Turkey shoots down Russian jet

[MikeyBelic]

Looks bad enough in the title but remembering that Turkey is a member of NATO makes it seem quite concerning when you remember that the NATO argreement requires all states to act together if one state comes under attack. I'm not suggesting Russia would launch huge operations but a small retaliation to test NATO wouldn't completely take me off guard.

 

====

 

The Turkish military have reportedly shot down a Russian military aircraft on the border with Syria.

 

Russia's defence ministry said an Su-24 had crashed on Syrian territory after being hit by fire from the ground, and that its pilots had managed to eject.

 

But Turkish military officials said Turkish F-16s had shot down the plane after repeatedly warning its pilots they were violating Turkish airspace.

 

(Via BBC news) Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983 (Sorry I'm not on a laptop so the coding options don't come up and I don't want to try and butcher it) (Thanks Aqua by the way)

Edited November 24, 2015 by MikeyBelic

[Stephan90]

Violating airspace doesn't activate the NATO agreement. Russia won't attack the NATO. It's not even clear, where exactly the jet was hit and where it landed. We don't need any escalation with Russia.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[K1FFLOM]

Never thought that turkeys were that good at shooting.

Just shows what Thanks-Giving has done to those poor creatures.

[9i OTD]

Oh, for f*ck sake....

Edited November 24, 2015 by Hocko1999_fgc

[Aqua97]

OP you should of put the link in,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983

Just watched the video, the pilots ejected but there condition and location of where they landed is not known, this isn't going to go down well with Russia. I'm concerned.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Aqua

[MikeyBelic]

Violating airspace doesn't activate the NATO agreement. Russia won't attack the NATO. It's not even clear, where exactly the jet was hit and where it landed. We don't need any escalation with Russia.

Sorry my OP probably wasn't very clear. I meant if Russia retaliate in a small way, say they attack a border defence outpost. We need to factor in the recent events in Ukraine, Russia was able to push the West more then it ever has and didn't get a major reaction from the West until the barbarians they were sponsoring shot down the Malaysian Airlines jet and they largely pulled back. Ukraine was an asscoiate NATO state so the West largely got away with not acting forcefully. Turkey is a full NATO member, who says Russia doesn't see if it can push the boundaries a little more with a small action against Turkey and see how NATO reacts?

[Stephan90]

 

Violating airspace doesn't activate the NATO agreement. Russia won't attack the NATO. It's not even clear, where exactly the jet was hit and where it landed. We don't need any escalation with Russia.

Sorry my OP probably wasn't very clear. I meant if Russia retaliate in a small way, say they attack a border defence outpost. We need to factor in the recent events in Ukraine, Russia was able to push the West more then it ever has and didn't get a major reaction from the West until the barbarians they were sponsoring shot down the Malaysian Airlines jet and they largely pulled back. Ukraine was an asscoiate NATO state so the West largely got away with not acting forcefully. Turkey is a full NATO member, who says Russia doesn't see if it can push the boundaries a little more with a small action against Turkey and see how NATO reacts?

 

 

Why would they attack a border defence outpost of a NATO state when they exactly know the United States were required to help with military defence if Turkey calls for it? You know that could lead to WW3 in the worst case. Turkey - Russia relations are not the best and Erdogan is neither a good democrat nor does he use pacifist rhetoric. So he'd probably immediately call for the cavalry.

 

Both United States and Russia think in spheres of influence. Russia sees NATO expansion after 1990 as a threat (also beacause of all the NATO exercises in front of its border, do you remember the Cuban missile crisis, the United States didn't want to accept that). Gorbatschow claimed that it was promissed to Russia after German unification, there would be no further NATO expansion, but that didn't happen. Just as much the United States sees Russia overtaking Crimea and the secession of the Donbass as a threat. Eastern European countries are not United States territory but they have their military there, so it doesn't make any difference for Russia. What does Ukraine being a "asscoiate NATO state" mean. For the NATO defence agreement there are only NATO members who are part of it and non members who are not. There is nothing in between.

 

Regarding MH 17, I believe neither side because the black box recordings have not been released by the West. Why is that so when there is nothing to hide and Western media wants to persuade that Russia was behind this?! I also can't think of any logical motive why Russia would want to shoot down a civilian aircraft over Ukraine. Russia was blamed shortly after. So what would Putin wanted to achieve with that?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[sivispacem]

Regarding MH370, I believe neither side

How is that even possible? Either Russian backed rebels shot down the aircraft, which is what all the evidence suggests, or the Ukrainians did. There's literally no other possible theory.

 

I also can't think of any logical motive why Russia would want to shoot

No-one is claiming Russia shot down MH17, though. They're claiming that Russian-backed rebels shot it down, likely in the mistaken belief it was a Ukrainian military transport aircraft like the various An-26s and the like they had downed before that point. The allegation is that Russia supplied the weapon used to down the aircraft, or somewhat more tenuously that Russian military staff were seconded to the rebel units to provide training and support.

[Stephan90]

Why would the rebels shoot down an aircraft, that could be also a civilian aircraft? They would have risked to be blamed for killing civilians. That wouldn't help them to achieve independence and be accepted by the world (out of their perspective). And they were blamed afterwards but Putin too. Why would Putin give them weapons which can shoot down civilian aircraft when it is totally not in his interest? Why would they shoot down an aircraft which they think is from the military, when the Ukrainian military has not dropped one single bomb from an airplane on Donbass even until now. I saw an interview with a German journalist who travelled to Donbass and he said that Ukrainians without uniform go into the towns within Donbass to mark targets for the Ukrainian military's artillery. So no need for the Ukrainian military to fly over the territory.

 

Again why haven't the black box recordings released to the public to end all specualtion? It's unproven for me as long as the black box recordings are kept a secret.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[Doc Rikowski]

Not looking good. Turkey is acting irresponsibly for its own interests.

[sivispacem]

Why would the rebels shoot down an aircraft, that could be also a civilian aircraft?

Because disrupting the ability of the Ukrainian armed forces to move troops and materiél by the air is basically warfare 101, and it's difficult for an untrained or partially trained irregular combatant to determine between a military transport aircraft and a commercial airliner at high altitude.

 

Why would Putin give them weapons which can shoot down civilian aircraft when it is totally not in his interest.

How on earth is it not in his interest to supply the rebels with arms, given they're trying to institute a Russian leaning authority in Eastern Ukraine? The idea that Russia doesn't benefit from armimg the rebellion in Eastern Ukraine borders on the idiotic.

 

Why would they shoot down an aircraft which they think is from the military

That's total bollocks. The Ukrainians have been using their close air support aircraft extensively during the Donbasd conflict. Rebels have shot down Su-25 anti-tank aircraft and MiG-29 fighters on several occasions, including at higher altitude than MANPADS can reach. The fact they have been supplied with Russian arms is just that, a fact. Rebels don't just mysteriously acquire firearms, vehicles and body armour only used by the Russian military out of nowhere.

 

Again why haven't the black box recordings released to the public

The CVR transcript had been published already, I don't really know what more you expect given that it's rare for the actual recorded data to be disclosed in original form, especially when criminal inquiries are still ongoing. I get the impression you really don't have a clue what you're talking about here. The same is true if the FDR- the raw data is useless to a layman and the findings from it have already been published.

[Stephan90]

A transcript is not an audio. You want to know I want else?! The audio of course. Nobody can garuantee me that the transcript is correct and not made up.

 

The rebels want independence for Donbass. Your argument about troop movements that can be done with one flight is in no relation to the risk shooting down a large civilian aircraft and the strong media reaction. You know the reactions afterwards.

 

Why does Putin need to give them weapons for shooting down airplanes that are not needed to defend the territory. The risk would be just too big that they do stupid things with it. And as far as I know like I wrote in my previous post the Ukrainian military has not dropped bombs from aircraft so far.

 

I never wrote that Putin had no interest in an Russian leaning authority in Donbass. I wrote that he has no interest in rebels shooting down civilian aircraft with his weapons. And that is totally true. He had no interest to take the risk.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[GTA_stu]

I'm fairly pro-Russia but it seems pretty evident that it was Russian backed rebels that shot down the plane, albeit not deliberately.

 

As for the current situation, this could get interesting depending on what happens next.

[Stephan90]

I personally don't claim that it is proven that one side shot down MH 17, because I wasn't there and it is not proven for me. The most f*cked up things happen around the world, so it would be stupid to believe what one side wants me to believe.

 

Just some examples what sick things are going on in this world.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Things like these make me believe no side.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[MikeyBelic]

Putin isn't giving them the weapons lol. He might be a very powerful figure in Russia but he's going to leave these kind of things to his military, not sit around with a whiteboard making a postive/negative grid for them. Russia has pretty much abandoned the Dontesk rebels because they were too risky to get behind. They'll only protect them publicly, behind the scenes I can't imagine the endorsements would be flowing after the MH17 atrocity. Russia got Crimea and they're happy with that, seeing how far they could push the West was only a bonus.

[Stephan90]

Putin isn't giving them the weapons lol. He might be a very powerful figure in Russia but he's going to leave these kind of things to his military, not sit around with a whiteboard making a postive/negative grid for them. Russia has pretty much abandoned the Dontesk rebels because they were too risky to get behind. They'll only protect them publicly, behind the scenes I can't imagine the endorsements would be flowing after the MH17 atrocity. Russia got Crimea and they're happy with that, seeing how far they could push the West was only a bonus.

 

Just an opinion, not a fact. Even if Putin didn't decide. Why would the military under Putin not have the same interests as their beloved president.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[sammystarock]

Wannabe caliph Erdoğan and his companions are smoking their chronic hukahs again.

[Stephan90]

The incident is also bad for my stocks, so whoever shot down the jet, f*ck you!

 

I hope Putin stays cool now.

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[BUT THE BENZ]

turkey.....they didn't want to help fight ISIS when they were really close on theier border, but shoot down russian planes now that russia started to attack ISIS...strange behaviour

 

I don't know anything about this story....whether true or false....but the turkish president is a son of a b*tch who under all circumstances tries to keep the kurds from getting power. the kurds are the good guys though, always have been. they're also the first people that fought back on ISIS really. was really glad when germany decided to send over weapons to the kurds. instantly gave it to the PKK, and they went out and gave ISIS hell.

[Alvarez]

Now a rescue helicopter which was searching for the pilots was shot down...

 

Seems to be the "moderate rebels".

[Stephan90]

The Russian jet hit the ground on Syrian territory. Funny how in the media the Turkish claim is reported first and the Russian claim always second. Why is it that the perpetrator is quoted first and the victim second?

[GN 92]

sh*ts getting mad out there.

 

2016 Rio Olympics gonna be ugly.

[Stephan90]

sh*ts getting mad out there.

 

2016 Rio Olympics gonna be ugly.

 

This is the last thing we need to worry about now. I am sure Putin won't let the whole situation escalate over one jet. He doesn't seem to be too impulsive to me.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Stephan90

[Shenhua]

We should be happy that Russia is bombing the Islamic State with their planes, Russia is atleast doing something and they want to send much more soldiers to Syria, I heard. Maybe Turkey should stop f*cking around and let the big boys play their games instead of causing a new war against Russia.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Shenhua

[sivispacem]

A transcript is not an audio. You want to know I want else?! The audio of course.

And tell me, why would they release evidence in a criminal investigation before the investigation is concluded? That's just silly. Regardless, what good reason do you have to doubt the transcript, which is let's not forget the product of an independent investigation?

 

The rebels want independence for Donbass.

No, they want Donbass to be a component of "Novorossiya", explicitly a Russian-dependant confederation of states named explicitly for a historical element of the Russian empire. Pretending it's not direct Russian hegemony is patently ridiculous.

 

Your argument about troop movements that can be done with one flight is in no relation to the risk shooting down a large civilian aircraft and the strong media reaction. You know the reactions afterwards.

The fact you don't seem capable of understanding the concept of an accidental shoot-down does not suddenly make the numerous downed Ukrainian aircraft magically disappear. You also seem to falsely believe that rebel groups of this nature behave like rational actors, which they don't.

 

Why does Putin need to give them weapons for shooting down airplanes that are not needed to defend the territory.

Because the Ukrainian military is vastly more capable than a few thousand rag-tag rebels. The only reason they've survived as long as they have is because they're supplied by Russia and include Russian troops, hence the large number of Russian soldiers mysteriously coming back in body bags, the rebels possessing weapons that only Russia use, et cetera. To believe otherwise is logically indefensible in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

Tell me, what's your alternative hypothesis?

 

And as far as I know like I wrote in my previous post the Ukrainian military has not dropped bombs from aircraft so far.

As usual, you don't know, which is why you said something patently false yet pretended you knew what you were talking about. Kruger-Dunning strikes again.

 

I wrote that he has no interest in rebels shooting down civilian aircraft with hs weapons.

And I never claimed he did, because to do do would be utterly moronic. It's a side effect of his policy of arming the rebels; he didn't intend a civilian aircraft be downed. Why on earth would you construe anything I've said as implying he did? Not to be rude, but that's utterly moronic.

[Ai®a©ob®a]

Just watched the video, the pilots ejected but there condition and location of where they landed is not known, this isn't going to go down well with Russia. I'm concerned.

Reports have come out and said both Russian Pilots while they ejected were found dead

 

Now a rescue helicopter which was searching for the pilots was shot down...

 

Seems to be the "moderate rebels".

This hasn't been a confirmed report just yet, So far it's just a rumor

[Mr. Scratch]

I'm fairly pro-Russia.

 

As in you want to aggressively take back former British colonies? You should start with those tea-hating Yanks tbh.

[860]

Turkey buys oil from ISIS. Turkey arms the "moderate" Islamists and somehow the weapons end up in ISIS hands. Turkey says they will bomb ISIS in Syria. They accidentally bomb the Kurds. Oops. ISIS gains territory on the Syrian/Turkish border. The border stays open.

 

f*ck Turkey. f*ck 'em in the ass. Dry. I hope a sovereign Kurdistan is created after this mess just so the collective Turkish butthurt would fuel the planet for a hundred years.

Edited November 24, 2015 by 860

[Shenhua]

I just looked at an video how Turkey shot down the jet and later one helicopter that would save the pilots. Great. Now we really know we are going to get screwed by Russia..

[K20]

the turks got trigger happy knowing they can't attack isis. i hope russia destroy isis, have a strong alliance with assad and prosper. close all oil supply lines to the thieving UN.