Comments by "Cactus" (@laetrille) on "Did Syria Really Shoot Down 71 NATO Cruise Missiles?" video.

  1. You utterly failed to provide any evidence that 71 were intercepted.
    96
  2. You
    5
  3. Pierre Stöber but they do lie and blow shit out of proportio
    4
  4. Alex Cheremisin EXACTLY!
    4
  5. Uros Kostic no they did not
    3
  6. Ian Einser Stop dreaming moron
    2
  7. Dont dodge the issue coward, no missiles were shot down
    2
  8. Mujtaba Almodhafar Cut the shit muhammad none were shot down
    2
  9. 1. No missiles were intercepted. 2. Where exactly do you see a missile being intercepted in the videos? Interceptor missiles will self-destruct after a certain distance has been traveld if nothing has been hit to prevent it from falling into a population center. None of the videos show interceptions. 3. Only FLIR or Foward Looking Infared can visually see an interception occur. 3. Only 3-5 videos of supposed interceptions exist, dafaq? if 71 were "shot down" at least 142 interceptors should have been launched, but only these few videos? 4. Interceptors Syria has are blast fragmentation, meaning they spread shrapnel in a 360° r^3, the shrapnel is how it attempts to get a hit. So the missiles would most likely be intact or large sections should be scattered, 71 is alot of missile, but no images? 5. The same ruMoD that shows the world a clip of a video game claiming it to be "evidence" of US helping isis rats are the same that claim 71 were shot down. Really? 6. There is precedent to know how a Tomahawk looks like when intercepted, one was downed in Serbia, would you like to see it? 7. The video being circled by russian trolls as "proof" has been debunked, this is the video they are circling, take a look and look, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Q-s7SRurU (note: At 1:30 you can see the end, the coward channel owner cut the clip out.) at 1:25 this idiot shows a clip of hamas rockets at night posted in 2014 XD My refutation: literally a video of the American C-Ram counter airtillery system XD SAME EXACT VIDEO POSTED IN 2014!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ6YChXRn_A&feature=youtu.be BOOM 100% THOUROUGHLY DEBUNKED
    1
  10.  @Foolishdog5888  hear! Hear!
    1
  11. f50koenigg You are an idiot
    1
  12. Stop dodging the issue .
    1
  13. iyabi burn Next thing you know you will be telling me the earth is flat XD
    1
  14. iyabi burn Just stop you are embarrasing yourself dumbass
    1
  15. Flase, you are lying
    1
  16. iyabi burn 18 minutes ago 1 beliv in the lie of ur contry like in irak >>>Irrelivant to the cental point 2 100 missile for one objective lel >>>3 targets in an area with active A2/AD assets including a threat by russia to shoot them down, its called a saturation attack to make sure the target is destroyed, also to have enough explosive firepower to make sure any precursors or chemical weapons are destroyed. 3 do u really think that an anti air missile can lunch one at time >>>What? this does not make any sense 4 yeah USA isreal and some of the EU are hlping ISIS why ? do i really need to answer this question think the + for them if bachar go and i am not even talking about the US guns in there hand so stop taking other contry for nothing and stop as well looking to much movie of super US soldier b/ that far aways from realty juste ask them in the street they will tell u after all 60% of them are SDF now or have psychologique problème >>>nothing more than a conspiracy theory that is irrelevant to the central point. 5 about ur video i never belive any video but i know that most of time that US are only SHOW OF and nothing in the pant like there so called F-35 who can't even beat F-16 in dogfight and they still want to try win against SU-35 >>>Those "Videos" show nothing but missiles going in a ballistic trajectory, they dont manouver to intercept anything. Also, only FLIR or Foward Looking Infared can see an interception. So these videos prove nothing. Another point of contention is the number of missiles seen in the videos, if 71 were intercepted then at least 142 interceptors should have been launched but there are only about 10 missiles seen in the air, count them. Again you fail. 6 juste about me My father and the husband of my ant are in millitary airforce so when they tell me about there point i belive more than made up video >>>No they are not, a real airman would know no missiles were intercepted. Also this is irrelevant to the central point. You ignored all my points Try again :)
    1
  17. 1. No missiles were intercepted. 2. Where exactly do you see a missile being intercepted in the videos? Interceptor missiles will self-destruct after a certain distance has been traveld if nothing has been hit to prevent it from falling into a population center. None of the videos show interceptions. 3. Only FLIR or Foward Looking Infared can visually see an interception occur. 3. Only 3-5 videos of supposed interceptions exist, dafaq? if 71 were "shot down" at least 142 interceptors should have been launched, but only these few videos? 4. Interceptors Syria has are blast fragmentation, meaning they spread shrapnel in a 360° r^3, the shrapnel is how it attempts to get a hit. So the missiles would most likely be intact or large sections should be scattered, 71 is alot of missile, but no images? 5. The same ruMoD that shows the world a clip of a video game claiming it to be "evidence" of US helping isis rats are the same that claim 71 were shot down. Really? 6. There is precedent to know how a Tomahawk looks like when intercepted, one was downed in Serbia, would you like to see it? 7. The video being circled by russian trolls as "proof" has been debunked, this is the video they are circling, take a look and look, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Q-s7SRurU (note: At 1:30 you can see the end, the coward channel owner cut the clip out.) at 1:25 this idiot shows a clip of hamas rockets at night posted in 2014 XD My refutation: literally a video of the American C-Ram counter airtillery system XD SAME EXACT VIDEO POSTED IN 2014!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ6YChXRn_A&feature=youtu.be BOOM 100% THOUROUGHLY DEBUNKED
    1
  18. Oh really? Oh do please link us to the images of two cruise missiles that were "intact"
    1
  19. Alfredo Crocetti Unless you can link your claim of "French said some of their missiles malfunctioned" it can be dismissed as another troll. Bye
    1
  20. Alfredo Crocetti False, you are asking me to prove the negative. The person making the claim has the 'burden of proof'. So unless you can link your souce you can be dismissed as just another troll or brainwashed person. Why not link it? Surly it would prove your point and prove us wrong right? But no you are too humble to do that right? XD hahahahhahaha lol You are being schooled by westerers, on of which is an American :)
    1
  21. Alfredo Crocetti Again, the burden of proof is on you. If you went to college you should know what the 'burden of proof' entails, yet you deny it. Its part of the scientific method, a way to separate the rubbish from the gold standard called EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, comprende? So you are in fact being schooled by us, we presented valid points to dispute russias claim, and you dodge them with fallacies, loads of non-sequiters and Ad Hoc copouts to avoid the central point. So you can be dismissed as a charlatan snake oil salesman.
    1
  22. Alfredo Crocetti Again you are paroting the russian ruMoD, which has provided no radar data or images of downed missiles or any type of evidence Only 3 targets were attacked, the people making the claim that there were 12 targets is the russian MoD, which I remind you has a conflic of interest in prepetuating the lie, its Pantsir system failed to bring down any missiles, and you may lie here but potential customers for russian SAMs cannot be fooled and thats the truth. I am not making my arguments based on the Pentagons statements, but rather from logic, reason, and critical thinking. Logic dictates that if a claim is made, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE must be provided, 'burden of proof' demands this. Its a universally accepted rule of the scientific method. I already outlined all arguments pertaining to the central point and you have yet to privide a single rebuttal for any of them. You insist on images, ok sure, here are some before and after pictures of all 3 targets https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/apr/15/satellite-pictures-airstrikes-syria "Any claim made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" Asking to prove the negative is a fallacy. --->"You cannot provide evidence for my claim therefore it proves mine"<---this is what you are doing. So stop with all the non-sequiters and Ad Hoc nonsense, it does not look to good that you are being schooled by an American :)))))))))
    1
  23. Highlighted reply Alfredo Crocetti 1 hour ago "Great parroting the most discredited rag in the western Universe might as well parrot the Sun or the Ny slime. Yes video satellite shows all one hundred an 17 missile strikes no. First failed forensics does not prove that all missiles hit there target. We can agree missiles were fired" >>>Again, its your job to prove your claim, you made the claim so now provide evidence, the more you stall the more stupid you look, getting schooled by an American :) "Last year the day after four new agency showed the after math of the 69 missiles had not reached there designated target Homs airbase was still operative. So the burden of proof Satellite image weak. your statement from a legal point and empirical data weak." >>>This is not evidence that missiles were shot down, only wreckage will prove missiles were shot down, where is it? No images? No video? yeah explain that troll. Still getting schooled by an American " Hence using reason and logic three sights were designated by FUKUSA one of them was the Ayr AlShat airbase in Homs province hence doing the maths divide by three means roughly 40 missiles per target. My Client being the SAA states minimal damage was sustained at the airbase. ONe second point precedent and evidence from last years strike which was reported by your client states that 69 were fired and they all hit there Targets . News report from last year from four news outlets showed the after math and showed that 69 diid not all hit the designated target." >>>Still no evidence to prove any were shot down, no missile wreckage, no FLIR footage, nothing, you are only going by things you pulled straight out of your ass. Still being schooled by an American :) "Hence second point precedence Evidence is a bitch. So video confirms hit does not confirm 117 missiles so if a parroting RUaf prop. You on the other hand are telling statements from known proven liars and precedent proves this. Hence you categorically stated that no missiles were intercepted . No proof of your statement. The Homs Ayr AlShat airbase is still operative. Incubator s anybody Iraq 1 war. Qadaffi giving Viagra to soldiers . Yugslavian army committing acts of Genocide. By the way Milosovic guilty verdict over turned by the Hague two years ago. That my dear sir is what we call in the legal fraternity Game set and Match slam dunk case that the Judge will find your statement to be dubious at best. So it is not me that has to prove anything" >>>What does viagra have to do with the strike you imbecil? Again, being schooled by and American, dont be too sad :) "Your blanket statement was that no missliles were shot down. The oinly forensics you have is satellite imaging. Does not account for all the missiles and the people claiming the blanket categorical absoluteness is you sir. Hence Being cynical and reason and logic and witnessed accounts plus past verifiable evidence putting the character of the people claiming this makes swiss cheese look solid with no holes. Last years evidence and the video narrator admitted that last years missile strike does appear to show that not all missiles hit the airport." >>>Here we are and a paragraph of useless rhetoric and still not a single image of a downed Tomahawk lol what does syria have missiles that vaporize cruise missiles? XD I took you to school you fucking idiot, you have been debunked an made to look like a fool by an American :)
    1
  24. 1. No missiles were intercepted. 2. Where exactly do you see a missile being intercepted in the videos? Interceptor missiles will self-destruct after a certain distance has been traveld if nothing has been hit to prevent it from falling into a population center. None of the videos show interceptions. 3. Only FLIR or Foward Looking Infared can visually see an interception occur. 3. Only 3-5 videos of supposed interceptions exist, dafaq? if 71 were "shot down" at least 142 interceptors should have been launched, but only these few videos? 4. Interceptors Syria has are blast fragmentation, meaning they spread shrapnel in a 360° r^3, the shrapnel is how it attempts to get a hit. So the missiles would most likely be intact or large sections should be scattered, 71 is alot of missile, but no images? 5. The same ruMoD that shows the world a clip of a video game claiming it to be "evidence" of US helping isis rats are the same that claim 71 were shot down. Really? 6. There is precedent to know how a Tomahawk looks like when intercepted, one was downed in Serbia, would you like to see it? 7. The video being circled by russian trolls as "proof" has been debunked, this is the video they are circling, take a look and look, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Q-s7SRurU (note: At 1:30 you can see the end, the coward channel owner cut the clip out.) at 1:25 this idiot shows a clip of hamas rockets at night posted in 2014 XD My refutation: literally a video of the American C-Ram counter airtillery system XD SAME EXACT VIDEO POSTED IN 2014!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ6YChXRn_A&feature=youtu.be BOOM 100% THOUROUGHLY DEBUNKED
    1
  25. LoL nice joke
    1
  26. Trash
    1
  27. Deki Disk What?! No missiles were shot down, I can easily debunk you and make you eat your words, but you would be too much of a coward
    1
  28. Man-Pause Prove your claim, give some evidence
    1
  29. God you are one stupid fucker
    1
  30. Rafael Pereira Link the source, dont just talk out of your ass
    1
  31. Sharpeyed Watcher Strange how you dont give any evidence hmmm... wierd
    1
  32. Candi Soda I can answer that for you
    1
  33. To people who dont know shit about the military
    1
  34. https://youtu.be/hGYwqMj1v-8
    1