Russia Confirms Mass Drone Attack in Syria

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,552
A first of its kind mass drone attack was confirmed by Russia and they say there may be a Ukrainian connection to this attack. The attackers hand-built 13 drones using plastic sheeting/wrap, wood, model airplane engines and other miscellaneous materials. Each of the drones carried 10 bomblets. However, the attacks were unsuccessful because the Russians either shot them down or used ECM to bring them down. US Forces say they've seen ISIS use drones in the past, but this is the first time so many were used in a single attack. Since drones are so available on the open market is it only a matter of time till we see terrorist use this in Europe and the US?

He said that unspecified terrorists utilized a total of 13 improvised drones, each carrying 10 bomblets, sending 10 to Russia's Khmeimim air base in Latakia governorate and the other three to its naval base in Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea. The munitions each had an explosive charge weighing nearly one pound, as well as strings of metal ball bearings or BBs glued together as pre-formed shrapnel, which would have made them most effective against individuals out in the open.
 
Did they shoot any of them down with multimillion dollar defense missiles like NATO does? Just one would make the whole operation cost effective.
 
thebadgerone said:
Seems to be model airplanes, not drones as we think of them (electric powered multirotors)
Click to expand...
Same thing. It's still an unmanned, remote controlled aircraft. Which, we've had this tech for decades the whole "drone" buzz is comical to me. Someone started marketing remote controlled aircraft and slapped a camera on it and suddenly it's this crazy new concept everone wants to label as a "drone."
 
Considering that the US used B-17s loaded with explosive as radio controlled drones in WWII, plus usage of surplus aircraft as controlled targets, the usage is correct. The electric multirotors are the ones borrowing the term.
 
Funny, when my neighbor buzzes my back yard, I refer to them as "Annoying Mother****ers" so, AMF's for short
 
model airplanes with bombs in them have been used for years, more than quad/multicopter got the name for drone, even though US army drones are mini jets.
 
Looking at that engine and it was not a silent attack. I have family that lives a couple miles from an RC airfield and you can hear the gassers no problem.
 
Silentbob343 said:
Looking at that engine and it was not a silent attack. I have family that lives a couple miles from an RC airfield and you can hear the gassers no problem.
Click to expand...

They failed on both counts then. It was neither silent nor deadly.
 
So....imagining something like this

0ur2ih.gif
 
Probably not a good delivery platform in the US or Europe. Drones are effective in combat zones because the target would be armed and could potentially thwart a land based attack with lives lost on the opposing side. US and Europe soft targets don't really have an armed response ready that could identify a vehicle or person delivered bomb. Since vehicles and people can deliver payloads of much higher yield than a garage made drone could, they would be preferred. Especially when considering ease of access.
 
Montu said:
A first of its kind mass drone attack was confirmed by Russia and they say there may be a Ukrainian connection to this attack. The attackers hand-built 13 drones using plastic sheeting/wrap, wood, model airplane engines and other miscellaneous materials. Each of the drones carried 10 bomblets. However, the attacks were unsuccessful because the Russians either shot them down or used ECM to bring them down. US Forces say they've seen ISIS use drones in the past, but this is the first time so many were used in a single attack. Since drones are so available on the open market is it only a matter of time till we see terrorist use this in Europe and the US?

He said that unspecified terrorists utilized a total of 13 improvised drones, each carrying 10 bomblets, sending 10 to Russia's Khmeimim air base in Latakia governorate and the other three to its naval base in Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea. The munitions each had an explosive charge weighing nearly one pound, as well as strings of metal ball bearings or BBs glued together as pre-formed shrapnel, which would have made them most effective against individuals out in the open.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is what happened, but why is the source that you quoted asserting that is the case, when the story comes directly reported from Russia, and Russia presents an entirely different picture of the event?


Edit: I didn't fully read the OP article before posting this, and it actually reports many details coming from Russia's perspective.


Once Russia reported the event, the US government was quick to issue a hypothesis that the drones in question are available on the open market (without giving evidence), and Western media seems to have run with the US' 3rd-party re-framing of the story, rather than with the story as Russia has been conveying it.


Russia says that:

- The attack could only have been carried out by a group that had access to satellite navigation technology
- There are signs of high-level technology in the drone, and Russia says that the drones could only have come from a country possessing state-of-the-art technology, including the ability to trigger remote-detonation of the drones at certain geographical coordinates
- A US surveillance plane was suspiciously circling the area at the time of the attack

https://www.rt.com/news/415374-drones-syria-terrorists-russian-defense/
https://www.rt.com/usa/415314-pentagon-syria-isis-drones-concerns/
https://www.rt.com/news/415641-putin-syria-base-attack-turkey/


Clearly, Russia is treating the case as though the US is likely involved, if not directly (less likely), than by giving technological assistance to a group that carried it out (more likely).


I make no claims about what the truth of the incident is, but I see that the report you quoted, Montu, like many others being presented in Western media, has entirely whitewashed the story of all details implicating US or other technologically-advanced country involvement, and of Russia's own perspective.
 
Last edited:
Russia can treat the US as the shadow aggressor based on the technology all they want, but China will sell that stuff to anyone- on a corner market.

There's nothing advanced going on here.
 
mesyn191 said:
Don't quote or link propaganda sites like RT please. Its like quoting or linking OAN which is every bit as bad.

The few bits of useful info. there can be trivially gotten elsewhere anyways.
Click to expand...

Not at all. RT is much less propaganda than most US MSM sources, and they're quoted or referenced all the time. And I will continue to quote and link to RT because RT consistently provides important subject-clarifying details that other news outlets do not. And further, this story is directly about Russia, and is coming directly from Russia, and so the information presented by RT is going to be more first-hand than information presented by US or Western news sources.

And all of that is fully proven in this very case, since the RT articles I linked to above present many additional details of the incident, and Russia's own report of it, while the OP-quoted report omitted those things, and crafted an alternative, re-worked narrative that is not really in-line with the source of the story.

What you've just done is literally request that a more accurate report not be quoted or linked-to, and instead that a proven propaganda re-framing of the story, should be left unchallenged. You're literally condoning and promoting the spreading of propaganda, while arguing that non-propaganda sources should not be presented and represented.


The few bits of useful info. there can be trivially gotten elsewhere anyways.
Click to expand...

Not even close, and the fact that large relevant bits of information about this story were omitted by the OP report, while provided by RT, immediately proves your assertion wrong and false. If you were familiar with RT vs Western news reporting, you'd know how ridiculous and false a statement that is. But you're just knee-jerk reacting out of being brainwashed - and the fact that your assertions are proven wrong in this very instance underscores that.


There's a reason why RT is the 2nd most-watched news in the world (after the BBC), according to Western pollster Ipsos. And if you dare to venture outside of the US' propaganda information bubble, you might discover why for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I don't get why the U.S would want to attack Russia in the first place. Directly or indirectly.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Not at all. RT is much less propaganda than most US MSM sources,
Click to expand...
A casual google easily brings up articles showing this to be BS.

And there is nothing particularly special about it being "direct from Russia" either since any of the large news organizations have competent foreign desks that do a good job there too. (edit) And Syria isn't in Russia either last I checked.

Delicieuxz said:
What you're literally just done is request that accurate reported not be quoted or linked-to
Click to expand...
Whether or not such details as the construction materials and methods are accurate or not is besides the point since the conclusions that are being drawn by that article (ie. "somehow the US was involved! ISIS =US!!!") are clearly made up BS which is why RT is a shitty propaganda site that shouldn't be linked or quoted.

Delicieuxz said:
Not even close
Click to expand...
Do you not know how to google stuff or what? This information is available on crappy "me to" car sites. You can get it anywhere. Why the other article didn't give it is besides the point, you do not have to go to, link, or read anything RT to get this information.

Delicieuxz said:
There's a reason why RT is the 2nd most-watched news in the world, according to Western pollster Ipsos.
Click to expand...
Popularity is no indicator of quality or evidence. Crap tier tabloids are also fairly popular too.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
...ever wonder if those 'extra details' are the exact propaganda that you're being warned about?

No?

Lol.
Click to expand...

Do you ever wonder if your conditioning to pre-emptively shut out additional details from other sides is the result of being brainwashed by propaganda?

No?

Lol.

If you shut out the consideration of information in order to believe that you're not being propagandized against, then you're already propagandized against, and are not in a position to know whether certain information is propaganda or not, because you haven't considered it. Your argument is self-debunking, and is basically akin to saying that you think your're smart because you don't think for yourself and believe whatever your overlord propaganda sources tell you to believe. It's stupidity.


SighTurtle said:
I don't get why the U.S would want to attack Russia in the first place. Directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

Because the US and Russia support opposing sides in the conflict in Syria. For the US to achieve its goals in Syria, it has to defeat Russia's goals in Syria.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Because the US and Russia support opposing sides in the conflict in Syria. For the US to achieve its goals in Syria, it has to defeat Russia's goals in Syria.
Click to expand...
And yet helping ISIS won't serve the US'es goals here either.

Reminder that this was fairly small amount of drones loaded with a small amount of bombs that could've killed or injured several trucks or teams of men but weren't going to change the course of the conflict or even just a single battle.

Also reminder that the RT article tries to build a US+ISIS conspiracy out of "well there was a US plane sorta near here so maybe who knows?".

That was your big and obvious tip off that its propaganda BTW.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Do you ever wonder if your conditioning to pre-emptively shut out additional details from other sides is the result of being brainwashed by propaganda?

No?

Lol.

If you shut out the consideration of information in order to believe that you're not being propagandized against, then you're already propagandized against, and are not in a position to know whether certain information is propaganda or not, because you haven't considered it. Your argument is self-debunking, and is basically akin to saying that you think your're smart because you don't think for yourself and believe whatever your overlord propaganda sources tell you to believe. It's stupidity.
Click to expand...

You're posting from RT, as a sole source. Your ignorance is fair game, if it is indeed ignorance and you're not a part of the propaganda mouthpiece that you're trying to defend.

Also, I haven't posted a source, and I don't intend to- and you cannot draw any conclusion, logically, without evidence. Because that would be self-debunking and stupid.


Delicieuxz said:
Because the US and Russia support opposing sides in the conflict in Syria. For the US to achieve its goals in Syria, it has to defeat Russia's goals in Syria.
Click to expand...

If you believe that there are only two sides to the Syrian conflict, you might want to look up the definition of 'ignorance'.
 
SighTurtle said:
I don't get why the U.S would want to attack Russia in the first place. Directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

'The US' didn't; that was Hillary Clinton, and it's one of the many reasons she lost the election. She was more Republican than the Republicans in terms of imperial foreign policy, and she had a personal bone to pick with Putin.
 
mesyn191 said:
And yet helping ISIS won't serve the US'es goals here either.

Reminder that this was fairly small amount of drones loaded with a small amount of bombs that could've killed or injured several trucks or teams of men but weren't going to change the course of the conflict or even just a single battle.

Also reminder that the RT article tries to build a US+ISIS conspiracy out of "well there was a US plane sorta near here so maybe who knows?".

That was your big and obvious tip off that its propaganda BTW.
Click to expand...

You're strongly showing that you're reacting in knee-jerk fashion, not knowing anything about what actually is, but from personal assumptions, and from having believed propaganda as gospel.

There is strong evidence that the US has helped ISIS in Syria, as RT and the BBC have both reported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
https://www.rt.com/news/414446-isis-raqqa-exodus-details/
https://www.rt.com/news/404365-us-special-forces-isis/
https://www.rt.com/news/405699-us-isis-syria-russia/
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404311-us-pentagon-arms-exports-syria/
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404438-us-hardware-terrorists-syria/
https://www.rt.com/usa/413252-report-isis-weapons-syria/
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
You're posting from RT, as a sole source. Your ignorance is fair game, if it is indeed ignorance and you're not a part of the propaganda mouthpiece that you're trying to defend.

Also, I haven't posted a source, and I don't intend to- and you cannot draw any conclusion, logically, without evidence. Because that would be self-debunking and stupid.
Click to expand...

You're making a fallacious argument that posting information from a particular source, one with a better track record in recent years than most US MSM sources, at that, invalidates the information presented. Your bias and disingenuousness is on full display.

And I have not argued that RT should be a sole source. I don't know where you're getting that from.

and you cannot draw any conclusion, logically, without evidenc
Click to expand...

And you also cannot pass a judgment without first considering information. Yet, your premise, like mesyn191's, is a determination to deny the considering of information from a source.

The only people here trying to force a conclusion are yourself, and mesyn191. I specifically said "I make no claims about what the truth of the incident is". You're being a hypocrite, and are doing all the things that you're alleging I have (which I have not done). It appears that your only goal is to force a perspective that RT = propaganda - in contradiction of the information presented, and without purpose.

If you believe that there are only two sides to the Syrian conflict, you might want to look up the definition of 'ignorance'.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand that Russia and US interests represent two sides, then you might want to look up the definition of reading-comprehension.
 
Delicieuxz said:
You're strongly showing that you're reacting in knee-jerk fashion, not knowing anything about what actually is, but from personal assumptions, and from having believed propaganda as gospel.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm applying critical thinking skills and lessons learned from RT's past reporting practices. Did you read the article I linked? I bet not.

Delicieuxz said:
There is strong evidence that the US has helped ISIS in Syria, as RT and the BBC have both reported.
Click to expand...
That isn't what the BBC article reported on or was about at all. You either haven't read it or are being dishonest.

The BBC article was about a deal to let some ISIS guys escape because the US didn't want to have to destroy the rest of the city to kill them which the US got (surprise!) screwed over on. Making a dumb deal and then trying to cover it up because the US got screwed on it isn't the same as helping ISIS.

That you then link to a bunch of RT articles, which I've already said are propaganda, is ridiculous. There are plenty of other sources out there to link if you want to.

IdiotInCharge said:
'The US' didn't; that was Hillary Clinton, and it's one of the many reasons she lost the election. She was more Republican than the Republicans in terms of imperial foreign policy, and she had a personal bone to pick with Putin.
Click to expand...
Eeeehhhhh her foreign policy was more of a minor sideshow at best and what she would've done is largely not even brought up even more. What sunk her had more to do with several decades of vilification by Repubs + the fact she came off as dishonest even to Dem voters. Basically too many disliked her or distrusted her.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Because the US and Russia support opposing sides in the conflict in Syria. For the US to achieve its goals in Syria, it has to defeat Russia's goals in Syria.
Click to expand...

I mean, Why do this specific action? What does actively attacking Russian forces in Syria in this manner, that Russia could trace to the U.S, accomplish? Nothing to me, and everything to empower Russia. Theres no reason for U.S forces to do this, or order U.S supported rebel forces to do so. Now, the U.S has given lots of support towards rebel groups in intelligence, munitions and equipment, so maybe one of these groups decided to attack Russia with U.S , but I can't see the U.S ordering or directing this attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top