafi's bloody cunt now, and you know what, I'll leave your cum smelly self alone. Just squeal oooo yah oooo yah to your own content to your fuckhole plugger.
You have no respect here on ES. Anyone who gives you respect its out of mercy.
And exiled mind, you are a confirmed liar. Thought you were leaving me alone.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyhoo, steering the subject back to Libya away from The Exp's meltdown, it would seem to me something funny is afoot. There is barely a story about it on the BBC whereas they were running live updates last week. The last news stories I saw there was some sort of organisation with the rebels they had been so lacking before - uniformed officers sprouting up and an actual heirarchy.
And weird about libyafeb17.com. If a website gets too many hits all your host providers usually do is throttle your CPU to slow down your site and drive away visitors. libyafeb17 was the only place you got minute by minute reports of what's actually going on on the ground. Something is being hushed up.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: So where IS Gadaffi? Libyan dictator not seen in public for more than a week as government forces continue to shell rebels
if someone were attempting to assassinate you, I expect you'd lay low too...or maybe not.
Perhaps Gaddafi has called his buddy Castro for advice on how to defeat assassination attempts. You couldn't ask advice from a better source than this since he's avoided over 600 CIA assassination attempts over the last 40 years.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For jihad, tribalism, opportunism, democracy...take your pick.
Surely you must know by now there was never any "opposition movement". They are more fractured and contradictory than the one in Egypt. And more cowardly I might add. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Exiiled, no, nothing I said can change the fact that you'd fit right in a cuckoo's nest. Your mind has clearly gone into exile.
Really? And because you said so.
Educate yourself, accept when you are wrong, it takes a real man to accept this fact, learn from your mistakes.
South Africa Air Force is weak, they only have 15 fighters and 34 pilots. EAF can wipe the floor clean with the SAAF. Whether you accept this reality or not will have a bearing on how serious/ or a joke you are deemed on ES in future posts.
I am not the only one reading this reply. Even a member who defends you acknowledges the fact that Egypt's Air Force is supeior. Simply put there is reality and then there is you BS. I called you out.
The mic is yours.
Exilled again, no one disputes the larger size of the Egyptian Air force. On paper, it is clearly the most powerful in Africa, in terms of numbers. But numerical strength on paper is only one factor in predicting air success. Egypt's Air Force has outnumbered the Israeli forces in past wars but the smaller Israeli force has usually defeated the larger Egyptian forces, even when it was using comparable, first-line Soviet equipment. In fact at the best Egyptian performance of the Yom Kippur War- the Crossing- Egyptian generals made the decision to MINIMIZE Egyptian air power because of its inferiority to the smaller but superior Israeli air forces. They relied instead on the ground-based missile shield. It was the GROUND-BASED FORCES using these missiles that took heavy toll on Israel, not any Egyptian airpower. Lesson: large numbers may not mean much without the associated skill, proficiency and battle management.
Even all the Arab air forces combined, made up a huge numerical advantage against Israel in past wars. But what is the bottom line? Defeat for the Arabs by the more technically proficient and skilled Israelis. One important reason (not the only one, but one important reason), was the ability of Israel to master, adapt, modify and innovate its own refinements to imported technology. This also means battle management and command and control systems. As time went on Israel advanced even more to produce its own aircraft.
In fact, one of the central weaknesses of the Egyptian Air force is a tendency to favor numbers over such things as sortie generation capability, battle management, mastery of technology etc.
QUOTE by one analyst of Egyptian air power: --------------------- ".. does still tend to emphasize modern aircraft numbers over sustained and sortie generation capability. More generally the Egyptian Air Force cannot compete with the Israeli Air Force in overall battle management, exploitation of modern sensors and targeting systems, electronic warfare.. and in using precision strike and attack munitions. It also focuses more on numbers than sustainability and had little ability to sustain high sortie rates. Air combat and joint warfare training still need improvement, as does the ability of manage large numbers of aircraft in air combat and attack missions. The air force badly needs to speed up its decision-making cycle."
-- Anthony H. Cordesman. Arab-Israeli military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. 2006. Center for Strategic and International Studies. pg 174 Check it out on GoogleBooks. ----------------------------
There you have it. What you cite as a strength- big numbers - is actually partially a weakness of the Egyptian Air Force. It has big numbers but is weak in battle management and other crucial factors, not to mention skill. Hence your claim of thee Egyptian Air force being "the best in Africa" is open very much to question. It is the LARGEST in Africa, but as shown by expert defense analysts, its reliance on big numbers, is also a weakness.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Monkey: ..it would seem to me something funny is afoot. There is barely a story about it on the BBC whereas they were running live updates last week. The last news stories I saw there was some sort of organisation with the rebels they had been so lacking before - uniformed officers sprouting up and an actual heirarchy.
And weird about libyafeb17.com. If a website gets too many hits all your host providers usually do is throttle your CPU to slow down your site and drive away visitors. libyafeb17 was the only place you got minute by minute reports of what's actually going on on the ground. Something is being hushed up.
^^You may be on to something. Here are some possibilities:
(1) Obama needs a cool out before the abyss: Obama realizes that his glorious "democracy project" could blow up in his face if the Colonel decides to wage a long, people's war, as increasingly seems to be the case. Hence, you see a reduction in the flurry of government announcements. They want to de-emphasize the situation, minimize it, get it out of the really hot top news tories, while they search for a face-saving way out. The so-called "hand over to NATO" and "reduction of the role of US aircraft" is part of this "cool it" strategy.
2) The so-called "Coalition" does not want continued media scrutiny and probes into the rebels, their methods and their affiliations because of their Islamist/AlQaeda connections, & because said rebels, if they have any smarts, will be or are already trying to consolidate control over the populations where they are, using various levels of violence, intimidation and coercion. The rebels cannot solely rely on their ad hoc groups of fighters. They have to control population numbers. In fact, the rebels themselves will be,or are already using civilians as human shields to avoid attack by loyalist forces. Why else would rebel strongpoints be set up in apartment buildings and hospitals? Because they hope to discourage loyalist attack while playing up to the international media that they are merely innocent victims. Furthermore in some cities there is clear PRo Ghadaffi sentiment among civilians. THe rebels will be or are already attacking these civilians that disagree with them.
The "Media cool out" may be designed to deflect media attention from the true dimensions of this civil war. It is designed to manipulate coverage more into pushing the "spin" that the rebels are heroic freedom fighters, and not, heaven forbid, a group or groups bent on power with their own hidden and open agendas. What has been embarrassing for the coalition is that too many "unsupervised" news stories and blogs are asking questions about the rebels, particularly their Islamist links. The "media chill" buys time to establish a proper propaganda line and image for the mass press to report. It also deflects attention from the duplicitous role of the Arab League and other players in the drama.
3) The news "cool out" may be a deception strategy, to cover MORE deployment of ground troops. They realize that the anointed golden boy rebels are not up to snuff. The media "cool out" gives them a chance to put more boots on the ground. Look at the flurry of assurances about "no boots on the ground". They are plain and simply lying. To get more precise air strikes, they will definitely need boots on the ground and already have such via US/NATO Special Forces. This is a big part of how the Taliban was ousted in 2001, by these Special Forces. Its hard to believe people are being taken in by "assurances" about "no boots." Second, if they want to raise rebel proficiency in combat, they will need even more "boots on the ground" to train said rebels. The "media cool out" provides cover, screening the fact that they are rapidly increasing deployment of such ground forces. They may call them "advisers" or classify them as CIA who are "not really" "ground" troops or may say they are "working with the Egyptians" or some other such fig-leaf. But it is just that, a bogus cover story.
Ironically, if these Euro/US boots on the ground are increasing, it should give any sane commander EVEN MORE INCENTIVE TO KEEP ATTACKING REBELS. Ghadaffi would be a fool to let Special Forces set up comfortably in Libya to call in precise air-strikes and train and arm his enemies. He needs to keep the pressure on constantly- sending hit teams out in civilian guise as needed to hunt down these Special Forces troops wherever he finds them. They represent a mortal danger to his forces because of their capabilities. In Laos during the Vietnam War, PAVN did not play when US SPecial Forces were in an area. They knew these men would be calling in punishing air-strikes, so they pulled out every stop to kill or capture them. The Colonel needs to do likewise from a purely military standpoint, if he wants to stay in business.
4) A bored or cooperative press? All of the above are possible scenarios, or maybe the media, sensing that the whole thing is becoming too difficult & complicated for exciting video clips and simple sound bites, is turning elsewhere. Besides, Obama is announcing his 2nd presidential run already. The last thing he needs is continual bad press about another, dreary, drawn out Mid East war without end.
At the same time, if he can get a Ghadaffi exit timed right, he can proclaim a victory. The post Ghadaffi problems can be relegated to obscurity and back page status. This would enhance his campaign talking points- burnishing his image as bringer of democracy, overthrower of dictators and a tough commander of the armed forces not afraid to make those tough calls.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zarahan you are a filthy conspiracy theorist! Talking all this nonsense about possible al queda links and personal agendas of rebels! This is about freedom from a mad man who kills his own people! Don't make it any more complicated for me! Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Really? And because you said so.
Educate yourself, accept when you are wrong, it takes a real man to accept this fact, learn from your mistakes.
South Africa Air Force is weak, they only have 15 fighters and 34 pilots. EAF can wipe the floor clean with the SAAF. Whether you accept this reality or not will have a bearing on how serious/ or a joke you are deemed on ES in future posts.
I am not the only one reading this reply. Even a member who defends you acknowledges the fact that Egypt's Air Force is supeior. Simply put there is reality and then there is you BS. I called you out.
The mic is yours. [/qb]
Exilled again, no one disputes the larger size of the Egyptian Air force. On paper, it is clearly the most powerful in Africa, in terms of numbers. But numerical strength on paper is only one factor in predicting air success. Egypt's Air Force has outnumbered the Israeli forces in past wars but the smaller Israeli force has usually defeated the larger Egyptian forces, even when it was using comparable, first-line Soviet equipment. In fact at the best Egyptian performance of the Yom Kippur War- the Crossing- Egyptian generals made the decision to MINIMIZE Egyptian air power because of its inferiority to the smaller but superior Israeli air forces. They relied instead on the ground-based missile shield. It was the GROUND-BASED FORCES using these missiles that took heavy toll on Israel, not any Egyptian airpower. Lesson: large numbers may not mean much without the associated skill, proficiency and battle management.
Even all the Arab air forces combined, made up a huge numerical advantage against Israel in past wars. But what is the bottom line? Defeat for the Arabs by the more technically proficient and skilled Israelis. One important reason (not the only one, but one important reason), was the ability of Israel to master, adapt, modify and innovate its own refinements to imported technology. This also means battle management and command and control systems. As time went on Israel advanced even more to produce its own aircraft.
In fact, one of the central weaknesses of the Egyptian Air force is a tendency to favor numbers over such things as sortie generation capability, battle management, mastery of technology etc.
QUOTE by one analyst of Egyptian air power: --------------------- ".. does still tend to emphasize modern aircraft numbers over sustained and sortie generation capability. More generally the Egyptian Air Force cannot compete with the Israeli Air Force in overall battle management, exploitation of modern sensors and targeting systems, electronic warfare.. and in using precision strike and attack munitions. It also focuses more on numbers than sustainability and had little ability to sustain high sortie rates. Air combat and joint warfare training still need improvement, as does the ability of manage large numbers of aircraft in air combat and attack missions. The air force badly needs to speed up its decision-making cycle."
-- Anthony H. Cordesman. Arab-Israeli military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. 2006. Center for Strategic and International Studies. pg 174 Check it out on GoogleBooks. ----------------------------
There you have it. What you cite as a strength- big numbers - is actually partially a weakness of the Egyptian Air Force. It has big numbers but is weak in battle management and other crucial factors, not to mention skill. Hence your claim of thee Egyptian Air force being "the best in Africa" is open very much to question. It is the LARGEST in Africa, but as shown by expert defense analysts, its reliance on big numbers, is also a weakness. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I find it odd that Egypt's air force was eliminated in one day of air bombings, yet you make this statment.
F*ck it I am not going back and re-doing the hypermark up.
How often does the South African military actually take part in armed conflicts or wars?
Posts: 2280 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^How is it odd? They had a big air force that outnumbered its opponent, and it STILL got beaten up in several wars. This confirms the point that mere numbers are not necessarily an indicator of success,or effective air power. This is standard history 101. In WWII, GErmany's air force during the battle of Britain, on paper, outnumbered the British, 4 to 1. But they were STILL beaten. Why? Under the notion of big numbers =BEST they should have won. So should the Egyptians against ISrael in various wars. But as any basic research shows:
"...the differences between the Spitfire and the Me 109 in performance and handling were only marginal, and in a combat they were almost always surmounted by tactical considerations: which side had seen the other first, had the advantage of sun, altitude, numbers, pilot ability, tactical situation, tactical co-ordination, amount of fuel remaining, etc. -Alfred Price in The Spitfire Story. Wikipedia- battle of Britain.
As you can see, much more goes into air campaigns than a simplistic hope in "big" numbers. The big=best air theory does not hold up.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^How is it odd? They had a big air force that outnumbered its opponent, and it STILL got beaten up in several wars. This confirms the point that mere numbers are not necessarily an indicator of success,or effective air power. This is standard history 101. In WWII, GErmany's air force during the battle of Britain, on paper, outnumbered the British, 4 to 1. But they were STILL beaten. Why? Under the notion of big numbers =BEST they should have won. So should the Egyptians against ISrael in various wars. But as any basic research shows:
"...the differences between the Spitfire and the Me 109 in performance and handling were only marginal, and in a combat they were almost always surmounted by tactical considerations: which side had seen the other first, had the advantage of sun, altitude, numbers, pilot ability, tactical situation, tactical co-ordination, amount of fuel remaining, etc. -Alfred Price in The Spitfire Story. Wikipedia- battle of Britain.
As you can see, much more goes into air campaigns than a simplistic hope in "big" numbers. The big=best air theory does not hold up.
I could give a rat's patoote about other air forces.
Egypt's air force was taken out early in the 67 war 304 of their 419 planes were gone June 5th. Israel had triple that number of planes.
It took Egypt another decade to build up that small number of planes.
I don't know where you are getting your ideas from, but I'd prefer you'd offer numbers, stats that can be verified.
And when was the last time South Africa was in any armed conflict or war, not including its acts against South Africa's own people.
Posts: 2280 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Really? And because you said so.
Educate yourself, accept when you are wrong, it takes a real man to accept this fact, learn from your mistakes.
South Africa Air Force is weak, they only have 15 fighters and 34 pilots. EAF can wipe the floor clean with the SAAF. Whether you accept this reality or not will have a bearing on how serious/ or a joke you are deemed on ES in future posts.
I am not the only one reading this reply. Even a member who defends you acknowledges the fact that Egypt's Air Force is supeior. Simply put there is reality and then there is you BS. I called you out.
The mic is yours.
Exilled again, no one disputes the larger size of the Egyptian Air force. On paper, it is clearly the most powerful in Africa, in terms of numbers. But numerical strength on paper is only one factor in predicting air success. Egypt's Air Force has outnumbered the Israeli forces in past wars but the smaller Israeli force has usually defeated the larger Egyptian forces, even when it was using comparable, first-line Soviet equipment. In fact at the best Egyptian performance of the Yom Kippur War- the Crossing- Egyptian generals made the decision to MINIMIZE Egyptian air power because of its inferiority to the smaller but superior Israeli air forces. They relied instead on the ground-based missile shield. It was the GROUND-BASED FORCES using these missiles that took heavy toll on Israel, not any Egyptian airpower. Lesson: large numbers may not mean much without the associated skill, proficiency and battle management.
Even all the Arab air forces combined, made up a huge numerical advantage against Israel in past wars. But what is the bottom line? Defeat for the Arabs by the more technically proficient and skilled Israelis. One important reason (not the only one, but one important reason), was the ability of Israel to master, adapt, modify and innovate its own refinements to imported technology. This also means battle management and command and control systems. As time went on Israel advanced even more to produce its own aircraft.
In fact, one of the central weaknesses of the Egyptian Air force is a tendency to favor numbers over such things as sortie generation capability, battle management, mastery of technology etc.
QUOTE by one analyst of Egyptian air power: --------------------- ".. does still tend to emphasize modern aircraft numbers over sustained and sortie generation capability. More generally the Egyptian Air Force cannot compete with the Israeli Air Force in overall battle management, exploitation of modern sensors and targeting systems, electronic warfare.. and in using precision strike and attack munitions. It also focuses more on numbers than sustainability and had little ability to sustain high sortie rates. Air combat and joint warfare training still need improvement, as does the ability of manage large numbers of aircraft in air combat and attack missions. The air force badly needs to speed up its decision-making cycle."
-- Anthony H. Cordesman. Arab-Israeli military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. 2006. Center for Strategic and International Studies. pg 174 Check it out on GoogleBooks. ----------------------------
There you have it. What you cite as a strength- big numbers - is actually partially a weakness of the Egyptian Air Force. It has big numbers but is weak in battle management and other crucial factors, not to mention skill. Hence your claim of thee Egyptian Air force being "the best in Africa" is open very much to question. It is the LARGEST in Africa, but as shown by expert defense analysts, its reliance on big numbers, is also a weakness. [/QB]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
On paper South African Air Force has only 34 combat pilots and 15 Swedish fighter jets. On paper Egypt has 240 F-16 upgraded fighter jets. In reality what do you think the outcome of those two Air Forces going head to head? Let's get this out the way first.
You continuously mention past wars. Are we in 1960 or are we in 2011? The fact is Egypt prior to 1980 was an Air Force with Russian aerial hardware and Russian training. This was true in all of their wars with Israel e.g 48,56,67,73. You are basing all your arguments on this fact, on the past, right?
Your analysis is nor merely outdated but invalid. Egyptian Air force since 1980 began a tremendous transformation. They literally transformed from a Russian hardware air force to an American hardware air force. From Migs to kickAss F-16 fighter jets.
Get it. It's not 1950/1960/1970 it's 2011. It's no longer Migs. Its Fighting Falcons now with US training. Your argument is as outdated as the outdated Migs the Egyptian flew in 1950/1960/1970.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
]if someone were attempting to assassinate you, I expect you'd lay low too...or maybe not.
Perhaps Gaddafi has called his buddy Castro for advice on how to defeat assassination attempts. You couldn't ask advice from a better source than this since he's avoided over 600 CIA assassination attempts over the last 40 years.
Gaddafi himself is an expert on having escaped so many assassination attempts on his life by the same players who are bombing Libya today. So, I think he can learn sufficiently from his own experience.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
2 Qaddafi Sons Are Said to Offer Plan to Push Father Out Take your vile PaPa and get the hell out of Libya!
TRIPOLI, Libya -- At least two sons of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi are proposing a resolution to the Libyan conflict that would entail pushing their father aside to make way for a transition to a constitutional democracy under the direction of his son Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a diplomat and a Libyan official briefed on the plan said Sunday.
The rebels challenging Colonel Qaddafi as well as the American and European powers supporting them with air strikes have so far insisted on a more radical break with his 40 years of rule. And it is not clear whether Colonel Qaddafi, 68, has signed on to the reported proposal backed by his sons, Seif and Saadi el-Qaddafi, although one person close to the sons said the father appeared willing to go along.
But the proposal offers a new window into the dynamics of the Qaddafi family at a time when the colonel, who has seven sons, is relying heavily on them. Stripped of one of his closest confidantes by the defection of Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa and isolated by decades of attempted coups and internal purges, he is leaning on his sons as trusted aides and military commanders.
The idea also touches on longstanding differences among his sons. While Seif and Saadi have leaned toward Western-style economic and political openings, Colonel Qaddafi's sons Khamis and Mutuassim are considered hard-liners. Khamis leads a fearsome militia focused on repressing internal unrest.
And Mutuassim, a national security adviser who also commands his own militia, has been considered a rival to Seif in the competition to succeed their father. But Saadi, who has drifted through careers as a professional soccer player, a military officer and a businessman, firmly backs the plan, an associate said.
The two sons "want to move toward change for the country" without their father, one person close to the Seif and Saadi camp said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. "They have hit so many brick walls with the old guard, and if they have the go-ahead, they will bring the country up quickly." One son, this person said, has said many times that "the wishes of the rebellion were his own."
The proposals are the latest turn in a drama between Seif and his father that has played out for years on the stage of Libyan public life as the son has alternately pushed forward with calls for political reforms and then pulled back. During the recent revolt, he appeared to march in lockstep with his father in vowing to stamp out the rebels. "We are coming," he declared to a crowd of supporters who chanted, "Seif al-Islam, step on the rats."
The proposals are also the latest sign that the Qaddafi government may be feeling the pressure from two weeks of allied airstrikes that have severely diminished the advantage in equipment of the Qaddafi militias. A senior Libyan official arrived in Athens for talks about a potential resolution to the conflict, the Reuters news service reported. And Mohamed Ismail, a top aide to Seif, is returning from a trip to London, where, a Libyan official said, he presented the proposal for Seif to take over from his father.
Mutuassim may be particularly resistant because of his longstanding rivalry with Seif.
After Seif made a high-profile trip to Washington to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008, a WikiLeaks cable reported, the attention paid "exacerbated tension with his siblings."
When Mutuassim visited Washington the next year, the American ambassador to Libya wrote, "Mutuassim's desire to visit Washington this spring and his seemingly overweening focus on having meetings with senior U.S. government officials and signing a number of agreements are driven at least in part by a strong sense of competition with Saif al-Islam."
In a recent interview with the pan-Arab news channel Al-Arabiya, Saadi suggested that before the revolt Seif was already "the person who used to run the show every day in Libya." The defection last week of Mr. Koussa, the former top aide to Colonel Qaddafi, removes a figure who had been considered a leader of the old guard distrustful of Seif and opposed to reform.
A diplomat familiar with the proposal, however, said discussions remained in the initial stages. Despite the evidence of deep internal discontent, Colonel Qaddafi appears to believe that rebellion against him is a foreign conspiracy of Islamist radicals and oil-hungry Western powers attempting to take over Libya, the diplomat said. And the rebels, who have set up their own provisional government, continue to insist on the exit from power of Colonel Qaddafi and his sons.
"This is the beginning position of the opposition, and this is the beginning position of the Libyan government," this diplomat said. "But the bargaining has yet to commence."
Militarily, the rebellion remained locked in a stalemate on Sunday. On the eastern front, near the oil town of Brega, the two sides fired rockets, mortars and artillery against each other in a contest for the northern entrance of town. But the battle lines changed only slightly, and neither side appeared to have a clear upper hand.
The fighting intensified in the late afternoon and evening during a three-hour exchange in which rebels launched salvo after salvo of rockets toward the town, and loyalist artillery or mortars replied. The shells landed and exploded across an expanse of desert north of the town.
At least two rebels were killed and others wounded. The fight for Brega continued at the university, where the rebels, who have at times since Friday managed to gain a toehold, withdrew under fire. But the main body of rebels crept closer to the town, and seized two ridges that provided a vantage point for firing on the loyalists holding the town.
At the hospital in Ajdabiya, where casualties are first taken, a team of doctors rushed to help a wounded government soldier who had been shot through the left calf, the right arm, and twice through his right chest and out his back. The soldier, whose documents listed him as Akhmed Awad Omar, from Surt, died on the table, his blood pooled on the floor.
The attendants covered him with a cloth. "He is a Libyan, and we are sorry for him," said Dr. Habib Mohammed el-Obeidy, before the body was wheeled to the morgue. "Qaddafi is using Libyans against Libyans."
In Tripoli, armed checkpoints throughout the streets have kept the capital in an anxious lockdown with no signs of any renewed uprising since the revolt that shook the city six weeks ago. Noting that the United Nations resolution authorizing the air strikes also precludes the deployment of ground troops, the diplomat familiar with the proposal backed by the two sons said he wondered how the fighting could end without a negotiated solution.
"They will continue until the ammunition is finished, this stupid fighting along the highway," the diplomat said.
Proposals and counterproposals for a cease-fire exchanged between the Qaddafi forces and the rebels appeared deadlocked as well, the diplomat noted. "For Qaddafi a cease-fire means everyone should cease firing but the Qaddafi forces should stay where they are," the diplomat said. "But for the rebels it means that the Qaddafi forces should withdraw."
Rebels said Sunday that the Western airstrikes had begun hitting the heavy weapons of the Qaddafi forces even within cities. A spokesman for the rebels controlling the besieged city of Misurata said that on Friday night the airstrikes had hit two tanks and three armored vehicles of the Qaddafi forces that had entered the city.
But on Sunday morning Qaddafi forces outside the city continued shelling an area near the port, while Qaddafi gunmen occupied rooftops along the central Tripoli Street, said the spokesman, Mohamed, whose last name was withheld for the protection of his family.
In an interview in Tripoli, Levent Sahinkaya, the Turkish ambassador, said a Turkish hospital ship had left the Misurata port loaded with 250 patients seriously injured in the fighting. The Qaddafi government had sought to direct the ship first to Tripoli or to postpone its trip, Mr. Sahinkaya said, but instead the Turkish government sent it directly to Misurata with the escort of 10 F-16 fighters and a warship.
"The humanitarian side is so important to us," the ambassador said.
"We are the only country able to speak with both sides," he said, referring to both the rebels and the Qaddafi government.
"We think a cease-fire should be reached, and after a cease-fire a political solution can be discussed," Mr. Sahinkaya said. "This is the Turkish position." He declined to address the details of any cease-fire talks.
About 50 foreign embassies remain open in Tripoli, including those of Turkey, Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and China as well as sub-Saharan African countries.
Personally I think holding on to him would strategically be pretty stupid. If they want those around Gadaffi to defect they need to be offering an escape route, or at least the appearance of one, instead of backing them into a corner.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Personally I think holding on to him would strategically be pretty stupid. If they want those around Gadaffi to defect they need to be offering an escape route, or at least the appearance of one, instead of backing them into a corner.
Bad timing I agree. But Moses Zucchini is a low-life POS. They say Qadaffi's only advisors are “his sons and Moussa Koussa.” The UK prison system is too good for him BUT imokwiththis. Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not. I haven't got an x-box. Why should he get one?
Nah, don't fiddle around snipping away at the tail. Cut off the head of the snake I reckon.
Unless he personally delivered the semtex in this little visit. Nothing would surprise me.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exilled wrote: Your analysis is nor merely outdated but invalid. Egyptian Air force since 1980 began a tremendous transformation. They literally transformed from a Russian hardware air force to an American hardware air force. From Migs to kickAss F-16 fighter jets.
Get it. It's not 1950/1960/1970 it's 2011. It's no longer Migs. Its Fighting Falcons now with US training. Your argument is as outdated as the outdated Migs the Egyptian flew in 1950/1960/1970
No you still don't get it. Your so called BIG=BEST notion is bullshiit. The defense analysis quoted above is from 2006. The author was talking about the CURRENT Egyptian Air Force. Get it? So whether the issue is looked at currently, or historically doesn't make any difference. Your notion that the Egyptian Airforce is somehow magically transformed because they are flying "kickass" F-16s (lmao) just shows your lack of understanding. Since you keep insisting on your dubious notion, show historically or currently, where your BIG=BEST air notion holds up for Egypt. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
And do you realize that you actually destroyed your own simplistic BIG=BEST theory when you mentioned advanced aircraft? DO you realize that advanced aircraft are one of the several factors that allow a smaller air force to defeat much larger one numerically? You are undermining your own simplistic "kickass" numbers theory.
And there is a second way you are undermined, using your own examples. At the time of Israel's most famous air victory against Egypt, the 1967 War, the Egyptian forces were not using wholly "obsolete" aircraft. To the contrary. Egyptians had numerous first line, high quality aircraft, comparable to what Israel had, including Soviet bombers that outclassed anything the israeli's could put in the air. Indeed the Arab armies as a whole could field top-of-the line aircraft that outnumbered Israel. And they STILL lost despite so-called "kickass" numbers (lmao), with "kickass" modern aircraft, equal to or better than the Israelis. You have undermined yourself with your own "obsolete" aircraft defense.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
1. USA 2. Russia 3. China 4. UK 5. France 6. India 7. Germany 8. R. Korea 9. Israel 10. Greece
This list is comprised from data comparing not only manpower, but the budget size and mobility of the Airforce. It also doesn't favour countries like Israel as, although they do have highly trained pilots and a reasonable amount of aircraft, it is an example of a country that has built an unsustainable armed force (due to its relatively small economy) so could not withstand a war over 4 months at a time and its milatary strength is as a result of its generous share of its governments budget spending in comparision to other countries. Also countries like Israel and india may have landed higher in the table if they could compete with the USA, UK or France on Weapons and Aircraft technology develpment as these are the countries which develop and create the Aircraft where as israel and India buys its defence capitol from the USA and UK second hand. The Greek Air-Force is also very well-known for its extensively highly-trained pilots. Dont forget that their best squad beat America's best squad with an incredible 17-3 at NATO's biggest airforce exercise "Red Flag" which took place at Nellis Airbase of Nevada in 2007.
posted
Fair play vw. Good post. Only because we come fourth, naturally. If we weren't on there I'd be moaning like hell
I don't think you can say categorically one country has a 'better' military than another by looking on a list. Leaving aside that one country might have better tacticians than another, you are relying on countries declaring their spending on arms, and that those declarations are truthful. Does kind of put them on a back foot from the get go. I would imagine some countries are fairly secretive about that sort of thing.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The air "rankings" above are flawed. That is not surprising since the source is Wiki Answers and not some verifiable analysis written by a credible defense expert or historian.
Nevertheless, even giving it the benefit of the doubt, the list actually UNDERMINES the bogus BIG=BEST theory, and actually expose it as nonsense.China, for example can post massive aircraft numbers, that dwarf the USA Air forces. But the USA is miles ahead of the Chinese in crucial OTHER factors such as carrier capability, skill, technology, electronic warfare and battle management. Notice how all these are OTHER key factors that shape outcomes and are not merely the simplistic "big" numbers others claim? Even China recognizes this and plans for an integrated defense involving land and ship based missiles working in tandem with their aerial force. China does not rely on sheer aircraft numbers alone. The basic reality that many OTHER factors make up aerial warfare, seem to be beyond the reach of those who talk about "kickass" numbers.. lol
Lets look at number 4 and 5 on the list- the UK and France. The Air Force of 'Dear Comrade Leader" Kim, in North Korea has "kickass" numbers.. Whoo hoo! At 1600-1700 aircraft, the 'dear Leader' outnumbers the French about 2 to 1. The dear Leader also outnumbers the British Airforce by 50% in aircraft, and his manpower totals are THREE times the British air force. But the British and French airforces are years ahead of the North Korean one in capability, technology, skill battle management, and killing power. Simplistic notions about "kickass" numbers fail to grasp such elementary realities.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Exilled wrote: Your analysis is nor merely outdated but invalid. Egyptian Air force since 1980 began a tremendous transformation. They literally transformed from a Russian hardware air force to an American hardware air force. From Migs to kickAss F-16 fighter jets.
Get it. It's not 1950/1960/1970 it's 2011. It's no longer Migs. Its Fighting Falcons now with US training. Your argument is as outdated as the outdated Migs the Egyptian flew in 1950/1960/1970
No you still don't get it. Your so called BIG=BEST notion is bullshiit. The defense analysis quoted above is from 2006. The author was talking about the CURRENT Egyptian Air Force. Get it? So whether the issue is looked at currently, or historically doesn't make any difference. Your notion that the Egyptian Airforce is somehow magically transformed because they are flying "kickass" F-16s (lmao) just shows your lack of understanding. Since you keep insisting on your dubious notion, show historically or currently, where your BIG=BEST air notion holds up for Egypt. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
And do you realize that you actually destroyed your own simplistic BIG=BEST theory when you mentioned advanced aircraft? DO you realize that advanced aircraft are one of the several factors that allow a smaller air force to defeat much larger one numerically? You are undermining your own simplistic "kickass" numbers theory.
And there is a second way you are undermined, using your own examples. At the time of Israel's most famous air victory against Egypt, the 1967 War, the Egyptian forces were not using wholly "obsolete" aircraft. To the contrary. Egyptians had numerous first line, high quality aircraft, comparable to what Israel had, including Soviet bombers that outclassed anything the israeli's could put in the air. Indeed the Arab armies as a whole could field top-of-the line aircraft that outnumbered Israel. And they STILL lost despite so-called "kickass" numbers (lmao), with "kickass" modern aircraft, equal to or better than the Israelis. You have undermined yourself with your own "obsolete" aircraft defense.
So whether the issue is looked at currently, or historically doesn't make any difference.
It makes all the difference, Egypt has totally transformed their Air Force from Russian to American. Get it!
From Migs to F-16 from Russian training to US training.
Pre-1980 Egypt Air Force was Russian hardware with Russian training.
Post-1980 Egypt Air Force is American hardware and American trained.
Do you comprehend?
I'm not interested of analysis of the Egyptian Air Force pre-1980 even if it was printed 2011. Get it - Egypt was a different Air Force prior to 1980, different hardware, different training.
posted
What happened to the ludicrous calls that South Africa with their 15 Swedish fighter jets and their measly 34 combat pilots were better than the EAF.
African Jedis Flying dem planes Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm not interested of analysis of the Egyptian Air Force pre-1980 even if it was printed 2011. Get it - Egypt was a different Air Force prior to 1980, different hardware, different training.
It's you who don't comprehend. At the time of the Israeli victory in 1967, there was no obsolete issue. The Arab forces overall in total numbers, had more top quality aircraft equal to or better than Israel. This undermines your "obsolete" argument.
And the RECENT 2006 defence analysis notes that a central Egyptian weakness is that it relies too heavily on numbers, and is not proficient enough in crucial things like technology and battle management. So it doesn't matter if the Egyptians are flying new hardware, their weakness still remains, and your "kickass numbers" notion is exposed as dubious. I again ask- show credible proof where big aircraft numbers have been decisive in any Egyptian air force victory against another air force. Prove your "big =best" theory. What's taking you so long?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Do you comprehend?
I'm not interested of analysis of the Egyptian Air Force pre-1980 even if it was printed 2011. Get it - Egypt was a different Air Force prior to 1980, different hardware, different training.
It's you who don't comprehend. At the time of the Israeli victory in 1967, there was no obsolete issue. The Arab forces overall in total numbers, had more top quality aircraft equal to or better than Israel. This undermines your "obsolete" argument.
And the RECENT 2006 defence analysis notes that a central Egyptian weakness is that it relies too heavily on numbers, and is not proficient enough in crucial things like technology and battle management. So it doesn't matter if the Egyptians are flying new hardware, their weakness still remains, and your "kickass numbers" notion is exposed as dubious. I again ask- show credible proof where big aircraft numbers have been decisive in any Egyptian air force victory against another air force. Prove your "big =best" theory. What's taking you so long?
1967 Dude you are all about hindsight a.k.a retospect it is 2011! I keep telling you - Egypt Air Force is now American and not Russian.
Get it? How they fared prior to 1980 is irrevleant to the discussion we're having.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The RECENT 2006 defence analysis notes that a central Egyptian weakness is that it relies too heavily on numbers, and is not proficient enough in crucial things like technology and battle management. So it doesn't matter if the Egyptians are flying new hardware, their weakness still remains, and your "kickass numbers" notion is exposed as dubious. I again ask- show credible proof where big aircraft numbers have been decisive in any Egyptian air force victory against another air force. Prove your "big =best" theory. What's taking you so long?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The RECENT 2006 defence analysis notes that a central Egyptian weakness is that it relies too heavily on numbers, and is not proficient enough in crucial things like technology and battle management. So it doesn't matter if the Egyptians are flying new hardware, their weakness still remains, and your "kickass numbers" notion is exposed as dubious. I again ask- show credible proof where big aircraft numbers have been decisive in any Egyptian air force victory against another air force. Prove your "big =best" theory. What's taking you so long?
And this in your opinion believes that the 15 South African Jet Aircraft and 34 combat pilots can defeat the EAF?
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am saying your BIG-BEst theory doesn't hold water. What's taking you so long to prove your theory?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No, I am saying your BIG-BEst theory doesn't hold water. What's taking you so long to prove your theory?
My theory was never about Big=Best. It was always abot KickAss=Best.
So for clarification which Air Force is more KickAss. SAAF or EAF?
Simple question. Simple answer would be cool. SAAF or EAF?
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
let's be honest about your Big=Best, or Kickass =BEst theory. It doesn't hold up to empirical evidence. As for SAF vs EAF, there are numerous factors besides numbers that determine battle outcome. The big superiority of EAF would give it a great advantage. But if the SAF were working in tandem with a land based missile umbrella, close to their bases, the outcome is open to question. This is why I say many OTHER factors make up aerial warfare, including objectives etc etc than numbers or even good aircraft.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Well doenst seem you are thinking at all. let's be honest about your Big=Best theory. It doesn't hold up to empirical evidence. Admit it.
You're also taking The Explorer road? Such a shame.
Why can't you admit that Egypt's Air Force 2011 and not 1970 can wipe the floor clean with SAAF with their measely 15 Fighters and 34 measely combat pilots. Maybe they have Master Jedi Zulu wid dem.
posted
lol.. again you merely keep citing numbers like a magic yoga chant. As already shown above, you have failed to support your BIG=Best "kickass" theory. I repeat, OTHER factors besides numbers make up aerial warfare. You cant wriggle away from the facts. Again, what's taking you so long in proving your BIG=BEST "kickass" theory of aerial warfare? Shifting to some SAF vs EAF theoretical can't save you. Show empirical proof of your theory.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: lol.. again you merely keep citing numbers like a magic yoga chant. As already shown above, you have failed to support your BIG=Best "kickass" theory. I repeat, OTHER factors besides numbers make up aerial warfare. You cant wriggle away from the facts. Again, what's taking you so long in proving your BIG=BEST "kickass" theory of aerial warfare? Shifting to some SAF vs EAF theoretical can't save you. Show empirical proof of your theory.
You're a joke. Humility is in BTW.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lol, the only joke is you. Are you always this dumb or are you making a special effort? Why are you trying to wriggle away? Prove your so-called "kickass" theory.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic