Turkish warplanes have reportedly shot down a Russian military aircraft on the border with Syria.
Russia's Interfax news agency cited the Russian defence ministry as saying that a Su-24 had crashed in northern Syria, and that its two pilots had ejected.
Turkish military officials said Turkish F-16s had shot down the plane after repeatedly warning its pilots that they were violating Turkish airspace.
Video footage showed the plane crashing into mountains in Latakia province.
If Russia attacks them then we're committed by our treaties.
Not necessarily. From my understanding the NATO pacts are largely in self defence. Turkey is the aggressor if the jet was in Syrian air space.
Also, if France can't get NATO assistance, I doubt NATO will lift a finger to save Turkey who have been allowing ISIS free reign to borderhop while ISIS + Turkey pick off the Kurds.
If Russia attacks them then we're committed by our treaties.
Not necessarily. From my understanding the NATO pacts are largely in self defence. Turkey is the aggressor if the jet was in Syrian air space.
Also, if France can't get NATO assistance, I doubt NATO will lift a finger to save Turkey who have been allowing ISIS free reign to borderhop while ISIS + Turkey pick off the Kurds.
True, the treaty triggers should a nation attack Turkey. It's not triggered by shooting a plane down.
NATO doesn't have a nation to go to war against in France's case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's probably worth waiting for the flight control recordings and so on to be released, before deciding who is to blame.
Russia wouldn't go to war with NATO because of one fighter-bomber anyway.
Still, as the BBC say, it makes the air traffic control situation in the areaof Syria even more tricky.
Kilkrazy is right.
It's what everyone said would happen having all these nations flying over the area, and now it has.
LethalShade wrote: Turkey is suspected to actively help ISIS via supplies and by letting them go through the border.
So so very much. The Turks practically walked up and had a chat with Isis during the attack on kobane. So much dodget stuff going on. There in bed with them.
Video has been released by the "moderates", with one of the pilots on it either dead or heavily wounded. Mocking him, of course, all too proud of themselves.
Plane was shot down 40kms from the Russian base of operations.
I can just imagine all the "historically Russian" people in Turkey staging a popular revolt targeting all the industry and resource rich areas of Turkey
SilverMK2 wrote: I can just imagine all the "historically Russian" people in Turkey staging a popular revolt targeting all the industry and resource rich areas of Turkey
Russia doesn't seem to angry atm, on RT there still entertaining the idea that it got shot down by rebels, but as always what's put to the Russian people is generally wrong compared to what's really happing. But Putin as of yet doesn't seem to fussed.
As for where it is, if the Sukhoi was on route to violate Turkish air space they may of acted in defence.
If Russia attacks them then we're committed by our treaties.
Not necessarily. From my understanding the NATO pacts are largely in self defence. Turkey is the aggressor if the jet was in Syrian air space.
Also, if France can't get NATO assistance, I doubt NATO will lift a finger to save Turkey who have been allowing ISIS free reign to borderhop while ISIS + Turkey pick off the Kurds.
Russia has invaded Turkish air space before and NATO was quick to release the statement one incursion is a incursion against all of NATO.
LethalShade wrote: So yeah, Russia can go berserk on them and I hope NATO will look the other way.
(Of course, this will probably not happen)
Thats a very bad idea. While I agree 100% that Turkey is a bad actor here:
1. If Russia actively attacks Turkey, that starts things rolling, things that end in fusion bombs over Moscow, DC, Paris, London, etc. 2. That won't happen. During the Cold War planes and helicopters would occasionally be shot down. It was always covered up, to avoid #1 above. Neither party here, unlike other rising nuclear powers, is nuts. 3. I doubt Putin would admit that Soviet er...Russian yea Russian aircraft could be shot down. That would lose face.
I find it interestingly old F16s could take down Russian aircraft.
LethalShade wrote: So yeah, Russia can go berserk on them and I hope NATO will look the other way.
(Of course, this will probably not happen)
Thats a very bad idea. While I agree 100% that Turkey is a bad actor here:
1. If Russia actively attacks Turkey, that starts things rolling, things that end in fusion bombs over Moscow, DC, Paris, London, etc.
2. That won't happen. During the Cold War planes and helicopters would occasionally be shot down. It was always covered up, to avoid #1 above. Neither party here, unlike other rising nuclear powers.
3. I doubt Putin would admit that Soviet er...Russian yea Russian aircraft could be shot down. That would lose face.
I find it interestingly old F16s could take down Russian aircraft.
LethalShade wrote: So yeah, Russia can go berserk on them and I hope NATO will look the other way.
(Of course, this will probably not happen)
Thats a very bad idea. While I agree 100% that Turkey is a bad actor here:
1. If Russia actively attacks Turkey, that starts things rolling, things that end in fusion bombs over Moscow, DC, Paris, London, etc.
2. That won't happen. During the Cold War planes and helicopters would occasionally be shot down. It was always covered up, to avoid #1 above. Neither party here, unlike other rising nuclear powers.
3. I doubt Putin would admit that Soviet er...Russian yea Russian aircraft could be shot down. That would lose face.
I find it interestingly old F16s could take down Russian aircraft.
It was a Su-24, not a high-end modern plane.
3) -> Russian aircrafts are powered by Vodka and shielded by pure patriotism and faith in the defunct USSR. They cannot be brought down, all of this is an Illuminati conspiracy.
LethalShade wrote: So yeah, Russia can go berserk on them and I hope NATO will look the other way.
(Of course, this will probably not happen)
Thats a very bad idea. While I agree 100% that Turkey is a bad actor here:
1. If Russia actively attacks Turkey, that starts things rolling, things that end in fusion bombs over Moscow, DC, Paris, London, etc.
2. That won't happen. During the Cold War planes and helicopters would occasionally be shot down. It was always covered up, to avoid #1 above. Neither party here, unlike other rising nuclear powers.
3. I doubt Putin would admit that Soviet er...Russian yea Russian aircraft could be shot down. That would lose face.
I find it interestingly old F16s could take down Russian aircraft.
It was a Su-24, not a high-end modern plane.
3) -> Russian aircrafts are powered by Vodka and shielded by pure patriotism and faith in the defunct USSR. They cannot be brought down, all of this is an Illuminati conspiracy.
Good point the F16 is actually newer than the SU-24
3) -> Russian aircrafts are powered by Vodka and shielded by pure patriotism and faith in the defunct USSR. They cannot be brought down, all of this is an Illuminati conspiracy.
Hey it worked against the Fascist Hitlerites. Fortunately the running dog capilitalist Americans were powered by burgers and FRREEEEEDOM!
SU-24 eh. Ok. I'm surprised they aren't using something more modern.
Frazzled wrote: I find it interestingly old F16s could take down Russian aircraft.
It was an Su-24. The F-16 is newer (by about 8 years, IIRC) and is an air superiority fighter, while the Su-24 is an attack aircraft. All things equal, the F-16 wins in a dogfight every time.
3) -> Russian aircrafts are powered by Vodka and shielded by pure patriotism and faith in the defunct USSR. They cannot be brought down, all of this is an Illuminati conspiracy.
Hey it worked against the Fascist Hitlerites. Fortunately the running dog capilitalist Americans were powered by burgers and FRREEEEEDOM!
American bombs are powered by sheer democracy.
(Okay, maybe burgers too. And those scooters that fat people use.)
Frazzled wrote: SU-24 eh. Ok. I'm surprised they aren't using something more modern.
I predict the PKK receiving a pile of gifts from Soviet Santa on Christmas.
M.
As an aside for a country so dead set on protecting their airspace suely they are quite happy to violate Irak's airspace to bomb the Kurdish staging areas.
One pilot has chest wounds and ones beneath his helmet, so its not been confirmed. Well it probably has been, but I wasn't watching the video of the guys who found the plane.
The current circumstances seem to be that the Russian jet was flying back and forth between the two airspaces. The Turks warned them. The Russians were flying back to Syria, then they got shot down. The Turks obviously looking for whatever reason they could to do this.
The situation's been described as NATO having to baby sit its idiot cousin from the bully down the street elsewhere.
Reading about this seems to have people in this mood though oddly.
3) -> Russian aircrafts are powered by Vodka and shielded by pure patriotism and faith in the defunct USSR. They cannot be brought down, all of this is an Illuminati conspiracy.
Hey it worked against the Fascist Hitlerites. Fortunately the running dog capilitalist Americans were powered by burgers and FRREEEEEDOM!
American bombs are powered by sheer democracy.
(Okay, maybe burgers too. And those scooters that fat people use.)
Frazzled wrote: SU-24 eh. Ok. I'm surprised they aren't using something more modern.
We're talking about the USSR Russia here.
Well there was no need to put wear and hours on newer expensive airframes, little anti air and minimal enemy fighter risk. Older planes where fine. I'd expect to see more advanced fighters deploying soon and anti air batteries. Already a gronitt? Whatever codename has a massive range to cover most of area of operations.
Now, bears swans under solid escort? And more modern fighters deployed rapidly to Syria to defend the bombers. Escalation but going to happen. Swans especially as there rare aircraft, not many in service. Tu160 was not mass produced like some.
Maybe s400 s300 batteries? Pretty potent anti air defence is anyone wants to get dumb and touch there bases.
Wyrmalla wrote: One pilot has chest wounds and ones beneath his helmet, so its not been confirmed. Well it probably has been, but I wasn't watching the video of the guys who found the plane.
The current circumstances seem to be that the Russian jet was flying back and forth between the two airspaces. The Turks warned them. The Russians were flying back to Syria, then they got shot down. The Turks obviously looking for whatever reason they could to do this.
The situation's been described as NATO having to baby sit its idiot cousin from the bully down the street elsewhere.
Reading about this seems to have people in this mood though oddly.
"Jahed Ahmad of the 10th Brigade in the Coast said that the two Russian crew members tried to land in their parachutes in government-held areas after they ejected, but came under fire from members of his group.
He adds that rebels shot one of the pilots, who landed dead on the ground on Tuesday.
The fate of the second pilot was not immediately known.
The group released a video showing gunmen standing around a blond pilot whose face was bruised and appeared dead."
I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
Iron_Captain wrote: I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
I don't like Putin, his views about homosexuals and other important society rights are too extremist for me to feel comfortable about him, but I really, REALLY, want to see him going all "HAMMER OF THE EMPEROR" on ISIS and it's supporters.
Iron_Captain wrote: I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
Yeah there own. Same as Russia. I'm tired of the dictatorial Putin supporting a tyrannical human rights abuser Assad, we know what side there on.
Iron_Captain wrote: I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
Yeah there own. Same as Russia. I'm tired of the dictatorial Putin supporting a tyrannical human rights abuser Assad, we know what side there on.
Assad is a tyrannical human rights abuser, but ISIS is 100 times worse. Sometimes you have to settle for the lesser evil, and a strong leader like Assad is the only hope that there will ever be peace again in Syria. Lack of strong leaders leads to situations like in Libya.
Iron_Captain wrote: I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
Yeah there own. Same as Russia. I'm tired of the dictatorial Putin supporting a tyrannical human rights abuser Assad, we know what side there on.
Assad is a tyrannical human rights abuser, but ISIS is 100 times worse. Sometimes you have to settle for the lesser evil, and a strong leader like Assad is the only hope that there will ever be peace again in Syria. Lack of strong leaders leads to situations like in Libya.
What I think about it ? Destroy the bigger evil then stab the lesser one in the back and do whatever you want to do.
Iron_Captain wrote: I say we nuke the bastards. The islamist Erdogan and his pigs have supported terrorists for too long, and they even have the audacity to bomb the Kurds, our allies against ISIS. All international jihadists who join ISIS do so through Turkey. Action should be taken. It should have been taken long ago, but this clearly shows who's side Turkey is on.
Yeah there own. Same as Russia. I'm tired of the dictatorial Putin supporting a tyrannical human rights abuser Assad, we know what side there on.
Assad is a tyrannical human rights abuser, but ISIS is 100 times worse. Sometimes you have to settle for the lesser evil, and a strong leader like Assad is the only hope that there will ever be peace again in Syria. Lack of strong leaders leads to situations like in Libya.
Well, that is basically what we have been using as an argument Pro Putin for Russia for years.
Not sure the verdict on the wisdom of such thinking is out yet.
At last, erdogan has signed his death sentence.
Such a holy day !
I cannot stand this arrogant being.
But, as others said, turkey is, unfortunately, part of NATO...
godardc wrote: At last, erdogan has signed his death sentence.
Such a holy day !
I cannot stand this arrogant being.
But, as others said, turkey is, unfortunately, part of NATO...
Why are they even part of NATO anyway ?
(Yep, dumb as hell question)
godardc wrote: At last, erdogan has signed his death sentence.
Such a holy day !
I cannot stand this arrogant being.
But, as others said, turkey is, unfortunately, part of NATO...
Why are they even part of NATO anyway ?
(Yep, dumb as hell question)
godardc wrote: At last, erdogan has signed his death sentence.
Such a holy day !
I cannot stand this arrogant being.
But, as others said, turkey is, unfortunately, part of NATO...
Why are they even part of NATO anyway ?
(Yep, dumb as hell question)
Turkey has traditionally been a regional rival to Russia (ever since the old Ottoman Empire, ever wonder why they were on Germany/Austria's side in WWI?), making it pragmatic for them and NATO for Turkey to be a member; Turkey joined in 1952. On top of that, modern Turkey likes to think of itself as being a European state, and has always sought close relations with Western nations..
LordofHats wrote: On top of that, modern Turkey likes to think of itself as being a European state.
Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually. There is a very strong divide in Turkey between secular, westernised people (who want to see Turkey as an European state) and conservative muslims (who want to see a traditional islamic state).
Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually.
That's mostly in relation to growing tensions the past decade over the Palestine-Israel Conflict, where Turkey has becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian. It's also really rich hearing criticism of Erdogan from Russia. Erdogan took all his plays from Putin's playbook. Seriously the political careers of the two have shocking parallels. I've always assumed it's just a matter of time till the guy tries invading Armenia or something.
Trying to paint this as "Turkey's really on their side" is just bs though. Turkey opposes Assad, and backs the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and has ever since the Syrian Civil War started. Russia has decided to back Assad and bomb those rebels, and on top of that started a war in Ukraine. Turkey has every right to be very concerned about Russian intentions right now and it has nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
If Assad was a strong ruler he wouldn't have been mired in a crappy multi-sided civil war for the past 18 months.
Erdogan is a moderately but not massively popular right-Islamic leaning president who has been trying to parlay his democratic majority into a very non-democratic semi-dictatorship.
Turkey isn't the problem. As usual, extremists are the problem.
Islamist is a bad term to describe what Erdogan wants. The guy is pretty much the big head of the Neo-Ottoman movement in Turkey, and he's never been particularly quiet in stating his goals (he's actually be really bad at hiding them). It of course includes Islam as a core aspect, but it's a much bigger political movement with much wider goals than Islamist can really describe.
Like I said. The guy is the Turkish Putin. He's spent most of his political career undermining his county's democratic processes, building a cult of personality, and reigniting nationalist favor of "the good old days" when Turkey was a world power. EDIT: Speak of, it flew under the radar at the time, but Erdogan was very 'concerned' about the treatment of Crimean Tartars after the Annexation. He had a whole bit about it back in 2014. Want to know who else was especially 'concerned' about Crimean Tartars?
Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually.
That's mostly in relation to growing tensions the past decade over the Palestine-Israel Conflict, where Turkey has becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian. It's also really rich hearing criticism of Erdogan from Russia. Erdogan took all his plays from Putin's playbook. Seriously the political careers of the two have shocking parallels. I've always assumed it's just a matter of time till the guy tries invading Armenia or something.
Trying to paint this as "Turkey's really on their side" is just bs though. Turkey opposes Assad, and backs the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and has ever since the Syrian Civil War started. Russia has decided to back Assad and bomb those rebels, and on top of that started a war in Ukraine. Turkey has every right to be very concerned about Russian intentions right now and it has nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
Maybe don't violate other country's air spaces? Like seriously. What, you expect Turkey to just step aside a let a Russian military plane fly over them? A certain country seems really quick to jump the gun here and demand retribution when all initial evidence suggests they were in the wrong. I get that you don't like Turkey (to be honest they're kind of the red headed step child of Europe and the Middle East, everyone kind of dislikes them one way or another ), but come on. Is Russia really this far gone?
Besides, you're already supporting the Kurds (everyone but Turkey, Iran, and Jordan are). We are too. At this point it would seem a future War of Kurdish independence is something we'll all probably have to deal with whenever ISIS finally gets knocked out. Oh what fun that'll be...
Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually.
That's mostly in relation to growing tensions the past decade over the Palestine-Israel Conflict, where Turkey has becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian. It's also really rich hearing criticism of Erdogan from Russia. Erdogan took all his plays from Putin's playbook. Seriously the political careers of the two have shocking parallels. I've always assumed it's just a matter of time till the guy tries invading Armenia or something.
Trying to paint this as "Turkey's really on their side" is just bs though. Turkey opposes Assad, and backs the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and has ever since the Syrian Civil War started. Russia has decided to back Assad and bomb those rebels, and on top of that started a war in Ukraine. Turkey has every right to be very concerned about Russian intentions right now and it has nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
Turkey had suspicious activities concerning ISIS before they shot down that aircraft.
As far as I can ascertain, the Russian SU was doing its rounds in Syria, but doing it in the same way as several other planes have been recently. That is to say, violating Turkish airspace for a few minutes at a time whilst conducting its operations.
Turkey has given several warnings recently about this, and Russia clearly chose to ignore them when instructing their pilots about correct protocol. Generally speaking, planes warn multiple times before engaging in airspace violations though, and it is unlikely the Russian jet was in Turkish space long enough for the normal procedures to have been followed.The fact that the Turkish planes opened fire indicates that either orders must have been handed down previously instructing Turkish pilots to make an example of the next intrusion, or the Turkish pilots took it upon themselves to do so (unlikely).
On one hand, Putin should not be permitting his pilots to engage in such clear repeat violations of Turkish airspace. It shows a level of disdain for Turkish sovereignty, and that he miscalculated just how far he could throw his weight around with nobody daring to react to Russian incursions.
On the flip side, Erdogan is clearly posturing to the internal crowd here (much like Putin), and has just effectively killed two men and stoked international tensions for an ego boost.
tl;dr Posturing strongmen dictatorial politicians engage in genital measuring contest and people die.
thenoobbomb wrote: Pilots were shot by "moderate rebels" as they hung on their parachutes in the air.
This should be a war crime if it's not already.
There's no reason to shoot them as they're stuck there helplessly.
Even if they've been bombing them for the last few months. They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.
Well, yeah, it is a war crime.
It's just even further support to the statement that the rebel groups in Syria are variants of "ISIS lite" and "diet ISIS".
Rules of war only followed by those signed up to them. However your a liar if you think the rebels are good, there just more toleable than the likes of Isis. There more moderate yea, when compared to a wild dog that's rabid and requires putting down for the good of the planet.
There is no good guy in Syria, just shades of grey
Rules of war only followed by those signed up to them.
Only if made publicly. Pretty much all states use mercenaries that act covertly (and much more efficiently, might I add) and do not adhere the "rules of war".
LethalShade wrote:Turkey had suspicious activities concerning ISIS before they shot down that aircraft.
So only countries that don't do sleazy things can defend their borders? Boy is that gonna play out in all kinds of fun ways
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Turkey in this. From the start they've been using the Syrian Civil War to achieve their own ends, namely sleazily using it to try and get a bunch of people they don't like to kill each other. They don't like Assad. Use the war to try and get rid of him. ISIS comes up and spoils that little party. Use the war to try and get rid of them. Now they're really upset about the Kurds. Use the war to get rid of them.
Can't really blame Turkey for all that though. In part, the mess is the result of the inability of other players to actually do anything or in making moves that do directly threaten Turkey's interests. Russia is now backing Assad, who Turkey went all in on trying to get rid of. The US-Coalition is backing the Kurds, who make Turkey really nervous because there is a very real (and probably inevitable) possibility now that Kurdish Nationalism is going to fight for independence in the near future. In short, Turkey is probably screwed in the next decade or two. Bit of karma there.
So Turkey ends up trying to play everyone with hope Assad, ISIS, and the Kurds somehow manage to eliminate each other.
And really, all of that is separate from the issue that; you don't go after another country and expect them not to defend themselves. Whether or not we approve of them is separate from their right to self defense
thenoobbomb wrote:Pilots were shot by "moderate rebels" as they hung on their parachutes in the air.
Well yeah. Russia has been bombing them for weeks and killing lots of civilians (more than they've been bombing ISIS). Turkey's been pretty sleazy, but Russia is being equally so. Their involvement in the conflict has quickly evolved into token support of the anti-ISIS forces, while focusing real effort in propping up the Assad government. In all honesty, it's probably a purposeful attempt on their part to undermine Turkey as part of a more long term foreign policy goal.
Like I said. Turkey and Russia are historic regional rivals. Once Russia annexed Crimea, conflict between the two became an unavoidable outcome. Lots of people focus on theories of another Eastern European state being the next target of a resurgent Russia, but it's likely Turkey is the next target as the most powerful state in the immediate area.
tl;dr Posturing strongmen dictatorial politicians engage in genital measuring contest and people die.
Why didn't I put it this way... Save myself the damn time typing XD
NPR was saying that there's an 8-mile stretch near the border where Turkey is allowed to enforce its airspace, since rules of engagement put into place in 2012. It also sounds like they repeatedly warned the jet to change course and it did not.
This is a real mess, and I think we have handled the whole Syria situation terribly... it's certainly complicated, but we're definitely not rising to the occasion here!
Rules of war only followed by those signed up to them.
Only if made publicly. Pretty much all states use mercenaries that act covertly (and much more efficiently, might I add) and do not adhere the "rules of war".
Aye true, black ops, cia, all very direct and effective with no rules ttieing it down bar do not get caught doing that stuff.
It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote
With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down? They would look different than a pilot on a parachut I would think, but just wondering.
Yes. Continually violating the airspace of a country with whom you have a historic rivalry, that has a leader every much as focused on rebuilding old glories as your own, and whose interests in a nearby conflict have become opposed to yours, is a very stupid action.
It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote
Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?
With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down? They would look different than a pilot on a parachut I would think, but just wondering.
Been a while but if I remember my Law of War training, yes we could target paratroopers (combatants) but not ejected air crew (no longer combatants). I even remember a manual showing how to lead paratroopers so you could cap them on their way down.
With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down?
Yes.
Has a parachute and is falling from the sky != cannot be harmed. The pilot must surrender or be captured to be considered a legal POW. If a pilot resists or evades capture they are still an enemy combatant and can be fired on. Though I have little doubt the rebels who killed the pilots didn't give any gaks about anything like that.
It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote
Where it was when it was shot down is almost irrelevant at this stage. If the Russian jet was violating Turkish airspace at any stage in it's flight, Putin is to blame as the primary instigator of the incident. Russia has been warned multiple times recently about what would occur if it kept doing it. That said, just because one politician decides to engage in moronic international military posturing does not mean all others should sink to the same depths, and Erdogan is responsible for making the call to take the lives of two men to 'show Putin who's boss'.
What a pair of fethwits. I totally get that there's a time and a place to start flexing your military muscles when you're playing realpolitik and it advances the cause of your nation, but this really wasn't it for either side.
If anything then this may wind up benefiting Turkey. Considering the weak hand the rest of his rivals have shown recently, the Turks showing some force might make the Russians give a damn. Then again the Russians may just throw even more flak at the Turk's proxies.
I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels? Even with the whole ISIS fiasco? Or have we somehow joined the Syrian government's side, despite baying for his head months ago? ...I wonder how the Israelis are taking all of this? Hell the Middle East must be pretty confused about the current situation, well the Western backed elements that is.
With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down?
Yes.
Has a parachute and is falling from the sky != cannot be harmed. The pilot must surrender or be captured to be considered a legal POW. If a pilot resists or evades capture they are still an enemy combatant and can be fired on. Though I have little doubt the rebels who killed the pilots didn't give any gaks about anything like that.
From the view of the rebels they are terrorists killing their children. Put 7.62s through to your heart's content.
Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?
If I were to be conspiratorial, one might suggest Russia plans to target Turkey in coming years to isolate it from other NATO members, put them in a really rotten position like opposing a Kurdish War of Independence backed by Russia to provoke Turkey into calling for NATO aid, and laughing when other NATO members refuse to get involved. This potentially undermines and breaks NATO as a meaningful alliance to oppose future Russian aims.
Hypothetically speaking. If it actually happens, I fething called it 2015, Right here
thenoobbomb wrote: Pilots were shot by "moderate rebels" as they hung on their parachutes in the air.
This should be a war crime if it's not already.
There's no reason to shoot them as they're stuck there helplessly.
Even if they've been bombing them for the last few months. They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.
Alternatively, you don't have to take them prisoner until you take them prisoner. I missed, when did Russia declare war on Syria?
They didn't. They're fighting ISIS and other terrorist organisations in Syria.
Wyrmalla wrote:If anything then this may wind up benefiting Turkey. Considering the weak hand the rest of his rivals have shown recently, the Turks showing some force might make the Russians give a damn. Then again the Russians may just throw even more flak at the Turk's proxies.
I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels? Even with the whole ISIS fiasco? Or have we somehow joined the Syrian government's side, despite baying for his head months ago? ...I wonder how the Israelis are taking all of this? Hell the Middle East must be pretty confused about the current situation, well the Western backed elements that is.
'the West' still opposes the Syrian government.
I recall Israel was providing the Russians with drone images and such of targets. The French ship Charles de Gaulle had a Russian escort as well.
Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?
If I were to be conspiratorial, one might suggest Russia plans to target Turkey in coming years to isolate it from other NATO members, put them in a really rotten position like opposing a Kurdish War of Independence backed by Russia to provoke Turkey into calling for NATO aid, and laughing when other NATO members refuse to get involved. This potentially undermines and breaks NATO as a meaningful alliance to oppose future Russian aims.
Hypothetically speaking. If it actually happens, I fething called it 2015, Right here
Actually, everyone thought about that in one way or another.
Wyrmalla wrote: I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels?
We've been scaling that back over time, and focusing more resources on the Kurds. All things said, the Kurds are kind of bad asses at this kind of thing. Given more recent events, support for non-ISIS Syrian rebels is likely to further erode from Western states as we move away from removing Assad from power. It's become an impractical aim with the larger threat of ISIS.
Though at the same time. Assad is probably doomed anyway. Even if Western states back off from opposing him, the reality is that his regime is likely over in the long run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LethalShade wrote: Actually, everyone thought about that in one way or another.
I think, weather you are or are not in controlled airspace that you've been officially warned not to enter or will be shot down. Then are right before the attack you are warned 10 times in 5 minutes to leave and ignore it.
You've got no-one to blame after you get shot down.
So ....... never lived on a air base beofre but judging by the land mass and flight path they would be inside that air space for what 12 minutes? How long does it to radio them several times warn them and then disembark a jet afte them catch up fire warning shot them shoot them down? Then set up people to shoot them on the way down.
Russia fly over our borders all the time. Warning are givin they keep flying they think they are a big deal and life moves on. Welcome to the death rattles of a forgotton empire. Plus they are failing to take over ukrain whcih is a stones throw away and not the greatest millitary they are not a threat. More of just like that cat that walks through your yard randomly. Their people are poor and they have few allies left in the wolrd.
I would guess they saw them coming, started the warnings, kept them up as they entered the airspace, saw they were being ignored, and had the F16s splash them.
Maybe they should have heeded the warnings in this case.
1. Su-24. Its a perfectly good idea to use older airframes for bombing guys in robes. This aircraft is obsolete for front line engagements against a modern military, but this wasnt what they were out there to do.
2. The pilots both ejected, but where did they land? Were they recovered before ISIS got to them?
3. While this is picky if the aircraft did violate Turkish airspace and Turkey did something about it, it sends a message to Putin that he wont get it all his own way. This is a larger message regarding events in the region, and Turkey is right to propagate that message.
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has promised Turkey will "regret what it has done for a very long time", according to the BBC. Not that Chechnya can do much other than send terrorists, but still
Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually.
That's mostly in relation to growing tensions the past decade over the Palestine-Israel Conflict, where Turkey has becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian. It's also really rich hearing criticism of Erdogan from Russia. Erdogan took all his plays from Putin's playbook. Seriously the political careers of the two have shocking parallels. I've always assumed it's just a matter of time till the guy tries invading Armenia or something.
Trying to paint this as "Turkey's really on their side" is just bs though. Turkey opposes Assad, and backs the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and has ever since the Syrian Civil War started. Russia has decided to back Assad and bomb those rebels, and on top of that started a war in Ukraine. Turkey has every right to be very concerned about Russian intentions right now and it has nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
Saying it has nothing to do with religion is denying the entire nature of the Syrian conflict. Erdogan is really big on religion, so supporting the conservative sunni muslim rebels against the secular Assad really fits them. Of course, geopolitical concerns are even more important than that. Assad was a rival to Erdogan's ambitions in the region, so it makes sense that Erdogan would support anti-Assad rebels (which are virtually all radical islamists, even the non-ISIS groups. The "moderate rebels" are mostly just a myth, there is no secular opposition to Assad). This includes ISIS. There are clear hints that Turkey actively supported ISIS before they went all crazy and conquering, but even now Turkey does virtually nothing to stop the flow of money and foreign fighters to ISIS, the vast majority of which goes through Turkey. Add to that that Turkey broke the cease-fire with the Kurds, who are the most active anti-ISIS fighters, and now actively fights them. It really does not take a genius to figure what Turkey's interests in the Syrian conflict are. Turkey wants to see Assad removed, and either a conservative muslim leader friendly to Turkey from one of the non-ISIS groups, or if that is not possible, to keep Syria in chaos.
thenoobbomb wrote: Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has promised Turkey will "regret what it has done for a very long time", according to the BBC. Not that Chechnya can do much other than send terrorists, but still
Chechens make particularly nasty terrorists though, especially with all their military training, equipment and state support.
Freakazoitt wrote: SU-24 not considered as "obsolete". We just have few of another bombers
I would guess they saw them coming, started the warnings, kept them up as they entered the airspace, saw they were being ignored, and had the F16s splash them.
Maybe they should have heeded the warnings in this case.
BBC wrote: A spokesman for the US-led coalition against Islamic State, Col Steve Warren says it can confirm that the Turks warned the Russian plane 10 times before shooting down the jet.
He said they were working to establish exactly where the plane was when it was shot down.
Outrageous, and goes to show that these rebel groups that the west has been backing for over a year now are nothing but more terrorist groups.
In all fairness, Russia has been chucking cruise missiles at them for a few weeks now. It's probably not a very popular flag in that part of the world.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
I repeat, if American artillery and missiles had been nailing them for a few weeks, he probably would be. I think that when you throw a cruise missile at someone, you lose the right to complain and call them terrorists when they shoot your helicopters.
This report implies the helicopter was looking for the pilots.
It's been confirmed they've been killed.
As for the helicopter, I'm speechless.
Outrageous, and goes to show that these rebel groups that the west has been backing for over a year now are nothing but more terrorist groups.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Russia has done the same in Ukraine though and the casualties are far worse.
Saying it has nothing to do with religion is denying the entire nature of the Syrian conflict.
Pretending this is solely about the Syrian Conflict is short sighted. This is about two old powers than want to be powerful again. Arguably the Syrian Civil War itself has evolved to be part proxy war between Russia and Turkey at this point.
which are virtually all radical islamists, even the non-ISIS groups.
Most of the Islamist groups fighting in Syria are not Syrian. Hezbollah has been very active in the conflict and is from Lebanon. ISIS spread into Syria from Iraq. Al Qaeda be there too as Al Nusra. Really the only hard core Islamist groups there that are actually Syrian are the Syrian Liberation Front and the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Further, who told you Assad's government was secular? It isn't. The Assad government is built on a minority group in Syria called the Alawites (Shia Muslims who are way into mysticism). The Al-Assad family has lead this power bloc since the French left the region and despite being 1/10 of the population have oppressed most other religious and ethnic groups in Syria for over half a century. The Kurds and the Assyrians generally being the ones who got the worst of it. The bulk of organized rebels are in fact fighting to establish a secular democratic state (granted a super left wing one). The Assad government is a Ba'athist government. It's a political ideology centered in pan-Arabism, and while it's founder was a hard core secularist, the neo movements that came in his death split. The Iraq Ba'athists under Sadam came to advance Sunni Islam, and the Syrian Ba'athists under the Al-Assads came to advanced Shia. Both government proclaimed themselves as secular but neither were/are.
Seriously. Your propaganda is weak. Surely you can come up with something better.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
It probably would be something like, "burn, maim, kill!"
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
My cousin was a crew chief on Marine helicopters in Vietnam, and he had three shot out from under him, with one time he being the sole survivor. Helicopters got shot down over there all the time as they looked for pilots.
That being said, I think there is going to be some serious payback for this that is going to more than balance the scales.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
CSAR is a dangerous mission. Our CSAR guys got shot at all the time, as did medevac choppers. War is war. Our guys got a lot better at protecting CSAR and medevac flights. Yours may want to do the same.
Funny how when you send helicopter gunships after guys armed with missiles that can take them down, sometimes those guys use the missiles.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
My cousin was a crew chief on Marine helicopters in Vietnam, and he had three shot out from under him, with one time he being the sole survivor. Helicopters got shot down over there all the time as they looked for pilots.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
CSAR is a dangerous mission. Our CSAR guys got shot at all the time, as did medevac choppers. War is war. Our guys got a lot better at protecting CSAR and medevac flights. Yours may want to do the same.
Funny how when you send helicopter gunships after guys armed with missiles that can take them down, sometimes those guys use the missiles.
I don't believe there's any Dutch helicopters currently active in Syria
Takes away nothing that it is a disgusting act to shoot people that are only trying to recover the bodies of their fallen comrades. Shooting a rescue helicopter is a war crime.
BBC wrote:Turkey's Hurriyet website reports Russia's ambassador to Turkey and the military attache were summoned to the Foreign Ministry last Thursday because of the following allegations:
The operations of the Russian army were taking place in areas very close to Turkey's border, threatening its border security. Turkey noted its rules of engagement were in place and there would be no hesitation to implement them if a violation occurred.
The area where Russian operations were being conducted was free of Islamic State and other terrorist groups and civilian Turkmen were being harmed.
When your military shoots at people, they are allowed shoot back. This is not a war crime. People on the ground do not know what mission your military helicopter is engaged in. All they know is that a military helicopter flying the flag of the people who have been lobbing explosives at them is flying above them, and they shoot it.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
My cousin was a crew chief on Marine helicopters in Vietnam, and he had three shot out from under him, with one time he being the sole survivor. Helicopters got shot down over there all the time as they looked for pilots.
A terrible thing, right?
Yep. The time he was the only survivor, he went down in Cambodia during a point we weren't acknowledging our presence there. He was on his own in the jungle for a couple of weeks as he made his way back and was more pissed at his commander for not sending help than the guys who shot him down.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is? Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
BBC wrote:Turkey's Hurriyet website reports Russia's ambassador to Turkey and the military attache were summoned to the Foreign Ministry last Thursday because of the following allegations:
The operations of the Russian army were taking place in areas very close to Turkey's border, threatening its border security. Turkey noted its rules of engagement were in place and there would be no hesitation to implement them if a violation occurred.
The area where Russian operations were being conducted was free of Islamic State and other terrorist groups and civilian Turkmen were being harmed.
When your military shoots at people, they are allowed shoot back. This is not a war crime.
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
What a mess this civil war has turned into. The us sent a drone to help search for the Russian airmen. Reports are the the pilots are alive and being held by the Syrian Rebels according to our news.
The pilots being dead, and killed in the way they were by people getting Turkish support, undermines Turkey's attempt to paint blame on Russia. So they're gonna do exactly what they do with most of their embarrassing blunders (Armenian Genocide); pretend it totally didn't happen and everything is just hunky dory
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
It depends. Generally, a war crime is committed by a conventional military against a third party. That's why people aren't regarding what happened in Paris as a 'war crime' but a terrorist attack.
When a state military has been lobbing explosives into your back yard for a few weeks, and killed half a dozen neighbours, is it a war crime to gun down members of aforementioned military? One one hand, they're defenceless. On the other, they're uniformed members of a military that's doing it's best to kill you when you have done nothing to it, that you have little way at striking back at.
I'm aware this would qualify for any British pilots shot down in Iraq right now and captured by ISIS, and I am not saying that it is morally right or correct. But I am also aware that this is a moral gray area, and labelling it a 'war crime' seems extreme.
The pilots being dead, and killed in the way they were by people getting Turkish support, undermines Turkey's attempt to paint blame on Russia. So they're gonna do exactly what they do with most of their embarrassing blunders (Armenian Genocide); pretend it totally didn't happen and everything is just hunky dory
Chute82 wrote: What a mess this civil war has turned into. The us sent a drone to help search for the Russian airmen. Reports are the the pilots are alive and being held by the Syrian Rebels according to our news.
Oh really?
Well wouldn't this be an interesting twist. The first mention of it in thread is from the Guardian. Where did the original report that they were dead come from?
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
It depends. Generally, a war crime is committed by a conventional military against a third party. That's why people aren't regarding what happened in Paris as a 'war crime' but a terrorist attack.
When a state military has been lobbing explosives into your back yard for a few weeks, and killed half a dozen neighbours, is it a war crime to gun down members of aforementioned military? One one hand, they're defenceless. On the other, they're uniformed members of a military that's doing it's best to kill you when you have done nothing to it, that you have little way at striking back at.
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
It depends. Generally, a war crime is committed by a conventional military against a third party. That's why people aren't regarding what happened in Paris as a 'war crime' but a terrorist attack.
When a state military has been lobbing explosives into your back yard for a few weeks, and killed half a dozen neighbours, is it a war crime to gun down members of aforementioned military? One one hand, they're defenceless. On the other, they're uniformed members of a military that's doing it's best to kill you when you have done nothing to it, that you have little way at striking back at.
This is very true.
I'm aware this would qualify for any British pilots shot down in Iraq right now and captured by ISIS, and I am not saying that it is morally right or correct. But I am also aware that this is a moral gray area, and labelling it a 'war crime' seems extreme.
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
It depends. Generally, a war crime is committed by a conventional military against a third party. That's why people aren't regarding what happened in Paris as a 'war crime' but a terrorist attack.
When a state military has been lobbing explosives into your back yard for a few weeks, and killed half a dozen neighbours, is it a war crime to gun down members of aforementioned military? One one hand, they're defenceless. On the other, they're uniformed members of a military that's doing it's best to kill you when you have done nothing to it, that you have little way at striking back at.
This is very true.
I'm aware this would qualify for any British pilots shot down in Iraq right now and captured by ISIS, and I am not saying that it is morally right or correct. But I am also aware that this is a moral gray area, and labelling it a 'war crime' seems extreme.
The discomfort I think is coming from knowing we are probably the ones who gave them the guns to kill the pilots, if they are indeed dead.
Looking through the net, there conflicting reports seem to originate from several different rebel groups claiming to have killed the pilots, several others claiming to have captured them alive, and some that one pilot is dead and one alive. There are also reports that the Turkish military is negotiating with the rebels for the pilots to be handed over.
I don't know if people are saying what Turkey did was a war crime I meant the killing of the pilots coming down by parachute is.
It depends. Generally, a war crime is committed by a conventional military against a third party. That's why people aren't regarding what happened in Paris as a 'war crime' but a terrorist attack.
When a state military has been lobbing explosives into your back yard for a few weeks, and killed half a dozen neighbours, is it a war crime to gun down members of aforementioned military? One one hand, they're defenceless. On the other, they're uniformed members of a military that's doing it's best to kill you when you have done nothing to it, that you have little way at striking back at.
I'm aware this would qualify for any British pilots shot down in Iraq right now and captured by ISIS, and I am not saying that it is morally right or correct. But I am also aware that this is a moral gray area, and labelling it a 'war crime' seems extreme.
The labelling of it as a war crime may be accurate though. Whilst untested through the jurisprudence of the ICC this is classic war crime territory where allegedly unarmed and possibly injured personnel have been killed. It does not seem too much of a stretch to refer to this as a war crime as it fits the criterion we generally use. The morality is entirely separate to the law but the law seems to support the labelling of the behaviour as a potential war crime.
The pilots being dead, and killed in the way they were by people getting Turkish support, undermines Turkey's attempt to paint blame on Russia. So they're gonna do exactly what they do with most of their embarrassing blunders (Armenian Genocide); pretend it totally didn't happen and everything is just hunky dory
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is?
Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
Just because it also happened in wars the US was in, doesn't mean it isn't terrible and that it shouldn't happen.
As for why they are terrorists? I don't know, maybe because they use live humans as meat shields?
Why are you saying people that committed a war crime deserve to get a medal? Is it supposed to be funny? You're terribly failing at it, if so.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
The best I can tell the original report is from CNN Turk (on the status of the pilots). CNN Turk reported that one pilot is dead, and one has been captured. All the oldest reports I can find report one dead and the second missing/captured.
Apparently there was some other Turkmen group (not the one in the original CNN Turk Report), that claimed to have shot and killed the pilots as they were coming down. Possibly responsible for the death of the one already reportedly dead pilot.
Turkey is claiming both pilots are alive and that it is negotiating their release. I am skeptical.
LordofHats wrote: The best I can tell the original report is from CNN Turk (on the status of the pilots). CNN Turk reported that one pilot is dead, and one has been captured. All the oldest reports I can find report one dead and the second missing/captured.
Apparently there was some other Turkmen group (not the one in the original CNN Turk Report), that claimed to have shot and killed the pilots as they were coming down. Possibly responsible for the death of the one already reportedly dead pilot.
Turkey is claiming both pilots are alive and that it is negotiating their release. I am skeptical.
One of them might be alive, but the other is most definitely dead.
They were both shot in the air according to Russia Today.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
The video would actually seem to lend weight to one of the pilots maybe still being alive. The men were saying they should have burned him, but they obviously weren't in the video. This guy could still be out there in (mostly) one piece?
Probably have better details later in the day. I suspect though that if dead, how they died will likely become quickly irrelevant. All anyone will care about is "you were in my air space!" and "no I wasn't!" The truth won't really matter anymore (to Russians and Turks that is). It already seems like the realities of the Syrian Civil War don't matter to either side. They're just making up whatever facts justify their aims.
d-usa wrote: Aren't pilots usually armed with a handgun in case they have to eject in enemy territory? Or is this movie fiction?
If they are armed then seem to be fair game for shooing up until the point that they surrender.
US pilots are armed. Having said that, as I mentioned above, my recollection is ejected air crew are no longer combatants (at least while under canopy on the way down). Once they attempt to E&E instead of surrendering I guess they become combatants again.
The labelling of it as a war crime may be accurate though. Whilst untested through the jurisprudence of the ICC this is classic war crime territory where allegedly unarmed and possibly injured personnel have been killed. It does not seem too much of a stretch to refer to this as a war crime as it fits the criterion we generally use. The morality is entirely separate to the law but the law seems to support the labelling of the behaviour as a potential war crime.
Can a 'war' crime be committed by an armed civilian though? Because that's essentially what these militias are made up of. If I'm parachuting onto Frazzled's back yard, and he shoots me for trespassing, is that a war crime? What's more, If my boss fired a missile that killed five of his neighbours the week before, is it still a war crime? What if Frazzled and his neighbours are collaboratively watching out for people like me who keep killing people? Ultimately, can an armed civilian be expected to adhere to the law of war, and held to the same standards as a conventional state military? And how organised/well armed does a group of civilians have to be before they constitute an equivalent to a state military?
A think an important third point not yet raised here is the act the Russian pilots were engaged in. They were engaged in firing munitions against civilian targets (hence the reason for them being there to get shot down in the first place). Why is it not a war crime when they fire a missile that blows up a house and kills five people, but when their aircraft is destroyed and they bail and get shot by their targets, the populace they were firing at are guilty of war crimes?
I mean, let's be frank here, if it's just a case of firing on defenceless targets(i.e. that cannot fire/fight back) that makes it a war crime, doesn't that make every Russian air strike so far a war crime?
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is?
Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
Just because it also happened in wars the US was in, doesn't mean it isn't terrible and that it shouldn't happen.
As for why they are terrorists? I don't know, maybe because they use live humans as meat shields?
Why are you saying people that committed a war crime deserve to get a medal? Is it supposed to be funny? You're terribly failing at it, if so.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
I have to say I'm on your side in this. If that pilot is alive and they torture him to death by burning or any other form of atrocity. I would hope Russia goes in and wrecks some serious ass.
Orlanth wrote: Summarily executing prisoners is a war crime.
I am expecting a heavy punitive air raid on the Turkmen.
There's no Russia-Turkey war.
on any Turkish backed rebels in syria then, there a target. and in syria, Turkey cannot protect them.
If Turkmen kill downed Russian pilots and shoot a Russian helicopter I can see Russia attacking them. They just need to be sure to fly close to but not over the Turkish border, hit a militiary target with a lot of pro-Turkish fighters in it and Turkey will get the message.
Russia has some very heavy ordnance and heavy bombers to carry it. The Tu-160 can carry two 20ton bomb loads, which is possibly enough for large scale thermobaric weapons, though volume rather than mass may be a deciding factor on deployment.
Turkey is rather fond of its Turkmen militias, dropping a FOAB on a camp full of them will let Turkey know the gloves are off.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is?
Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
Just because it also happened in wars the US was in, doesn't mean it isn't terrible and that it shouldn't happen.
As for why they are terrorists? I don't know, maybe because they use live humans as meat shields?
Why are you saying people that committed a war crime deserve to get a medal? Is it supposed to be funny? You're terribly failing at it, if so.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
I have to say I'm on your side in this. If that pilot is alive and they torture him to death by burning or any other form of atrocity. I would hope Russia goes in and wrecks some serious ass.
Orlanth wrote: Summarily executing prisoners is a war crime.
I am expecting a heavy punitive air raid on the Turkmen.
There's no Russia-Turkey war.
on any Turkish backed rebels in syria then, there a target. and in syria, Turkey cannot protect them.
If Turkmen kill downed Russian pilots and shoot a Russian helicopter I can see Russia attacking them. They just need to be sure to fly close to but not over the Turkish border, hit a militiary target with a lot of pro-Turkish fighters in it and Turkey will get the message.
Russia has some very heavy ordnance and heavy bombers to carry it. The Tu-160 can carry two 20ton bomb loads, which is possibly enough for large scale thermobaric weapons, though volume rather than mass may be a deciding factor on deployment.
Turkey is rather fond of its Turkmen militias, dropping a FOAB on a camp full of them will let Turkey know the gloves are off.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is?
Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
Just because it also happened in wars the US was in, doesn't mean it isn't terrible and that it shouldn't happen.
As for why they are terrorists? I don't know, maybe because they use live humans as meat shields?
Why are you saying people that committed a war crime deserve to get a medal? Is it supposed to be funny? You're terribly failing at it, if so.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
I have to say I'm on your side in this. If that pilot is alive and they torture him to death by burning or any other form of atrocity. I would hope Russia goes in and wrecks some serious ass.
Orlanth wrote: Summarily executing prisoners is a war crime.
I am expecting a heavy punitive air raid on the Turkmen.
There's no Russia-Turkey war.
on any Turkish backed rebels in syria then, there a target. and in syria, Turkey cannot protect them.
If Turkmen kill downed Russian pilots and shoot a Russian helicopter I can see Russia attacking them. They just need to be sure to fly close to but not over the Turkish border, hit a militiary target with a lot of pro-Turkish fighters in it and Turkey will get the message.
Russia has some very heavy ordnance and heavy bombers to carry it. The Tu-160 can carry two 20ton bomb loads, which is possibly enough for large scale thermobaric weapons, though volume rather than mass may be a deciding factor on deployment.
Turkey is rather fond of its Turkmen militias, dropping a FOAB on a camp full of them will let Turkey know the gloves are off.
Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.
A tu160 would be under a solid escort, there rare in Russian Arsenal, be very pissed to lose a swan.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you speechless? Thats how war works. They try to kill you if they can.
Ask yourself if you would be saying this if it was an American helicopter trying to recover the bodies of American pilots that had just been shot by terrorists.
You mean like in Vietnam? Like Korea? Like Afghanistan? Again, what do you think war is?
Why are they terrorists? They are fighting against a dictator. Your dictator just happens to like their dictator.
I don't like the idea that UK is funding people who would do this. I hope the western countries involved will think about what has happened and sort them out.
Indeed, we need to pass out medals at once. Shooting down a helicopter with an antitank missile takes skill.
Just because it also happened in wars the US was in, doesn't mean it isn't terrible and that it shouldn't happen.
As for why they are terrorists? I don't know, maybe because they use live humans as meat shields?
Why are you saying people that committed a war crime deserve to get a medal? Is it supposed to be funny? You're terribly failing at it, if so.
The pilots are most likely dead - at least one of them is, as confirmed by the video that's been circulating in which the terrorists reportedly regret that they hadn’t burned him on the spot.
I have to say I'm on your side in this. If that pilot is alive and they torture him to death by burning or any other form of atrocity. I would hope Russia goes in and wrecks some serious ass.
Orlanth wrote: Summarily executing prisoners is a war crime.
I am expecting a heavy punitive air raid on the Turkmen.
There's no Russia-Turkey war.
on any Turkish backed rebels in syria then, there a target. and in syria, Turkey cannot protect them.
If Turkmen kill downed Russian pilots and shoot a Russian helicopter I can see Russia attacking them. They just need to be sure to fly close to but not over the Turkish border, hit a militiary target with a lot of pro-Turkish fighters in it and Turkey will get the message.
Russia has some very heavy ordnance and heavy bombers to carry it. The Tu-160 can carry two 20ton bomb loads, which is possibly enough for large scale thermobaric weapons, though volume rather than mass may be a deciding factor on deployment.
Turkey is rather fond of its Turkmen militias, dropping a FOAB on a camp full of them will let Turkey know the gloves are off.
Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.
And Russia starts shooting down any Turkish plane over Syria.
Can a 'war' crime be committed by an armed civilian though? Because that's essentially what these militias are made up of...... Ultimately, can an armed civilian be expected to adhere to the law of war, and held to the same standards as a conventional state military? And how organised/well armed does a group of civilians have to be before they constitute an equivalent to a state military?
A think an important third point not yet raised here is the act the Russian pilots were engaged in. They were engaged in firing munitions against civilian targets .... Why is it not a war crime when they fire a missile that blows up a house and kills five people, but when their aircraft is destroyed and they bail and get shot by their targets, the populace they were firing at are guilty of war crimes?
I mean, let's be frank here, if it's just a case of firing on defenceless targets(i.e. that cannot fire/fight back) that makes it a war crime, doesn't that make every Russian air strike so far a war crime?
To quote from the ICRC Guidelines on war crimes:
"(ii) Perpetrators. Practice in the form of legislation, military manuals and case-law shows that war crimes are violations committed either by members of the armed forces or by civilians against members of the armed forces, civilians or protected objects of the adverse party.[28] National legislation typically does not limit the commission of war crimes to members of the armed forces, but rather indicates the acts that are criminal when committed by any person.[29] Several military manuals contain the same approach.[30] A number of military manuals, as well as some legislation, expressly include the term “civilians” among the persons that can commit war crimes.[31] "
If you want to read more then I can give you the link. Basically there are a certain set of agreed legal norms that are classified legally as war crimes, for example rape, genocide, which are agreed through conventions, treaties and through the case law of the ICC and equivalents to have codified what a war crime is. Russia's actions are legal under their laws of engagement and are targeted at irregular military forces and are not war crimes. They have no relevant provision under international law stating they are war crimes ergo they are not war crimes. The action of shooting at pilots on parachutes is arguably a war crime.
The problem you are having is divorcing morality and your political perspective from the law. You might not like Russian airstrikes, and think they are wrong, but they are not war crimes. I don't like the government taxing me and taking my money but it is not theft, it is legal, and therefore cannot be described as a crime. I hope that has clarified the legal approach somewhat.
If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.
I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.
To quote from the ICRC Guidelines on war crimes:
"(ii) Perpetrators. Practice in the form of legislation, military manuals and case-law shows that war crimes are violations committed either by members of the armed forces or by civilians against members of the armed forces, civilians or protected objects of the adverse party.[28] National legislation typically does not limit the commission of war crimes to members of the armed forces, but rather indicates the acts that are criminal when committed by any person.[29] Several military manuals contain the same approach.[30] A number of military manuals, as well as some legislation, expressly include the term “civilians” among the persons that can commit war crimes.[31] "
If you want to read more then I can give you the link. Basically there are a certain set of agreed legal norms that are classified legally as war crimes, for example rape, genocide, which are agreed through conventions, treaties and through the case law of the ICC and equivalents to have codified what a war crime is. Russia's actions are legal under their laws of engagement and are targeted at irregular military forces and are not war crimes. They have no relevant provision under international law stating they are war crimes ergo they are not war crimes. The action of shooting at pilots on parachutes is arguably a war crime.
The problem you are having is divorcing morality and your political perspective from the law. You might not like Russian airstrikes, and think they are wrong, but they are not war crimes. I don't like the government taxing me and taking my money but it is not theft, it is legal, and therefore cannot be described as a crime. I hope that has clarified the legal approach somewhat.
Sorry, but I'm going to pick a few holes in what you've just posted. Primarily along the lines that
a) Your own post admits that the definition of a 'war crime' can vary according to the military and legal system used. Might makes right when it comes to enforcing 'war crimes' in foreign locations,
b) the agreed norms are agreed between governments, and any irregular/civilian force cannot be automatically considered to have signed up to/agreed to enforce and be judged by random international laws, and
c) if Russia can declare that their laws of engagement permit them to fire on defenceless targets, those selfsame targets can declare that their law of engagement permits them to do the same thing (because as an irregular armed civilian group in a geographic location with no government present, they can be considered the de facto government).
EDIT:- Unsurprisingly, I just examined the definitions of war crimes under the Rome Statute the ICC draws on. I'm reasonably sure that random Russian missile/air strikes could be argued to breach some of the following:-
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
Frazzled wrote: Why are you assuming there are Turkish planes over Syria?
They've been flying sorties into Syria since this summer and in September officially joined the Anti-DaIsh coalition and has increased sortie rate a tiny bit.
If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.
I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.
Turkey, generating sorties from Turkey won't be outmatched by anything the Russians have in theater, the Russians are not able to support an air to air campaign with what they have in Syria and can't project 'front line' squadrons from Russia very easily. They would need to forward base them.
A think an important third point not yet raised here is the act the Russian pilots were engaged in. They were engaged in firing munitions against civilian targets (hence the reason for them being there to get shot down in the first place). Why is it not a war crime when they fire a missile that blows up a house and kills five people, but when their aircraft is destroyed and they bail and get shot by their targets, the populace they were firing at are guilty of war crimes?
This needs sourcing, there will be civilians in the area, there almost always are, and a level of collateral is acceptable; but you need to prove the Russians were purposefully not-targeting military targets.
There are plenty of military targets in the region, the Turkmen are heavily armed and have large scale deployments.
they are not ISIS but they are also anti-Assad which makes them a legit target in Russia's eyes. Turkey doesn't want these rebels shot at because they are pro Turkish rebels. Hence taking the excuse to shoot at the Russian bomber.
I mean, let's be frank here, if it's just a case of firing on defenceless targets(i.e. that cannot fire/fight back) that makes it a war crime, doesn't that make every Russian air strike so far a war crime?
That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.
That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.
Precisely the point.
In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.
The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.
If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.
I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.
Maybe.
Alternatively...
Would you like to play a game? How about global thermonuclear war?
If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.
I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.
Turkey, generating sorties from Turkey won't be outmatched by anything the Russians have in theater, the Russians are not able to support an air to air campaign with what they have in Syria and can't project 'front line' squadrons from Russia very easily. They would need to forward base them.
For the Russians as with the Soviets front line units doesnt mean anything geographic, it means those units equipped with cutting edge equipment. The Russians (and Soviets) used a three tier armed forces, a large enough force of premium hardware, a second line of obsolescent but usable equipment to be deployed en masse, and a third line of obsolete equipment placed in laagers behind lines, to be mobilised to replace casualties and keep up superior numbers. The third line forces were optioned out, and a lot also disappeared into the international arms trade, same with a lot of the second line equipment, but Russia did contain a lot of that. Front line equipment includes important pieces kept over a long period, such as the Tu-160 fleet and up to date recent build assets. As the T-50 and Mig-35 are'nt ready yet AFAIK the 'front line' fighter are the Mig-29K and Su-35.
The Turks will have to think carefully before attacking assets like those.
If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.
I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.
Maybe.
Alternatively...
Would you like to play a game? How about global thermonuclear war?
Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.
The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.
That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.
Precisely the point.
In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.
The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.
Shooting at the Russian aircraft is not a war crime, its an international incident to which Russia may well respond, but not a war crime. Medevac aircraft are an exception, and only if they are unarmed. However shooting captured Russian pilots is a war crime as prisoners have right of protection under the Geneva conventions Though for ISIS and a lot of Syrian rebels the articles regarding POWs are ignored.
CptJake wrote: Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.
The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.
Plus that whole - hard to force project when all your assets are slags of now radioactive material.
Turkey is a NATO country. There is no Russia/Turkey air war. There could however be an escalated Russia / US nuke war.
That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.
Precisely the point.
In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.
The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.
Shooting at the Russian aircraft is not a war crime, its an international incident to which Russia may well respond, but not a war crime. Medevac aircraft are an exception, and only if they are unarmed. However shooting captured Russian pilots is a war crime as prisoners have right of protection under the Geneva conventions Though for ISIS and a lot of Syrian rebels the articles regarding POWs are ignored.
They never signed the Geneva convention, and the pilots never surrendered to them. So wrong on both accounts, I'm afraid.
thenoobbomb wrote: Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?
In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.
Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.
Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.
You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.
thenoobbomb wrote: Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?
In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.
Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.
obsidianaura wrote: They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.
This isn't how war works.
During the Battle of Britain, RAF attacked downed German pilots and their rescue boats and seaplanes in the channel.
It's not something I am proud of. It shows how even liberal democracies with the rule of law will behave when there is an existential threat.
Of course, the situation with rebel guerillas in Syria is very different. They should have captured them and bargained them for some concessions. but, probably no fire discipline, just being a gang of wild men with guns.
I think it's a shame and would be happier if the pilots could have been saved.
Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.
You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.
thenoobbomb wrote: Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?
In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.
Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.
War itself is a crime.
War is brutal, but you don,t have to turn into savage barbarians of the darkest kind
thenoobbomb wrote: Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?
In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.
Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.
Also, Russia will deploy a missile cruiser to the area with orders to shoot down everything posing a threat to Russian personnel, and every raid will now be escorted by fighter planes. Any military cooperation and contacts with Turkey have been broken. https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.
Who allows or disallows?
There isn't a legal category of unlawful combatant defined by international law. Ordinary civilians are specifically allowed by the laws of war to take up arms to defend their country, and are to be treated the same way as regular soldiers.
Unlawful combatant was invented by Bush to allow him to lock people up without trial.
Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.
This isn't how war works. The Geneva conventions are there, but do you seriously think that people on a battlefield care? If an armed tango is hit, there's a pretty good chance that he's still able to fire hins gun right at your face. Even when lying on the ground. So? You double-check. And noone will ever care - because that's war. Your life is worth more than your enemy's life. Your squad's lives matter more. Pretty much everyone and everything matters more. Split-second decisions decide on life or death on a battlefield and if you roam around strictly following the Geneva conventions, you will die. Soon. Especially against enemies that have zero respect for their own life. Shoot to kill. Always. Not a stance people like or even accept, not a stance you can publicly take. Why do you think governments hire mercenaries? Guess who has to do the gakky jobs.
War is dirty, far beyond any imagination. Soldiers die, civilians die, children die. That's war.
Just saw a video on Channel 4 News in the Uk of what were proported to be rebels shooting a grounded but running Russian Helicopter with a Milan AT missile.
Some irony about it being a French Missile system if you're so inclined.
Sigvatr wrote: The Geneva conventions are there, but do you seriously think that people on a battlefield care?
I know for a fact that some do. On the other hand I would be surprised if some militiamen on the borders of Syria have even heard of the Geneva convention.
Then again shooting down an airliner with Buk missile also counts as a warcrime.
notprop wrote: Just saw a video on Channel 4 News in the Uk of what were proported to be rebels shooting a grounded but running Russian Helicopter with a Milan AT missile.
Some irony about it being a French Missile system if you're so inclined.
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all./[/url]
Your statement is full of contradictions, I fear. Firstly, you state that they are committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention, but then state that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them as 'unlawful combatants'. You then state that 'unlawful combatants' are not allowed to shoot at anything at all, which means that since they are (shooting at things), they must be definition be 'lawful combatants'.
The Geneva Conventions are a very nice thing when enacted and enforced between two consenting parties/nations, but there is no 'Law of the World' that dictates in detail what is and is not a war crime, and enforces itself upon the inhabitants of the globe, whether they've heard of it or not. The truth is that throwing around terms like 'war crimes' because some militia got lucky enough to shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile is just missing the point.
The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.
You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.
You ought to rethink that. We hit them by any means because they hit us. Is that what you are saying? Even if it involves Geneva convention breaches?
If we take your logic to its own conclusion:
You just justified Al-Quaeda, You just justified (by your own standards) 9/11, which was a retaliation for prior bombings and anti-Islamic activities of the US state.
Is this really how you see this? Retaliation by any means is not of itself a justification, a response has to be measured within the bounds of international law.
Law is made up by the victors. We napalm people we don't like and that get excited when they set pilots on fire. Who is the criminal, the baby burner or the pilot burner? Both are worse.
There is no justice. Just Us.
On the flipside, Turkey is a bad actor as well. So Bombs away!
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all./[/url]
Your statement is full of contradictions, I fear. Firstly, you state that they are committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention, but then state that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them as 'unlawful combatants'. You then state that 'unlawful combatants' are not allowed to shoot at anything at all, which means that since they are (shooting at things), they must be definition be 'lawful combatants'.
The Geneva Conventions are a very nice thing when enacted and enforced between two consenting parties/nations, but there is no 'Law of the World' that dictates in detail what is and is not a war crime, and enforces itself upon the inhabitants of the globe, whether they've heard of it or not. The truth is that throwing around terms like 'war crimes' because some militia got lucky enough to shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile is just missing the point.
The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.
Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime. Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.
There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council. And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot horsde combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.
There is no moral high ground, to that I agree, but there is a legal high ground, which is what matters when determining war crimes. It is the law, not the morality, that matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: WTF Turkey? 17 seconds? Apparently the plane was just flying over a tiny 2 km stretch of Turkey that protrudes into Syria. If all such airspace violations were responded to like that, aircraft would be shot down every day...
Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's ‘air space violation’ lasted 17 seconds
Even if two Russians jets did indeed violate Turkish airspace (which Moscow denies), the intrusion would have lasted for just 17 seconds before one of the Su-24s was shot down, a leaked Turkish letter to the UN revealed.
Two Su-24 planes approached Turkish airspace on Tuesday morning, a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UN Security Council said.
The Russian planes are described in a document, published by WikiLeaks and Al Jazeera, as aircraft “the nationality of which is unknown.”
The letter allegedly from Turkish UN Ambassador Halit Cevik reiterates Ankara’s claim that the two planes were “warned 10 times during a period of five minutes via ‘emergency’ channels” to change direction.
“Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time,” the leaked document said.
One of the planes then left the Turkish airspace, while “plane two was fired at while in Turkish airspace by Turkish F-16s,” Cevik allegedly wrote.
This provided ground for Turkish forces to attack the Russian warplanes in accordance with the new rules of military engagement adopted in 2012 over the deterioration of the situation in Syria.
“Following the violation, plane one left Turkish national airspace. Plane two was fired at while in Turkish airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air combat patrolling in that area,” the leaked letter said. “Plane two crashed onto the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border.”
Russia denies these claims, saying its plane was downed in Syrian airspace, where Russia is conducting an air operation against Islamic State and other terrorists.
Russia’s General Staff said that airfield radar at the Hmeymim base showed that it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber.
Vladimir Putin called Ankara’s actions “a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists,” adding that the incident will have “severe consequences” for relations between Russia and Turkey.
There are conflicting reports on the fate of the two pilots from the downed Su-24 warplane.
The Turkmen militia, fighting the Syrian government in the area, claimed to have killed both pilots as they were parachuting from their jet after it was hit.
The Free Syrian Army affiliate, the 10th Brigade in the Coast also said that it is in possession of the corpse of one of the Russian pilots and is searching for another one.
The General Staff said that, according to preliminary data, one of the Su-24 pilots died after being fired at from the ground, while a rescue operation for his partner is underway.
However, Reuters cited a Turkish government official, who said that both pilots are alive and Ankara is working to retrieve them from the rebels.
CptJake wrote: Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.
The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.
Plus that whole - hard to force project when all your assets are slags of now radioactive material.
Turkey is a NATO country. There is no Russia/Turkey air war. There could however be an escalated Russia / US nuke war.
Not necessarily, Russia could shot down all the Turkish planes over Syria and NATO would do nothing about it as NATO only protects against attacks on the members' territories.
To quote from the ICRC Guidelines on war crimes:
"(ii) Perpetrators. Practice in the form of legislation, military manuals and case-law shows that war crimes are violations committed either by members of the armed forces or by civilians against members of the armed forces, civilians or protected objects of the adverse party.[28] National legislation typically does not limit the commission of war crimes to members of the armed forces, but rather indicates the acts that are criminal when committed by any person.[29] Several military manuals contain the same approach.[30] A number of military manuals, as well as some legislation, expressly include the term “civilians” among the persons that can commit war crimes.[31] "
Sorry, but I'm going to pick a few holes in what you've just posted. Primarily along the lines that
a) Your own post admits that the definition of a 'war crime' can vary according to the military and legal system used. Might makes right when it comes to enforcing 'war crimes' in foreign locations,
b) the agreed norms are agreed between governments, and any irregular/civilian force cannot be automatically considered to have signed up to/agreed to enforce and be judged by random international laws, and
c) if Russia can declare that their laws of engagement permit them to fire on defenceless targets, those selfsame targets can declare that their law of engagement permits them to do the same thing (because as an irregular armed civilian group in a geographic location with no government present, they can be considered the de facto government).
You then go on to assert the Rome statute supports your position vis a vis Russian airstrikes
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
Firstly none of the quoted position justifies your position. You, or any prosecutor cannot demonstrate or even deductively or abductively reason that Russian airstrikes are targeted at civilians. This is a wild assertion and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny, and certainly would not be upheld in the ICC, widely recognised as the leading authority on war crimes.
Secondly onto your rebuttal
a) My post admits that rules of engagement are situational. This is a statement of fact and it is a misrepresentation of my argument to state that the definition of "war crime" is a contextual one. The enforcement of war crimes whether that is a meaningful statement is done through the ICC and is international and outside of any nation states control. Any determination of war crimes can be made externally and with a degree of legal objectivity. Rules of engagement are evidential not legally binding for the ICC.
b) Irregular forces and there commanders fall under the authority of the ICC, see the case law and the list of indicted persons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court Many of these people had no connection to regular armed forces at the time their alleged crimes took place. Irregular forces operating in a situation where war crimes are alleged to have been committed are as much under the jurisdiction of the ICC as regular forces.
c) Rules of engagement here do not determine what is legal under international law. They merely determine what the accepted practice is amongst the members of a particular system. You cannot oust the jurisdiction of the ICC through these memoranda. Furthermore your reasoning here is confusing. Are you arguing that for the presence of establishing legal authority we can treat rebels as governments but that individual rebels can act with impunity as they are not agents of any lawful authority and therefore not military persons? Regardless of this the issue of RoE is irrelevant as the body trying them would be the ICC not their domestic courts.
Again your anti-Russian bias is making you conflate several issues and to deny the independance and the jurisdiction of the ICC.
You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.
Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime.
Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.
So just to clarify here. You believe if a civilian kills a soldier, it's a crime, but not a war crime. If a soldier kills a soldier, it's legal. But if someone 'actively takes part in a conflict', he's now a 'unlawful combatant' and when he kills a soldier without following the Geneva Convention it's a 'war crime'? By that logic, there must be literally millions of 'war criminals' out there, from people who were alive in WW2, through to every member of every even slightly revolutionary movement across South America, Africa, and the Middle-East.
And when you stretch a term out that far, it ceases to have any real meaning or purposet. Which is, I suppose, my point. I think everyone would agree that a group of soldiers executing civilians in a field is a war crime, as is a revolutionary movement rounding two hundred hostages they've taken prisoner and chopping off their heads. Taking potshots at a pilot who's just bailed out an aircraft engaged on attack runs/surveillance runs for later attack runs? Not so much.
There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council.
The UN can whistle laws up until the cows come home, they're essentially a group of bureaucrats sitting in a room. They're unelected, and have no jurisdiction over people who have no representation there (the Syrian Government could no longer be said to represent Syria), and what's more, their ability to enforce laws is completely dependent upon member states choosing to do so. In a situation between what you would dub 'lawful combatants', namely, conventional militaries and nation-states they can meddle to their hearts content.
The fact remains though, that UN law in no more applies to the situation in Syria right now any more than it does uncontacted Indian tribes in Peru.
And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot horsde combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.
Says who? You seem really hung up on what people are 'allowed' and 'not allowed' to do, as if the Geneva Convention was more than just an agreement between conventional powers that somehow binds every man and woman on this planet under a moral and legal harness. People do what they're going to do, and not everything fits into nice neat legal classifications, and there's no world Government that determines the law for all of us.
It was a group of people who've been getting by airstrikes. They saw one of the planes that's been delivering those strikes getting shot down, and, most likely high on the fact that they could finally do something to hit some of the people who've been lobbing explosives into their houses, took some potshots on him as he was descending. Let's not make more of this than it is. If this is a war crime, then frankly, the term ceases to have any meaning or relevance.
Firstly none of the quoted position justifies your position. You, or any prosecutor cannot demonstrate or even deductively or abductively reason that Russian airstrikes are targeted at civilians. This is a wild assertion and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny, and certainly would not be upheld in the ICC, widely recognised as the leading authority on war crimes.
I would be very interested to hear how you would separate 'civilian' from 'civilian with a gun', 'civilian with a gun who hates Assad and keeps an eye on the neighbourhood to take pot shots at any Government troops', 'civilian with a gun who is an islamic extremist and out to promote ISIS', 'civilian with a gun who will take potshots at both ISIS and Government troops', 'civilian with a gun who is willing to travel to fight ISIS', 'deserter with a gun who bands together with a mixture of the above to keep Assad out because he knows he'll be shot if Assad comes back into power', and so forth(I could keep going for a while), and point out which ones are 'civilians' and which ones are these mysterious 'unlawful combatants'.
The truth is, the line between 'civilian' and 'combatant' is a heavily fluid one, and airstrikes from anyone rarely make distinctions. I daresay the Russian airstrikes have hit practically everyone on that list above and more. But which ones are civilians? Nobody cares. It's a guy with a gun, possibly hanging out with lots of guys with guns, and that alone is enough in most people's minds to tag them 'non-civilian'. As you've just clearly demonstrated. Individual motivations are irrelevant and removed by the desire to group and homogenise people into easy categories.
So not, not so much wild assertion that Russia is hitting civilians as a recognition of the fact that the people who make up the casualty lists have personal individual motivations and lives beyond the bite sized overly simplistic labels of 'civilian' and 'unlawful combatant'. And demonstrating that 'Because these guys have guns they're not civilians' when the air strikes hit is just sloppy thinking.
a) My post admits that rules of engagement are situational. This is a statement of fact and it is a misrepresentation of my argument to state that the definition of "war crime" is a contextual one. The enforcement of war crimes whether that is a meaningful statement is done through the ICC and is international and outside of any nation states control. Any determination of war crimes can be made externally and with a degree of legal objectivity. Rules of engagement are evidential not legally binding for the ICC.
b) Irregular forces and there commanders fall under the authority of the ICC, see the case law and the list of indicted persons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court Many of these people had no connection to regular armed forces at the time their alleged crimes took place. Irregular forces operating in a situation where war crimes are alleged to have been committed are as much under the jurisdiction of the ICC as regular forces.
c) Rules of engagement here do not determine what is legal under international law. They merely determine what the accepted practice is amongst the members of a particular system. You cannot oust the jurisdiction of the ICC through these memoranda. Furthermore your reasoning here is confusing. Are you arguing that for the presence of establishing legal authority we can treat rebels as governments but that individual rebels can act with impunity as they are not agents of any lawful authority and therefore not military persons? Regardless of this the issue of RoE is irrelevant as the body trying them would be the ICC not their domestic courts.
I'll repeat what I just said in another format. The ICC claims it has world jurisdiction. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by the fact that many people who commit atrocities go untouched. The ICC's actual jurisdiction stretches as far as it's constituent supporters are willing to support it for. In much the same way as any lawmaking body. Me and three of my mates can claim jurisdiction over scorpion farms in Australia, but it doesn't mean much if the Australian Government isn't willing to go collect the scorpion taxes for us, and lock up the people we judge guilty, eh wot?
As far as I can see, you could argue that them shooting down the parachutist is a war crime. But then again, you could argue practically any offensive military action a war crime given a sufficiently good lawyer. In this context? Even if you won, you'd effectively remove the meaning from the phrase 'war crime' and turn it into such a general label as to be meaningless in the context of conflict studies.
Again your anti-Russian bias is making you conflate several issues and to deny the independance and the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Oh dear. I recommend rebooting your 'Motivations of Internet Strangers' psychic reader, it's clearly on the blink.
You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.
Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime.
Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.
So just to clarify here. You believe if a civilian kills a soldier, it's a crime, but not a war crime. If a soldier kills a soldier, it's legal. But if someone 'actively takes part in a conflict', he's now a 'unlawful combatant' and when he kills a soldier without following the Geneva Convention it's a 'war crime'? By that logic, there must be literally millions of 'war criminals' out there, from people who were alive in WW2, through to every member of every even slightly revolutionary movement across South America, Africa, and the Middle-East.
No, it would not be a war crime. You know full well that I did not say that. A war crime is a war crime, shooting a soldier (if you are not a lawful combatant in a combat situation) is a "normal" crime and is persecuted under regular national laws.
And when you stretch a term out that far, it ceases to have any real meaning or purposet. Which is, I suppose, my point. I think everyone would agree that a group of soldiers executing civilians in a field is a war crime, as is a revolutionary movement rounding two hundred hostages they've taken prisoner and chopping off their heads. Taking potshots at a pilot who's just bailed out an aircraft engaged on attack runs/surveillance runs for later attack runs? Not so much.
You are wrong. Again, Protocol I of the Geneva Convention defines shooting a bailed out pilot as a war crime.
There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council.
The UN can whistle laws up until the cows come home, they're essentially a group of bureaucrats sitting in a room. They're unelected, and have no jurisdiction over people who have no representation there (the Syrian Government could no longer be said to represent Syria), and what's more, their ability to enforce laws is completely dependent upon member states choosing to do so. In a situation between what you would dub 'lawful combatants', namely, conventional militaries and nation-states they can meddle to their hearts content.
The fact remains though, that UN law in no more applies to the situation in Syria right now any more than it does uncontacted Indian tribes in Peru.
The Syrian government, under international law, fully represents the Syrian state (that should be like, really really obvious. There is no state without government). An internal conflict does not have any effect on the legal representation of Syria. UN has full jurisdiction over all of its member states, which include both Syria (and thus anti-government groups as well) and Peru (and thus uncontacted Indians as well). The UN is not a democracy and has never pretended to be. It is ruled by the security council, only for the permanent members is there a democracy. Now enforcement of the laws is a different matter of course. Enforcement falls to the great powers, but they are often reluctant to do so even in the rare cases they agree on something. The UN isn't very useful in most cases, but that changes nothing about the legality of its laws.
And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot horsde combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.
Says who? You seem really hung up on what people are 'allowed' and 'not allowed' to do, as if the Geneva Convention was more than just an agreement between conventional powers that somehow binds every man and woman on this planet under a moral and legal harness. People do what they're going to do, and not everything fits into nice neat legal classifications, and there's no world Government that determines the law for all of us.
*sigh* Any state that is a UN member is bound by UN laws. Feel free to ask your state to leave the UN if you disagree with those laws. The Geneva Conventions are a document of international law and apply to all nations that have signed and all of their citizens (including citizens that are in rebellion against the state). Since every state in the world has signed the Conventions, it applies to every single person in the entire world. Since when do you need to agree to laws personally in order to be bound by them? You have to obey the Conventions, even if you never signed them or disagree with them. If you break them, you can be persecuted if the security council decides so.
Ketara wrote: It was a group of people who've been getting by airstrikes. They saw one of the planes that's been delivering those strikes getting shot down, and, most likely high on the fact that they could finally do something to hit some of the people who've been lobbing explosives into their houses, took some potshots on him as he was descending. Let's not make more of this than it is. If this is a war crime, then frankly, the term ceases to have any meaning or relevance.
Your opinions, emotions and feeling of morality do not change reality. According to the Conventions, this was a war crime. Laws are laws, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. "war crime" is a legal, not an emotional term. Killing thousands of civilians as collateral damage might be worse than killing a single harmless pilot, but the first is not a war crime, while the second is. That is just the way things work, and there is sound logic and reasoning behind it.
Ketara I would be very interested to hear how you would separate 'civilian' from 'civilian with a gun', 'civilian with a gun …. and so forth(I could keep going for a while), and point out which ones are 'civilians' and which ones are these mysterious 'unlawful combatants'.
Response I do not believe in unlawful combatants. It is simply a matter of confusing who does it with whether this matters. Murder is murder. War crimes are war crimes regardless of who does them. You don’t have to be a regular member of a fighting force to be indicted for a war crime and the court will examine the situation, but the accusation war crime can be levelled prima facie against an irregular, rebel, civilian with a gun, whatever you want to call them, if it is a war crime the perpetrator is not important.
I do not really understand the point you are after in your next two paragraphs. You cannot demonstrate intention to ONLY kill civilians so perhaps you are conceding that Russian airstrikes could not be characterised as war crimes
Ketara I'll repeat what I just said in another format. The ICC claims it has world jurisdiction. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by the fact that many people who commit atrocities go untouched. The ICC's actual jurisdiction stretches as far as it's constituent supporters are willing to support it for. In much the same way as any lawmaking body. Me and three of my mates can claim jurisdiction over scorpion farms in Australia, but it doesn't mean much if the Australian Government isn't willing to go collect the scorpion taxes for us, and lock up the people we judge guilty, eh wot?
Response Well of course its jurisdiction extends as far as it claims in most of its cases, but we can see situations where this has been upheld, even outside of the normal model. Nuremberg was way outside of what you would have said was international law in 1940 and yet the claims were upheld, so too the ICC has jurisdiction in many instances across the world presently. Where necessary international law, and the norms of the international legal system of rights protection, can be imposed, even retroactively, on to parties not subject to the treaties.
Here it is important to distinguish between the conceptual and the practical. Yes it is unlikely that the ICC will claim jurisdiction over every infraction of international law as this is not politically expedient, but it theoretically has this power. Do not confuse the non-exercise of power with its non-existance. As to your argument about scorpions that is clearly a ridiculous comparison. If I have international jurisdiction, and I exercise this I am clearly not creating a problem.
Ketara As far as I can see, you could argue that them shooting down the parachutist is a war crime…. Even if you won, you'd effectively remove the meaning from the phrase 'war crime' and turn it into such a general label as to be meaningless in the context of conflict studies.
Response The definition of a war crime is anything under the Geneva Conventions 1949 as well as any other “serious violations of the laws and customs of war”. This is already a phrase so meaningless so as to mean that anything could be under the remit of war crimes so long as it seemed outside of normal combat operations. That boat has sailed. Don’t try to argue that it could not be a war crime as it clearly meets the threshold for this label. You have a problem with the label and that is fine, but do not misrepresent the state of the legal system that you are referring to. The whole point of the label for the ICC is that it is a general label and is fairly inclusive.
I apologise for assuming that you were blindingly anti-Russian, you are clearly just determined to be wrong.
Russia has been pushing the limits of air space for a while now, and about a month ago Turkey warned Russia to stay out of its airspace. I believe this illustrates the point pretty well
Turkey's been acting increasingly schizophrenic, bipolar, and belligerent in general.
At the same time, Russia has also been acting in a very similar manner. Both are mucking about with external parties to satisfy internal politics.
However, Turkey has also repeatedly issues warnings to Russia for some time now, and it would appear that Russia was fairly routinely basically daring Turkey to do something about it, or simply ignoring the Turks, who seem to be looking for an excuse to reinforce their wartime "chops" for internal audiences.
With the poor attitudes, lack of coordination of efforts, mutually exclusive goals, and twitchy trigger fingers, something like this was only a matter of time. I'm sorry it cost lives, but lots of people have been talking about *exactly* this kind of a situation developing for several months now, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.
I'm just glad it wasn't a US plane involved in taking down a Russian aircraft.
No, one airman killed by Turkmen, the second probably the same but unclear. One naval infantryman killed in the helicopter hit by ground fire from said Turkmen. The same guys Russia was bombing before the shoot down. Damaged helicopter abandoned, and later destroyed by a TOW missile.
Russia should have stuck to just bombing ISIS, and not acting as air support for Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary guard, and a dictator who has used chemical weapons on his own civilian population.
According to our media, everything where bombs falling is ISIL. We know that's not true. But it's ok, because other terrorists almost same evil as IS is. IS actually bombed too (hundreds of their fuel trucks burned).
Vaktathi wrote: However, Turkey has also repeatedly issues warnings to Russia for some time now, and it would appear that Russia was fairly routinely basically daring Turkey to do something about it, or simply ignoring the Turks, who seem to be looking for an excuse to reinforce their wartime "chops" for internal audiences.
Well, airspace violations do happen when you fly in tight corridors at high speeds. I don't actually think Russian transport planes enroute to Kaliningrad violate Finnish or Estonian airspace because they deliberately choose to, it's just the pilot looking away for 15 seconds during which he's already several klicks late for his next turn. What seems deliberate is the way these planes never respond to radio communications about their violation, and lately have been flying with transponders off. Message being mighty Russia doesn't need to explain small mistakes.
As you say Turkey has been complaining earlier and could well have been looking for an excuse to make an example. It's not just the airspace violations though. IIRC the turks also consider the turkmeni (being bombed by Russia) rebelling against Assad as allies they should help a bit. And none of the others bombing ISIS is interested in bombing some Kurds on behalf of Turkey... There's just too many agendas involved here to make everyone happy.
Turkey is an evil empire! Their leader is psychotic dictator! Turkey support ISIL! They byuing oil from terrorists! They provide traveling service for europeans who wants join ISIS! Turkey bombed kurds! Kurds are good guys! They are friends of USA. Turkey mad! They use NATO for their own plans against Greece, slavs, Kavkaz and non-islamic arabs. They violated Syrian airspace, blablabla
Freakazoitt wrote: Turkey is an evil empire! Their leader is psychotic dictator!
Pot. Kettle.
They byuing oil from terrorists!
Pot.Kettle. Technically speaking there is literally no one not buying oil from ISIS right now. Once they smuggle it out of their immediate territory, it just gets mixed in with all the other oil leaving the region. There's probably heaping helpings of gallons of it in Europe, Africa, and South East Asia by now.
They provide traveling service for europeans who wants join ISIS!
No they aren't. They simply had no special procedures to block anyone from using their airports and borders as a gateway to Syria and Iraq. Foreign nationals fighting ISIS are going through all the same places.
Kurds are good guys!
Well, good might be stretching it. They're convenient and reliable, but they're also very ethnocentric. The Syrian Civil War started originally with significant support from and for Kurdish equality in Syria. However, as the war has dragged on and ISIS has become a players, the Kurds have broken away from the other rebel groups. They've been getting much more support and enjoy much better reputations (despite engaging in most of the same activities). However they've begun deporting non-Kurds from the territories they control and are refusing a lot of non-Kurdish refugees.
non-islamic arabs.
I suddenly get the sense you don't know much about ethnic groups in the region.
Technically speaking there is literally no one not buying oil from ISIS right now. Once they smuggle it out of their immediate territory, it just gets mixed in with all the other oil leaving the region. There's probably heaping helpings of gallons of it in Europe, Africa, and South East Asia by now.
Turks should bomb or arrest that oil caravans.
No they aren't. They simply had no special procedures to block anyone from using their airports and borders as a gateway to Syria and Iraq. Foreign nationals fighting ISIS are going through all the same places.
In other "normal" countries ISIS not moving freely as in Turkey. Turkey even don't stop armed technicals with terrorists.
Well, good might be stretching it. They're convenient and reliable, but they're also very ethnocentric. The Syrian Civil War started originally with significant support from and for Kurdish equality in Syria. However, as the war has dragged on and ISIS has become a players, the Kurds have broken away from the other rebel groups. They've been getting much more support and enjoy much better reputations (despite engaging in most of the same activities). However they've begun deporting non-Kurds from the territories they control and are refusing a lot of non-Kurdish refugees.
I hope, Soviet-Kurd relations will be continued by Russia.
I suddenly get the sense you don't know much about ethnic groups in the region.
They hate kurds and alavites and like fundamental islamists like Nusra and Saudi Arabia, because Turkey always had plans to became Islamic World centre
Because the whole mess is their sole responsibility?
In other "normal" countries ISIS not moving freely as in Turkey. Turkey even don't stop armed technicals with terrorists.
ISIS is moving across multiple borders, not just Turkey's. Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq are all in the same boat.
I hope, Soviet-Kurd relations will be continued by Russia.
Oh I'm sure they will.
They hate kurds and alavites
They don't hate Kurds per se, they hate the idea of a Kurdish state, because such a state would involve secession of large chunks of Southern and South-Eastern Turkey. I'm unaware of any state that is okay with the idea of losing huge chunks of its territory to independence movements.
fundamental islamists like Nusra and Saudi Arabia
Like? No. But like we find it convenient and reliable to back the Kurds in fighting ISIS, Middle Eastern states like Jordan, Turkey, and SA, find it convenient to back Islamist groups in the same fight (especially since none of them want to back the Kurds). The amount of pawns in play in the Syrian war might be a record. Kurds, Syrians, Turkmen, Islamists, Assyrians, others I don't bother remember but probably are there, and they all come in like, 6 different flavors.
because Turkey always had plans to became Islamic World centre
Pot. Kettle.
Seriously. The least you can do is be honest and instead of whining about how 'evil the Turkish imperialists' are, just be straight up and say 'Turkey's imperialist ambitions is in the way of my imperialist ambitions.' Seriously. The posturing is completely transparent. Keeping it just makes Russia look stupid.
Just an idiom meaning that you accuse someone of doing something you're doing yourself.
(Meaning, put into context : Putin and Erdogan are the same).
(Am I correct ? It's quite different from my own idiom for this kind of situation "Bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet", and they're not meaning the exact same thing anyway)
Back on topic, calling Erdogan a "psychotic dictator" is kinda funny coming from a Russian. Putin and Erdogan roughly use the same methods. As for the bombing of Kurds, Russians are doing the same with "moderate" rebels and civilian populations.
d-usa wrote: Aren't pilots usually armed with a handgun in case they have to eject in enemy territory? Or is this movie fiction?
If they are armed then seem to be fair game for shooing up until the point that they surrender.
You've already been answered like six times, but yeah. The Navy hands out Sig P228s, when available (they very often weren't). Some guys did the personally owned thing, even after Big Navy started coming down on people like a ton of bricks for it. Plenty of guys just went without entirely. Nobody can shoot for gak (I didn't learn to shoot properly until I stopped flying), so having a 9mm pistol in a world where everyone's rocking rifles wouldn't have really mattered anyway. I'd sure as hell want one if I were flying over Syria, though. SERE's yet to implement some sort of "how to handle being burned alive in a cage" section.
The prohibition on shooting aviators under a canopy doesn't matter with regard to whether or not they're armed. If they've punched out, they are theoretically inviolate until they hit the ground regardless of what they're carrying.
LethalShade wrote: I recall there was a video of him, bruised and unconscious. He was presumed dead, though.
That's presumably the dead one.
I Thought he was shot before landing.
That is the rumor.
But having seen the video of the guys shooting at him, I very seriously doubt anyone hit him. They were very very far away, and they did not appear to be aiming even a bit. Having sen the pictures of the body, there did not appear to be bullet holes, the injuries looked like those caused by a bad exit on the eject.
CptJake wrote: Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.
The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.
Plus that whole - hard to force project when all your assets are slags of now radioactive material.
Turkey is a NATO country. There is no Russia/Turkey air war. There could however be an escalated Russia / US nuke war.
Not necessarily, Russia could shot down all the Turkish planes over Syria and NATO would do nothing about it as NATO only protects against attacks on the members' territories.
You're going to hang the fate of the world on your interpretation of a legality?
The Turks warned the yet 10 times. When they shot it down it was in their airspace for a minute, but it has been repeatedly entering and exiting their airspace. The Turks had one of their own jets shot down recently by the Syrians, and have been amped up against the Russians for a while now (due to Ukraine notably), so they were looking for an excuse, but it was their right to do so. =P
So its not unreasonable to think that the missile (since nobody gunfights anymore) was fired at the Russian jet while it was in Turkish airspace and the jet and missile finally connected in Syrian airspace.....?
The Turks were obviously looking to shoot the thing down to create the current situation. That or they were wanting to make a show of force, and their was their excuse. What their end goal was, if the was one besides the force, is yet to be seen. Possibly their intent was the cause more of a verge between NATO and Russia and sour any negotiations?
Meanwhile the Greeks are on the Russian side with this. Not that that's surprising. Not that the Greeks can do much at all in the state their in right now either.
TheMeanDM wrote: So its not unreasonable to think that the missile (since nobody gunfights anymore) was fired at the Russian jet while it was in Turkish airspace and the jet and missile finally connected in Syrian airspace.....?
Turks claim the F16 engaged/fired at the Russian plane when it was in Turkish airspace. Most of the wreckage landed in Syria though the Turks claim some did land in Turkey.
Russia denies the planes (yes, there were two, only one was shot down) never entered into Turkish airspace.
Some Fencers rely on hand held GPS to augment the inertial system.
LethalShade wrote: (Am I correct ? It's quite different from my own idiom for this kind of situation "Bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet", and they're not meaning the exact same thing anyway)
You are correct.
The point I've been driving at is that all of Russia's complaints are tantamount to "you're doing exactly what we're doing" and then proclaiming Turkey to be evil. It'd be hilarious if the reasoning being displayed wasn't so pathetically hollow.
Turkey probably sat there waiting for some Russian planes to fly by, but that strikes me as kind of irrelevant. Russia's been violating air spaces on three continents since 2013/2014. It was only a matter of time till someone shot a Russian plane down, yet Russia is somehow completely blameless when this entirely foreseeable outcome finally happens. And rather than simply admit that both sides are probably getting to ornery for their own good, Russia (predictably) ups the ante.
Russia was not "poking" Turkey by intruding in their airspace just to see how far they can go. Russia is engaged in combat operations on behalf of the Syrian government against terrorrists and rebels in Syria, who hide out at the Turkish border. During those combat operations, according to Turkey itself, a jet strayed into Turkish airspace over a tiny less than 2km bit of Turkey that protrudes into Syria. The intrusion lasted 17 seconds, the jet was shot down after it had already left Turkish airspace. As I said before, this kind of intrusion is normally not a reason for shooting down an aircraft.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/24/lt-gen-mcinerney-turkey-shooting-down-russian-plane-was-very-bad-mistake
If it were, aircraft would be shot down a lot more (in fact, Turkey itself very regularly intrudes into Syrian and Greek airspaces, and all Western aircraft fighting ISIS should be shot down in that case because they illegally violate Syrian airspace)
Russia on the other hand has released flight paths showing that the jet never entered Turkish airspace at all, and claims that no communication attempts were made by Turkey.
The Syrian government complained that the Turkish action violated Syrian sovereignty.
In 2012 (after the Syrian Air Force shot down a Turkish jet that strayed into Syrian airspace) Erdogan said that such small incursions could never be grounds for shooting down an aircraft. Clearly, there is much more behind this than just Turkey defending its airspace. As a sidenote, the Turkish prime minister criticised Russia for its attacks on Turkmen rebels just the morning of the attack.
Also, the 2nd pilot is safe. He was rescued by Syrian and Russian special forces, and has been taken to Latakia airbase, where he is being treated. His condition is good.
Russia has also announced the deployment of missile cruisers and advanced AA systems to the area with orders to intercept any possible threat to Russian operations.
Wyrmalla wrote: Possibly their intent was the cause more of a verge between NATO and Russia and sour any negotiations?
I doubt that at this particular event is anything more than Turkey tired of all the Russian planes flying nearby, and Russia mad that Turkey won't just let it do as it pleases. The reality is that the Syrian Civil War is a mess, and even with everyone nominally moving to oppose ISIS, Turkey and Russia are both trying to secure other interests and those interests are polar opposites. Turkey doesn't like a Pan-Arabist government on it's southern border and loathes the growing risk of a Kurdish War of Independence. Russia wants to assert itself on the international stage and doesn't want Turkey to grow as a regional power that'll just end up challenging it in the future.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has also announced the deployment of missile cruisers and advanced AA systems to the area with orders to intercept any possible threat to Russian operations.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has also announced the deployment of missile cruisers and advanced AA systems to the area with orders to intercept any possible threat to Russian operations.
SA-21 Growler, meet EA-18G Growler.
I'm sure shooting down more jets that are fighting terrorists in Syria will be beneficial!
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has also announced the deployment of missile cruisers and advanced AA systems to the area with orders to intercept any possible threat to Russian operations.
No, but we do, and we're operating pretty heavily in that area ourselves.
Somehow, this prospect fills me with a sense that this situation will not be improving anytime soon
Yep, we really don't need to fight each other right now. WWIII can wait 'till we obliterate ISIS. Or else, worst case scenario, we destroy ourselves (Europe + Russia + USA) and ISIS steamrolls what's left to establish its caliphate.
Yep, we really don't need to fight each other right now. WWIII can wait 'till we obliterate ISIS. Or else, worst case scenario, we destroy ourselves (Europe + Russia + USA) and ISIS steamrolls what's left to establish its caliphate.
Well to be honest, whether it starts now or later seems increasingly unimportant in my mind.
Assad's government is likely to collapse on its own at this point. It's already lost control of Syria in all but name, and once the threat of ISIS is neutralized or diminished, Assad's government will become marginalized and collapse.
The Kurds are likely to start a War for Independence, and will be opposed by Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, and whatever is left of Iraq and Syria + Islamist groups. This conflict is a massive disaster waiting to happen, arguably even more disastrous than ISIS. ISIS is killing a lot of people and being straight up violent but pretty much everyone is their enemy, so no one is gonna stick their neck out to be on their side in any official capacity. A War of Kurdish Independence on the other hand is gonna tear international relations a giant new butt hole. Turkey would actually best serve its interests to try and shut that down now, while ISIS is still around to distract everyone which I suspect is exactly what they're trying to do
Kilkrazy wrote:A pistol is not a militarily useful weapon anyway.
Wasn't there an American pilot once who shot down a Japanese fighter airplane with his pistol while hanging from a parachute? I remember hearing such an awesome story.
jhe90 wrote:Russia has deployed s400 capable warship to defend its interests.
400km range at longest it seems or 250 miles roughly.
That's a wide defense envelope.
Civilian airliners beware?
Civilian airliners have no business being in warzones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Hopefully the Russian ships won't accidentally sink. They are a little rusty. Their last action fired cruise missiles into...Iran.
They are sending the Moskva, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. It is most assuredly not rusty.
Cruise missiles landing in Iran was a completely unproven story by Western media. Do you believe everything they say? Regardless, American cruise missiles have an average failure rate of about 20% (Harpoon missiles had a rate of only 50% at the initial deployment ), so watch for pots and kettles.
Iron_Captain wrote: Wasn't there an American pilot once who shot down a Japanese fighter airplane with his pistol while hanging from a parachute? I remember hearing such an awesome story.
His name is Owen J. Baggett. In 1943, his B-24 was shot down by a Zero and the crew bailed out. At a point after firing on the crew as they descended, the Zero opened its canopy and came close to Baggett. Close enough that he pulled his 1911, fired four times, and hit the pilot in the head. He was captured after hitting the ground, but his captors actually treated him slightly better than other prisoners (still pretty brutal though) because even they couldn't deny his raw badassery
P.S. He survived to see the end of the war and died in 2006.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Cruise missiles landing in Iran was a completely unproven story by Western media. Do you believe everything they say?
They just reported what a military intelligence press release said because it's news and reporting news is what media outlets do. They also reported that Russia and Iran said it didn't happen (because that's also news), and the people who released the initial release promptly shut up because they had red on their faces (not really reported but the whole topic vanished almost over night and the silence was all anyone really needed ).
It's seems that it's Russia's fault these planes got shot down and they failed their pilots IMO.
They breached Turkish airspace several times in previous months. Were warned what would happen if they did so again, then did it again.
Immediately before hand they were ordered to change course and head south over the emergency channel 10 times, I'd still like to see this independently verified.
I think its becoming clear that Russia's military has a severe lack of competency and should not be operating in the area unsupervised.
Russia can't get its story straight, first it was shot down from the ground. Then it was never in the air space, then it was there only 17 seconds. Now it's "there were no warnings given." Sheer incompetence.
This jumble of misinformation is typical of Russia at the moment.
I'm sure shooting down more jets that are fighting terrorists in Syria will be beneficial!
That would be a change for once, Russia shooting down military airplanes. Can their systems actually do that or do they have to recode the targetting system?
I'm sure shooting down more jets that are fighting terrorists in Syria will be beneficial!
That would be a change for once, Russian shooting down military airplanes. Can their systems actually do that or do they have to recode the targetting system?
Your attempt at humor failed, albeit in a hilarious way.
I'm sure shooting down more jets that are fighting terrorists in Syria will be beneficial!
That would be a change for once, Russian shooting down military airplanes. Can their systems actually do that or do they have to recode the targetting system?
Your attempt at humor failed, albeit in a hilarious way.
obsidianaura wrote: It's seems that it's Russia's fault these planes got shot down and they failed their pilots IMO.
They breached Turkish airspace several times in previous months. Were warned what would happen if they did so again, then did it again.
Immediately before hand they were ordered to change course and head south over the emergency channel 10 times, I'd still like to see this independently verified.
I think its becoming clear that Russia's military has a severe lack of competency and should not be operating in the area unsupervised.
Russia can't get its story straight, first it was shot down from the ground. Then it was never in the air space, then it was there only 17 seconds. Now it's "there were no warnings given." Sheer incompetence.
This jumble of misinformation is typical of Russia at the moment.
The "shot down from the ground" was a nice way to deescalate the incident and if Turkey had STFU it would have worked. And the "17 seconds" comes from Turkey, the territory that was crossed is 2km wide which a plane will cross in a few seconds.
Ketara wrote: The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
You know, since I read this last night, I've been thinking about it, and ultimately I truly can't understand why it's widely accepted that a guy dropping bombs on dudes with AK-47s from thousands of feet up is a fair fight, but those same dudes shooting back at that guy is unsporting, somehow. How that got codified into international treaties is a mystery to me.
Ketara wrote: The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
You know, since I read this last night, I've been thinking about it, and ultimately I truly can't understand why it's widely accepted that a guy dropping bombs on dudes with AK-47s from thousands of feet up is a fair fight, but those same dudes shooting back at that guy is unsporting, somehow. How that got codified into international treaties is a mystery to me.
its kind of my point. I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate, admittedly. It just feeds from my view that "honorable" fighting usually means "my tech and tactics are fine, but yours aren't."
I don't know what's more embarrassing. The fact that a reporter tried to pretend that "defending airspace" has to equal defending from an actual eminent attack (and that unless Russia wants to attack turkey they should be free to fly through their airspace at their leisure), or the fact that this was posted as an example of "hah, RT embarrassed Obama".
CptJake wrote: A RT reporter embarrasses the Department of State spokesman.
Um... okay. If you say so.
All this talk about shooting down aircraft that technically posed no threat reminds me of an old incident that happened back in the 80s where (Soviet) Russia shot down a Korean Air Boeing 747 that had strayed off course en route to Seoul, Korea from Alaska. The Soviets said they were just defending themselves from a "deliberate provocation" by the US. That's right, they deliberately shot down a civilian passenger jet in their airspace. I'd say Russia has little ground to stand on when their aircraft get shot down after straying into another country's airspace.
d-usa wrote: or the fact that this was posted as an example of "hah, RT embarrassed Obama".
Who's RT? I hope it isn't Rogue Trader like Dakka's glossary keeps trying to suggest.
d-usa wrote: I don't know what's more embarrassing. The fact that a reporter tried to pretend that "defending airspace" has to equal defending from an actual eminent attack (and that unless Russia wants to attack turkey they should be free to fly through their airspace at their leisure), or the fact that this was posted as an example of "hah, RT embarrassed Obama".
Isn't that an extension of their current doctrine to defend ethnic Russians?
d-usa wrote: I don't know what's more embarrassing. The fact that a reporter tried to pretend that "defending airspace" has to equal defending from an actual eminent attack (and that unless Russia wants to attack turkey they should be free to fly through their airspace at their leisure), or the fact that this was posted as an example of "hah, RT embarrassed Obama".
I don't think I mentioned a fething thing about Obama. The fact the spokesman was unable to handle the RT reporter is embarrassing for him. He could not/did not clearly make the distinction you so easily pointed out. She then continued to ask questions that got him stumbling and repeating talking points which he should have been able to address and shut her down.
You can't seriously think he did a good job handling her, can you?
CptJake wrote: You can't seriously think he did a good job handling her, can you?
I think her question was embarrassing. It's the sort of thing a Journalism 101 student would ask if given the chance.
I don't disagree, but she is a known entity and always asks questions of this sort. And the same guy always calls on her and then flubs up the responses. So, the lesson she learns is she can continue to ask this type of question and the DoS will continue to field them, then be unable to address them.
Part of the problem with answering the question is probably the fact that he, and she along with everybody else, knows that we fly into other countries all the time ourselves. So you have to walk that a line that everybody knows is BS.
Tyran wrote: Regardless of the legality, it was an absurd escalation shooting down a plane for a 17 seconds violation.
How long were Japanese planes over Pearl Harbor?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Part of the problem with answering the question is probably the fact that he, and she along with everybody else, knows that we fly into other countries all the time ourselves. So you have to walk that a line that everybody knows is BS.
Don't have a press conference on it or refuse to comment. There's nothing in the US Constitution requiring it.
Tyran wrote: Regardless of the legality, it was an absurd escalation shooting down a plane for a 17 seconds violation.
How long were Japanese planes over Pearl Harbor?
Honestly, I don't know and I fail to see what it has to do with this incident.
Single plane in airspace 17 seconds, in known war-zone against a third party that nobody likes, leaving said air-space, chased down and intercepted by fighters already in the air.
vs
"massive deliberate air raid by hundreds of planes, warships, bombing your most key naval base containing half your nation's most powerful weapons for several hours, from a nation that you were already almost at war with'.
Tyran wrote: Regardless of the legality, it was an absurd escalation shooting down a plane for a 17 seconds violation.
How long were Japanese planes over Pearl Harbor?
Honestly, I don't know and I fail to see what it has to do with this incident.
Single plane in airspace 17 seconds, in known war-zone against a third party that nobody likes, leaving said air-space, chased down and intercepted by fighters already in the air.
vs
"massive deliberate air raid by hundreds of planes, warships, bombing your most key naval base containing half your nation's most powerful weapons for several hours, from a nation that you were already almost at war with'.
A lot of people like to point to the American/Russian "one violates the other's airspace, the other intercepts peacefully" dynamic when looking at this incident, and I'm not sure why. This is wildly different. We don't intercept, spike each other, get in formation, and have the WSO display the latest Playboy centerfold on the edge of a warzone. That's a peacetime thing where everybody's sure the other side's not going to do something dumb. Things work a bit differently when everybody's dropping gak and there's a legitimate threat of getting shot down by at least two different parties to the conflict.
Turkey protested Russian incursions to the UN multiple times over the past few months. They warned the Fencer to turn back multiple times, and there's no question the Russians knew they were getting spiked. You can only let guys violate your national boundaries so many times before you need to splash them if for no other reason than the necessity of maintaining sovereignty over your territory.
Iron_Captain wrote: Wasn't there an American pilot once who shot down a Japanese fighter airplane with his pistol while hanging from a parachute? I remember hearing such an awesome story.
His name is Owen J. Baggett. In 1943, his B-24 was shot down by a Zero and the crew bailed out. At a point after firing on the crew as they descended, the Zero opened its canopy and came close to Baggett. Close enough that he pulled his 1911, fired four times, and hit the pilot in the head. He was captured after hitting the ground, but his captors actually treated him slightly better than other prisoners (still pretty brutal though) because even they couldn't deny his raw badassery
P.S. He survived to see the end of the war and died in 2006.
Awesome Now that is a war hero.
obsidianaura wrote:It's seems that it's Russia's fault these planes got shot down and they failed their pilots IMO.
They breached Turkish airspace several times in previous months. Were warned what would happen if they did so again, then did it again.
Immediately before hand they were ordered to change course and head south over the emergency channel 10 times, I'd still like to see this independently verified.
I think its becoming clear that Russia's military has a severe lack of competency and should not be operating in the area unsupervised.
Russia can't get its story straight, first it was shot down from the ground. Then it was never in the air space, then it was there only 17 seconds. Now it's "there were no warnings given." Sheer incompetence.
This jumble of misinformation is typical of Russia at the moment.
There is no misinformation. The Russian defense ministry has claimed that the jet did not stray into Turkish airspace, and released the tracking information they had on the aircraft's course as proof. The navigator, who survived also said that as far as he knows, they did not stray into Turkish airspace, and that the attack was completely unexpected and unprovoked, with no warnings received. This has been the story since the beginning.
The "17 seconds" is actually the Turkish, not the Russian claim. "shot down from the ground'' I have never heard before.
Also, regarding airspace violations, Turkey has violated Greek airspace 2224 times in 2014 alone, so you can hardly say that Russia was 'asking for it'. Airspace violations like that are not at all serious and happen quite frequently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: A lot of people like to point to the American/Russian "one violates the other's airspace, the other intercepts peacefully" dynamic when looking at this incident, and I'm not sure why. This is wildly different. We don't intercept, spike each other, get in formation, and have the WSO display the latest Playboy centerfold on the edge of a warzone. That's a peacetime thing where everybody's sure the other side's not going to do something dumb. Things work a bit differently when everybody's dropping gak and there's a legitimate threat of getting shot down by at least two different parties to the conflict.
Turkey protested Russian incursions to the UN multiple times over the past few months. They warned the Fencer to turn back multiple times, and there's no question the Russians knew they were getting spiked. You can only let guys violate your national boundaries so many times before you need to splash them if for no other reason than the necessity of maintaining sovereignty over your territory.
That is quite frankly, ridiculous. How was the Su-24 on anti-terrorist operations in Syria a threat to Turkish sovereignty if it strayed into Turkish airspace for 17 seconds? It did not do anything agressive whatsoever, it just crossed a tiny 2km broad part of Turkey that protrudes into Syria for 17 seconds while on mission close to the border. It barely left Syrian airspace and immediately was back in it. (or so the Turks claim)
Who's RT? I hope it isn't Rogue Trader like Dakka's glossary keeps trying to suggest.
Russian propaganda "news" programme.
Propaganda is stretching it a lot. It is a english-language Russian media station that is for a large part funded by the Russian state. Don't expect stories on there to be impartial, but it I wouldn't call it propaganda either. Apart from the official government point of views, they usually give a lot of attention to opposing viewpoints as well, which propaganda doesn't really do. They also cover a lot issues that are sensitive in Russia or to the Russian government (which actually makes them less propaganda-like than some independent media in Russia) altough any criticism of V. V. Putin is reportedly strictly off limits.
CptJake wrote: A RT reporter embarrasses the Department of State spokesman.
Um... okay. If you say so.
All this talk about shooting down aircraft that technically posed no threat reminds me of an old incident that happened back in the 80s where (Soviet) Russia shot down a Korean Air Boeing 747 that had strayed off course en route to Seoul, Korea from Alaska. The Soviets said they were just defending themselves from a "deliberate provocation" by the US. That's right, they deliberately shot down a civilian passenger jet in their airspace. I'd say Russia has little ground to stand on when their aircraft get shot down after straying into another country's airspace.
Firstly, Soviet Russia did not have an army since the founding of the Soviet Union and the end of the Civil War. The Boeing was shot down by the Soviet Union, not by (Soviet) Russia. The Soviet Union was very different from the present-day Russian Federation. Secondly, the Soviets believed they were firing on an US spy plane. They did not find out it was a civilian airliner until it was too late.
Ketara wrote: The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
You know, since I read this last night, I've been thinking about it, and ultimately I truly can't understand why it's widely accepted that a guy dropping bombs on dudes with AK-47s from thousands of feet up is a fair fight, but those same dudes shooting back at that guy is unsporting, somehow. How that got codified into international treaties is a mystery to me.
I imagine it is a lot of victor's justice. The Allies after ww2 were probably fed up with the Germans killing bailed out Allied bomber crews and thus wanted to prevent it in the future.
Iron_Captain wrote: Secondly, the Soviets believed they were firing on an US spy plane. They did not find out it was a civilian airliner until it was too late.
At first they denied everything. It was only later that they made the claim of thinking it to be a spy plane. Even that story didn't hold up because the profile of a Boeing 747 is quite unique and did not match any reconnaissance aircraft used at the time. Also, from the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
The Commander of the Soviet Far East District Air Defense Forces, General Valery Kamensky,[33] was adamant that KAL 007 was to be destroyed even over neutral waters but only after positive identification showed it not to be a passenger plane. His subordinate, General Anatoly Kornukov, commander of Sokol Air Base and later to become commander of the Russian Air Force, insisted that there was no need to make positive identification as "the intruder" had already flown over the Kamchatka Peninsula.
There is also this statement from the pilot who shot down the Boeing 747.
In a 1991 interview with Izvestia, Major Genadi Osipovich, pilot of the Su-15 interceptor that shot the 747 down, spoke about his recollections of the events leading up to the shootdown. Contrary to official Soviet statements at the time, he recalled telling ground controllers that there were "blinking lights".[37] He continued, saying that "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use."[37] He furthermore did not provide a detailed description of the aircraft to his ground controllers: "I did not tell the ground that it was a Boeing-type plane; they did not ask me."[35][37][note 3]
So, the RUSSIANS - the commander on the ground and the pilot - shot the aircraft down because it crossed over their territory and they simply didn't care what the truth was.
At least Turkey issued warnings to the Russian fighter. That's more than the people on Korean Air flight 007 got.
something doesn’t add up about the story Ankara is telling. According to a letter Turkey sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UN Security Council, the Russian warplane, flying at 19,000 feet, “violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds.” If you do the math on that, it means the Su-24 was basically flying at stall speed.
