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.
The pilot believes until this day that he shot down a spy plane, and that the story about the passenger plane is all American lies. Aside from that, KAL 007 also received a lot of warning, not only over radio but even warning shots just next to the cockpit. The pilot believed it was a disguised spy plane (and claims the US had disguised its spy planes as civilian craft before) and apart from that no one in the chain of command knew it was a passenger craft. Quite unlike that time the Americans invaded Iranian waters and shot down Iran Air 655 (where the plane was identified as civilian by the Aegis computer) I might add. Also, Russia has at least apologised for the Soviets accidentally shooting down KAL 007. The US has yet to do so for Iran and instead tried to cover anything up at first and later awarded the perpetrators medals. If anything, the US has the worst record of all in shooting down civilian airliners. Unlike with KAL 007, there are no justifying circumstances with Iran Air 665.
Also, only the Turks claim that they warned the Russian jet. Do you believe everything the Turks say without proof?
loki old fart wrote: 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.
loki old fart wrote: 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.
loki old fart wrote: 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.
This is like one of those logic puzzles where you have to figure out which road to take by asking a question to two people who always lie, isn't it?
Stall speed is probably about 150 mph.
I know that the Su-33 has a stall speed of about 240 km/h yes, but that is a much more modern fighter craft. I have no idea what it is for a Su-24, which is much heavier and has less wing area.
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."
There's actually a slightly related historical precedent in that regard with longbows/firearms against heavily armoured knights. The latter (being the militarily and socially dominant) ruled that the usage of the former was an ungentlemanly, uncivilised and barbaric way of making war, primarily because it made just about anyone capable of killing them before they got a chance to win glory and honour on the battlefield. It was all fine if they could bash peasant heads about in heavy armour, but the minute the peasants had a chance to do something back, it was completely out of order and outrageous.
Like I said earlier, shooting at an enemy in uniform(or out of it) who is defenceless is considered fair game in many, many scenarios, so legal definitions and jurisdictions to one side, it's difficult to complain, hold the moral high ground, and throw labels like 'war crimes' when a chap who makes a career out of doing it to others has it done to him.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It has a maximum speed of 815 mph according to wikipedia, but that's all I can find on it.
I assure you its stall speed is nowhere near 243 mph.
I just want to know how it takes off or lands if its stall speed is 243 mph. I remember, back in the day, watching F/A-18s doing touch & go's at El Toro and they weren't doing it at no damned 200+ mph to avoid stalling.
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.
The pilot believes until this day that he shot down a spy plane, and that the story about the passenger plane is all American lies. Aside from that, KAL 007 also received a lot of warning, not only over radio but even warning shots just next to the cockpit. The pilot believed it was a disguised spy plane (and claims the US had disguised its spy planes as civilian craft before) and apart from that no one in the chain of command knew it was a passenger craft. Quite unlike that time the Americans invaded Iranian waters and shot down Iran Air 655 (where the plane was identified as civilian by the Aegis computer) I might add. Also, Russia has at least apologised for the Soviets accidentally shooting down KAL 007. The US has yet to do so for Iran and instead tried to cover anything up at first and later awarded the perpetrators medals. If anything, the US has the worst record of all in shooting down civilian airliners. Unlike with KAL 007, there are no justifying circumstances with Iran Air 665.
Also, only the Turks claim that they warned the Russian jet. Do you believe everything the Turks say without proof?
Well its believe Turkey or the guys who said they weren't in crimera, then weren't in donbass, who totally didn't supply the BUK to the russian rebels, and who are only targeting ISIS in syria. I don't know maybe some people actually believe russia is credible
The thing with the warning is that the Russian plane was over Turkey for only 17 seconds and it immediately left Turkey's airspace. That's to little time to warn someone.
And Turkey lost all credibility when they jumped in bed with the Daesh.
Tyran wrote: The thing with the warning is that the Russian plane was over Turkey for only 17 seconds and it immediately left Turkey's airspace. That's to little time to warn someone.
I'm not sure why people get hung up on this. Turkey stated they began warning the plan before it entered their airspace (which is standard practice).
And Turkey lost all credibility when they jumped in bed with the Daesh.
Except all evidence to the effect is applicable to all states in the region (as well as Syria, Syrian Rebels, and the Kurds), and is then used to somehow support a logical jump to an unsupported conclusion. Assad has been accused of colluding with ISIS as well (with actual evidence beyond conjecture and officials talking to ISIS leaders to back it up). On the other hand, there is no evidence of direct talks between Turkish leaders and ISIS, just shady and unclear dealings between Turkish Intelligence and ISIS members, which are also going in with SA, the CIA, Russia, and everyone else with a hand in the pot.
So not sure why Turkey alone is targeted for this particular accusation.
Tyran wrote: The thing with the warning is that the Russian plane was over Turkey for only 17 seconds and it immediately left Turkey's airspace. That's to little time to warn someone.
I'm not sure why people get hung up on this. Turkey stated they began warning the plan before it entered their airspace (which is standard practice).
In that case then the warnings are only background noise, as any operation near the border would be spammed by warning messages from Turkey.
And Turkey lost all credibility when they jumped in bed with the Daesh.
Except all evidence to the effect is applicable to all states in the region (as well as Syria, Syrian Rebels, and the Kurds), and is then used to somehow support a logical jump to an unsupported conclusion. Assad has been accused of colluding with ISIS as well (with actual evidence beyond conjecture and officials talking to ISIS leaders to back it up). On the other hand, there is no evidence of direct talks between Turkish leaders and ISIS, just shady and unclear dealings between Turkish Intelligence and ISIS members, which are also going in with SA, the CIA, Russia, and everyone else with a hand in the pot.
So not sure why Turkey alone is targeted for this particular accusation.
Turkey has pretty much ignored the Daesh while bombing the Kurds that are fighting the Daesh.
And Assad is an idiot whose only's saving grace is that he isn't the worst person in this mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: also the people is so hung about this because airspace violations are common and countries almost never shoot down the offending plane.
The usual procedure is intercept the foreign plane and escort it to the border and send angry words and score diplomatic points.
Shooting down the plane unnecessarily escalates things and makes NATO wonder why the hell they accepted Turkey half a century ago.
In that case then the warnings are only background noise, as any operation near the border would be spammed by warning messages from Turkey.
"We heard your warnings and ignored them" sounds like a poor excuse.
Turkey has pretty much ignored the Daesh while bombing the Kurds that are fighting the Daesh.
Russia has ignored Daesh while bombing Syrian Opposition forces. While supporting a guy who has trained, supplied, and back Jihadists and Islamists for ten years, leading a state that's been doing it for over 50 years and who is himself directly buying ISIS oil, and giving ISIS weapons and supplies to attack the Kurds and Syrian Opposition Forces. But wait, isn't that all the stuff Russia says make's Turkey evil? Wouldn't that make Russia evil too? So they're both evil and just having a pissing match with each other?
Pretty much everyone involved seems pretty gakky, with the only differences being "ISIS" and "Not-ISIS."
EDIT: also the people is so hung about this because airspace violations are common and countries almost never shoot down the offending plane.
Sounds like splitting hairs. I'm unaware of the "It happens all the time" rule in matters of National Sovereignty.
Alleged AID Convoy Hit by Russian Air Strikes in Azaz Near Turkey Border
Turkish media has claimed the airstrikes were carried out by Russian warplanes, with at least seven of the truck drivers killed, Anadolu Agency reports. Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) Twitter account said the organisation had a team at the town of Azaz to assist, but a statement from them seems to directly contradict the Turkish press.
"Our teams helped to extinguish the fire... The trucks do not belong to us and there is no information on who bombed them," IHH official Mustafa Ozbek said.
Alleged AID Convoy Hit by Russian Air Strikes in Azaz Near Turkey Border
Turkish media has claimed the airstrikes were carried out by Russian warplanes, with at least seven of the truck drivers killed, Anadolu Agency reports. Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) Twitter account said the organisation had a team at the town of Azaz to assist, but a statement from them seems to directly contradict the Turkish press.
"Our teams helped to extinguish the fire... The trucks do not belong to us and there is no information on who bombed them," IHH official Mustafa Ozbek said.
I have trouble believing the intercepting F-16s weren't able to identify the Su-24 as a Russian warplane, but in this second case the Turks (or their media) are 100% sure it was a Russian plane doing the attack run. That IHH statement certainly doesn't help their story, either.
Seems like more medial cold war - style messages to discredit the other side. I'm sure something from the Russian side will come up soon, too.
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.
If we are going to talk about shooting down civilian airplanes nobody is blameless here.
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. [14]
There are always two sides in any story and the same way the URSS felt justified to shoot down Korean 007, the US did for Iran Air 655 and the Turks do for the SU-24. Of course the guys at the receiving end will disagree.
Now you can return to your scheduled program about how dead civilians killed by Russian bombs are innocent lives lost to Evil Putin while those dead by US ones somehow are to blame because geopolitical reasons and/or FREEDOM /sarcasm.
Alleged AID Convoy Hit by Russian Air Strikes in Azaz Near Turkey Border
Turkish media has claimed the airstrikes were carried out by Russian warplanes, with at least seven of the truck drivers killed, Anadolu Agency reports. Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) Twitter account said the organisation had a team at the town of Azaz to assist, but a statement from them seems to directly contradict the Turkish press.
"Our teams helped to extinguish the fire... The trucks do not belong to us and there is no information on who bombed them," IHH official Mustafa Ozbek said.
I have trouble believing the intercepting F-16s weren't able to identify the Su-24 as a Russian warplane, but in this second case the Turks (or their media) are 100% sure it was a Russian plane doing the attack run. That IHH statement certainly doesn't help their story, either.
Seems like more medial cold war - style messages to discredit the other side. I'm sure something from the Russian side will come up soon, too.
I think the point is, they were supposed to be IHH aid trucks. When IHH turned up to help out, they knew nothing about it.
So who is using trucks, camouflaged to look like aid trucks, and what were they shipping.??
Alleged AID Convoy Hit by Russian Air Strikes in Azaz Near Turkey Border
Turkish media has claimed the airstrikes were carried out by Russian warplanes, with at least seven of the truck drivers killed, Anadolu Agency reports. Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) Twitter account said the organisation had a team at the town of Azaz to assist, but a statement from them seems to directly contradict the Turkish press.
"Our teams helped to extinguish the fire... The trucks do not belong to us and there is no information on who bombed them," IHH official Mustafa Ozbek said.
I have trouble believing the intercepting F-16s weren't able to identify the Su-24 as a Russian warplane, but in this second case the Turks (or their media) are 100% sure it was a Russian plane doing the attack run. That IHH statement certainly doesn't help their story, either.
Seems like more medial cold war - style messages to discredit the other side. I'm sure something from the Russian side will come up soon, too.
I think the point is, they were supposed to be IHH aid trucks. When IHH turned up to help out, they knew nothing about it.
So who is using trucks, camouflaged to look like aid trucks, and what were they shipping.??
Wasn't there a rumor about Turkish trucks sent in Syria to deliver supplies to ISIS ?
Well its believe Turkey or the guys who said they weren't in crimera, then weren't in donbass, who totally didn't supply the BUK to the russian rebels, and who are only targeting ISIS in syria. I don't know maybe some people actually believe russia is credible
Then why people believe the Turks are credible? After all, they are the people who totally didn't massacre the Armenians, no? No. Never happened. No genocide. All lies. Turks always tell truth. Seriously, all politicians lie. All countries deceive. Russia is not any less or more reliable than any other country on earth.
In that case then the warnings are only background noise, as any operation near the border would be spammed by warning messages from Turkey.
"We heard your warnings and ignored them" sounds like a poor excuse.
17 seconds is not really enough to hear a warning, even if any were send or received at all.
LordofHats wrote: Russia has ignored Daesh while bombing Syrian Opposition forces. While supporting a guy who has trained, supplied, and back Jihadists and Islamists for ten years, leading a state that's been doing it for over 50 years
Sources for that, please. Russia ignoring ISIS is a blatant lie, and I have a hard time believing Syria has supported and backed jihadists for 50 years. Jihadism hasn't even been around that long.
LordofHats wrote: and who is himself directly buying ISIS oil, and giving ISIS weapons and supplies to attack the Kurds and Syrian Opposition Forces. But wait, isn't that all the stuff Russia says make's Turkey evil? Wouldn't that make Russia evil too? So they're both evil and just having a pissing match with each other?
The main issue is that Turkey is the primary source for foreign fighters joining ISIS. Virtually all of them travel to Syria through Turkey, and Turkey does absolutely zero to stop them.
EDIT: also the people is so hung about this because airspace violations are common and countries almost never shoot down the offending plane.
Sounds like splitting hairs. I'm unaware of the "It happens all the time" rule in matters of National Sovereignty.
You will find that there are very little rules at all regarding national sovereignty, since the whole thing with national sovereignty is that countries can do whatever they damn well want within their own territory. That however does not mean that other countries will like that, and angry neighbours are not a good thing. That is why there are customs that may not have any rules, but are still adhered to in order to avoid conflict between countries.
Some of you act as if the warning were only transmitted at the point on time the Russian planes (yes, there were two) crossed the border.
That just is not the case. The Turks would have seen the planes on radar and could tell where they would be going and started the warnings as they approached the border.
The 17 seconds over Turkey has nothing to do with the warning transmissions at all.
CptJake wrote: Some of you act as if the warning were only transmitted at the point on time the Russian planes (yes, there were two) crossed the border.
That just is not the case. The Turks would have seen the planes on radar and could tell where they would be going and started the warnings as they approached the border.
The 17 seconds over Turkey has nothing to do with the warning transmissions at all.
How are you going to warn someone that they have crossed into your airspace if they have not yet done so? That is not a real warning. Russian aircraft are fully allowed to fly wherever they want in Syrian airspace. You should at least warn them that they have actually crossed into your airspace, not that they might do so. Warning someone that they have crossed into your airspace and giving them a chance to turn back before shooting them down is standard procedure. 17 seconds in not long enough for that. This is unprecedented in aviation history. Every state has the right to defend its territory, but this must be done in proportion to the (perceived) threat. If a group of foreign soldiers gets lost and accidentally invade into your country, you are not supposed to respond by nuking the entire offending country into oblivion. When a foreign military craft ends up in your airspace and does not pose a direct threat, the correct procedure is to establish contact with the plane first by radio and other signals, if that fails to warn them by firing warning shots, and only then to shoot it down. The correct response is not "You crossed into my airspace for a few seconds! DIE!!!"
CptJake wrote: Some of you act as if the warning were only transmitted at the point on time the Russian planes (yes, there were two) crossed the border.
That just is not the case. The Turks would have seen the planes on radar and could tell where they would be going and started the warnings as they approached the border.
The 17 seconds over Turkey has nothing to do with the warning transmissions at all.
How are you going to warn someone that they have crossed into your airspace if they have not yet done so? That is not a real warning. Russian aircraft are fully allowed to fly wherever they want in Syrian airspace. You should at least warn them that they have actually crossed into your airspace, not that they might do so. Warning someone that they have crossed into your airspace and giving them a chance to turn back before shooting them down is standard procedure. 17 seconds in not long enough for that. This is unprecedented in aviation history. Every state has the right to defend its territory, but this must be done in proportion to the (perceived) threat. If a group of foreign soldiers gets lost and accidentally invade into your country, you are not supposed to respond by nuking the entire offending country into oblivion. When a foreign military craft ends up in your airspace and does not pose a direct threat, the correct procedure is to establish contact with the plane first by radio and other signals, if that fails to warn them by firing warning shots, and only then to shoot it down. The correct response is not "You crossed into my airspace for a few seconds! DIE!!!"
Unprecedented?
Israel shot down a Syrian SU-24 last year for straying a half mile into its air space. The missile struck after the aircraft had already reentered Syrian Air Space.
I have a hard time believing Syria has supported and backed jihadists for 50 years.
Syria has been on the US' list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979 (36 years).Granted, our list is pretty selective, namely that countries we back who support terror aren't on it *glares at Lebanon, Turkey, and kinda-sorta Jordan* Syria has been a supporter of terrorist groups in Palestine almost as long as the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a thing (long before the Ba'athists or the Al Assad family came to power). There's probably some irony that the Ba'athists were themselves a quasi-Jihadist group once upon a time. First the PLO, then Hamas and Islamic Jihad after the PLO fell out of favor. They were major backers of Hezbollah back in the 60's, though that relationship went sour somewhere along the like cause Hezbollah jumped into the Anti-Assad band wagon really quick. They supported Al Qaeda in its early yeas back in the 80's and trained insurgent fighters who fought the Coalition in the Iraq War.
Something people seem to continually fail to understand about the Middle East, is that supporting terror groups is part of the geo-politics. Everyone there does it to one degree or another. When the US wants something, we leverage our influence in the UN and NATO to form an international lynch mob and go get what we want. When some Middle Eastern country wants something, they find some radical group somewhere, give them a bunch of guns and money, and send them off to do the fighting for them. It worked pretty well actually up until the groups they were supporting went balls to the walls and starting blowing up world trade centers and directly attacking foreign states.
Jihadism hasn't even been around that long.
You've got a lot of history to catch up on Captain (actually some good reading). Jihadists have been around for ages (we just haven't always called them such). The Khawarij in the 7th century (like literally as soon as Islam got started this gak was going on ), the Ḥashshāshīn in 11-14th, the Fula Jihads in the 19th century (in West Africa, yeah, Boko Haram isn't very original), and even the immediate reaction to the Caucasian War involved the formation of a Jihadist resistance.
Now, Global Jihadism is very new (the furthest back it can be realistically traced in the late 80's). Prior to that, these movements tended to be very regional and more often than not a little if not very ethnic. Modern Jihad is Pan-Arab/Pan-Islamist in tone and is a very recent shift in these kinds of groups.
The main issue is that Turkey is the primary source for foreign fighters joining ISIS. Virtually all of them travel to Syria through Turkey, and Turkey does absolutely zero to stop them.
One, this is no longer true. The US put pressure on Turkey last year and the flow of fighters has been reduced. Two, most of the foreign fighters opposed to ISIS also came in from Turkey who did little to nothing to stop them. Three, not much turkey can do about that lacking some kind of "I'm a Islamic Jihadist and I'm going to join ISIS!" Detector.
You will find that there are very little rules at all regarding national sovereignty, since the whole thing with national sovereignty is that countries can do whatever they damn well want within their own territory.
I know. That was my point. I'm not saying you should like what they did (I really don't expect that from anyone), but there comes a point where you're outrage reaches an absurd point. Stop poking other people's airspace. Most countries look the other way because they don't want to start something, or because the country flying the plane is not seen as threatening. Russia is not even remotely the later, especially not with regards to Turkey.
That however does not mean that other countries will like that, and angry neighbours are not a good thing.
Pot. Kettle.
That is why there are customs that may not have any rules, but are still adhered to in order to avoid conflict between countries.
Pretty sure arming rebel groups and then annexing another country's territory is one of those (which just goes back to the whole hypocrisy part of this).
Turkey surrounded by enemies now. The only their "friends" are islamic terrorists and maybe Bulgaria. Very bad political course.
Probably. Erdogan think NATO will back all his stupid actions. I hope, it will not.
Iron_Captain wrote: 17 seconds is not really enough to hear a warning, even if any were send or received at all.
Turkey says they issued warnings before the border was crossed. Again, not sure why the 17 seconds is the hand up.
Because you are supposed to send a warning AFTER the border has been crossed, not before. You can't warn them for doing perfectly legitimate things. At most you can alert them to the fact that they will end up in Turkish airspace if they do not change heading, but you are not authorised to tell them to change their heading or basically anything, because they are not in your airspace yet. Protocol demands that after a foreign aircraft strays into your airspace, you first try to establish contact by radio or signals. If that fails, you may fire warning shots. If that does not make the aircraft turn around or land, you may shoot it down. Such a procedure is not possible in 17 seconds.
Pots and kettles, comrade, pots and kettles... Western media, like any media really, is notoriously unreliable. I could just post Russian (heck, even Western)media here saying thatRussia does hit ISIS, and it would be just as reliable. But you probably won't be convinced by it, because as soon as there is something even slightly positive about Russia, it must be Russian propaganda.
But as much as I enjoy these arguments, I think you should now just admit that your claim that Russia does not target ISIS at all is false. Even the US government admits that Russia does hit ISIS, even if the main priority of Russian airstrikes were more strategic targets of other terrorist groups.
I have a hard time believing Syria has supported and backed jihadists for 50 years.
Syria has been on the US' list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979 (36 years).Granted, our list is pretty selective, namely that countries we back who support terror aren't on it *glares at Lebanon, Turkey, and kinda-sorta Jordan* Syria has been a supporter of terrorist groups in Palestine almost as long as the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a thing (long before the Ba'athists or the Al Assad family came to power). There's probably some irony that the Ba'athists were themselves a quasi-Jihadist group once upon a time. First the PLO, then Hamas and Islamic Jihad after the PLO fell out of favor. They were major backers of Hezbollah back in the 60's, though that relationship went sour somewhere along the like cause Hezbollah jumped into the Anti-Assad band wagon really quick. They supported Al Qaeda in its early yeas back in the 80's and trained insurgent fighters who fought the Coalition in the Iraq War.
The Ba'athists and PLO were jihadists? One learns something new every day.
You've got a lot of history to catch up on Captain (actually some good reading). Jihadists have been around for ages (we just haven't always called them such). The Khawarij in the 7th century (like literally as soon as Islam got started this gak was going on ), the Ḥashshāshīn in 11-14th, the Fula Jihads in the 19th century (in West Africa, yeah, Boko Haram isn't very original), and even the immediate reaction to the Caucasian War involved the formation of a Jihadist resistance.
Now, Global Jihadism is very new (the furthest back it can be realistically traced in the late 80's). Prior to that, these movements tended to be very regional and more often than not a little if not very ethnic. Modern Jihad is Pan-Arab/Pan-Islamist in tone and is a very recent shift in these kinds of groups.
Jihadism refers to the modern movement. Jihad and islamic extremism did exist before that, but jihadism and the kind of radical islam we see nowadays is really a new development. It is a whole new concept of defensive jihad that just did not exist in Islamic theology previously.
The main issue is that Turkey is the primary source for foreign fighters joining ISIS. Virtually all of them travel to Syria through Turkey, and Turkey does absolutely zero to stop them.
One, this is no longer true. The US put pressure on Turkey last year and the flow of fighters has been reduced.
And is there any (non-Turkish government) source for that? It is not until this summer that Turkey started to to something about its borders, after ISIS killed a few Turkish soldiers. Regardless, there is a lot of evidence that Turkey supported ISIS until then: http://dogueroglu.com/turkish-jihadist-reveals-how-ankara-turned-a-blind-eye-to-isis/
That is why there are customs that may not have any rules, but are still adhered to in order to avoid conflict between countries.
Pretty sure arming rebel groups and then annexing another country's territory is one of those (which just goes back to the whole hypocrisy part of this).
Sometimes countries do want conflict. And yes, everything is wonderfully hypocritical nowadays, I blame postmodernism
I think that all jets should have proper recording going on at all times.
A go-pro in the cockpit if nothing else.
The Turkish should have buzzed the Russian Jet, before firing.
I did blame Russia to begin with but there's too much misinformation.
If you're going to shoot down a nations jet, especially from somewhere like Russia, then you need to have corroborating data that is beyond reproach.
Everyone knows that the Russian jet wasn't a real threat and having two F16s following it would be enough to deal with it should they have to.
The Russia antagonised Turkey with repeated infractions and I believe Turkey were looking to make a point.
I don't believe it was entirely premeditated but I do think they were looking to make a statement to Russia.
Russia does do this kind of thing deliberately.
From a UK point of view, Russia frequently flies Nuclear bombers towards the edge of our airspace. They are intercepted by RAF Typhoons and then escorted until they change course. They have never entered UK airspace as far as I am aware. I don't know if they're warned to change course but it is international airspace so they can really do what they want until the enter our territory.
I don't know why Russia does this to the UK. I know US does it to Russia too and we're US allies.
The main problem with what the Russians do is that they fly without their transponder turned on through the most busy airspace in the world, they will cause an accident with an airliner one day doing that.
Well its believe Turkey or the guys who said they weren't in crimera, then weren't in donbass, who totally didn't supply the BUK to the russian rebels, and who are only targeting ISIS in syria. I don't know maybe some people actually believe russia is credible
Then why people believe the Turks are credible? After all, they are the people who totally didn't massacre the Armenians, no? No. Never happened. No genocide. All lies. Turks always tell truth.
Seriously, all politicians lie. All countries deceive. Russia is not any less or more reliable than any other country on earth.
In that case then the warnings are only background noise, as any operation near the border would be spammed by warning messages from Turkey.
"We heard your warnings and ignored them" sounds like a poor excuse.
17 seconds is not really enough to hear a warning, even if any were send or received at all.
LordofHats wrote: Russia has ignored Daesh while bombing Syrian Opposition forces. While supporting a guy who has trained, supplied, and back Jihadists and Islamists for ten years, leading a state that's been doing it for over 50 years
Sources for that, please. Russia ignoring ISIS is a blatant lie, and I have a hard time believing Syria has supported and backed jihadists for 50 years. Jihadism hasn't even been around that long.
LordofHats wrote: and who is himself directly buying ISIS oil, and giving ISIS weapons and supplies to attack the Kurds and Syrian Opposition Forces. But wait, isn't that all the stuff Russia says make's Turkey evil? Wouldn't that make Russia evil too? So they're both evil and just having a pissing match with each other?
The main issue is that Turkey is the primary source for foreign fighters joining ISIS. Virtually all of them travel to Syria through Turkey, and Turkey does absolutely zero to stop them.
EDIT: also the people is so hung about this because airspace violations are common and countries almost never shoot down the offending plane.
Sounds like splitting hairs. I'm unaware of the "It happens all the time" rule in matters of National Sovereignty.
You will find that there are very little rules at all regarding national sovereignty, since the whole thing with national sovereignty is that countries can do whatever they damn well want within their own territory. That however does not mean that other countries will like that, and angry neighbours are not a good thing. That is why there are customs that may not have any rules, but are still adhered to in order to avoid conflict between countries.
Did russia ever take blame for the pogroms and the purges? russia has less credibility than most countries right now and is acting hypocritical at every turn.
But as much as I enjoy these arguments, I think you should now just admit that your claim that Russia does not target ISIS at all is false. Even the US government admits that Russia does hit ISIS, even if the main priority of Russian airstrikes were more strategic targets of other terrorist groups.
Be fair in your argument, right where you quoted, he says that they do target ISIS. Not "not at all". Just not as much as they target Syrian opposition forces.
And yeah, Jihadism is a relatively new thing.
Also, can someone actually post the protocols for airspace violation? Can they just shoot you down immediately, or do they HAVE to follow the prior steps?
Is it a case of "technically we can shoot you down, but what most people do to avoid unpleasant incidents is follow all these courtesy steps, but today we're going to be unpleasant"?
But as much as I enjoy these arguments, I think you should now just admit that your claim that Russia does not target ISIS at all is false. Even the US government admits that Russia does hit ISIS, even if the main priority of Russian airstrikes were more strategic targets of other terrorist groups.
Be fair in your argument, right where you quoted, he says that they do target ISIS. Not "not at all". Just not as much as they target Syrian opposition forces.
At first he said that "Russia ignores Daesh". That is not true. But maybe I read to much into it?
MrDwhitey wrote: Also, can someone actually post the protocols for airspace violation? Can they just shoot you down immediately, or do they HAVE to follow the prior steps?
Is it a case of "technically we can shoot you down, but what most people do to avoid unpleasant incidents is follow all these courtesy steps, but today we're going to be unpleasant"?
Its NATO protocols (I don't know if they are on the internet somewhere, just that they get mentioned in articles a lot). It is not rules. Every nation is allowed to do whatever it wants to do to defend its airspace under the principle of national sovereignty. So they are guidelines really. But guidelines are very important nonetheless to avoid war. Because just like Turkey has the right to defend its airspace, Russia has the right to retaliate if it is attacked.
But as much as I enjoy these arguments, I think you should now just admit that your claim that Russia does not target ISIS at all is false.
If you don't like it, feel free to write Putin. I'd love for Russia and Turkey to stop this nonsense (not the jet thing, the "we're fighting ISIS but not really" thing). It's just making things worse.
The Ba'athists and PLO were jihadists? One learns something new every day.
And you wonder why I doubt Russian media.
The Ba'athists I described as 'quasi' Jihadist. I chose that word because their philosophy wasn't quite Jihadist, but in the early days before they had any political power, their ideology basically replaced the word "Islam" with "Pan-Arab" and a whole heaping helping of "How awesome is Islam, right?" Then they got political power and busied themselves using chemical weapons on Kurds, supporting terrorist organizations, and invading poor little Kuwait (who wouldn't harm a fly!).
I'm not really sure why it would need to be explained that the PLO was a Jihadist organization. Israel-Palestine Conflict and the Lebanese Civil War (both of which the PLO/PLA were very involved in) are the two conflicts that helped these groups transition from being regional to global terror threats.
Jihadism refers to the modern movement. Jihad and islamic extremism did exist before that, but jihadism and the kind of radical islam we see nowadays is really a new development. It is a whole new concept of defensive jihad that just did not exist in Islamic theology previously.
Really no. Same old stuff that's been going on over there for hundreds of years. Things don't suddenly come into existence the moment the Western world realizes they exist (unless we want to get philosophical about reality and perception that is).
On the first: It does seem to many that Russia is mostly ignoring ISIS, but that's mostly. Not entirely, and that's the position taken by LoH.
Latter: So it is the courtesy thing to avoid unpleasantness, including wars. I can understand your position that they should have done things differently (the normal way) to avoid the current escalation of tensions.
I was being hyperbolic because the poster I responded to said the same about Turkey; Turkey is also bombing ISIS.
The accusation is that neither Turkey nor Russia are really in it to fight ISIS. Any support they give on that front is token, while Turkey continues it's little war against the Kurds and Assad and Russia bombs Syrian Opposition Forces.
I was being hyperbolic because the poster I responded to said the same about Turkey; Turkey is also bombing ISIS.
The accusation is that neither Turkey nor Russia are really in it to fight ISIS. Any support they give on that front is token, while Turkey continues it's little war against the Kurds and Assad and Russia bombs Syrian Opposition Forces.
'Why down Russian jet? Because fighting ISIS is not really on Turkey's agenda'
‘Commercial scale’ oil smuggling into Turkey becomes priority target of anti-ISIS strikes
https://www.rt.com/news/323603-isis-oil-smuggling-turkey/ Islamic State’s daring and impudent oil smuggling into Turkey should become a high-priority target in order to cripple the terrorist group, President Putin said, backed by French President Francois Hollande. Both agree that the source of terrorist financing must be hit first and foremost. Commercial-scale oil smuggling from Islamic State controlled territory into Turkey must be stopped, Putin said after meeting Hollande in Moscow.
“Vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon,” said Putin, reminding the press that the scale of the issue was discussed at the G20 summit in Antalya earlier this month, where the Russian leader demonstrated reconnaissance footage taken by Russian pilots.
The views resemble a “living oil pipe” stretched from ISIS and rebel controlled areas of Syria into Turkey, the Russian President stressed. “Day and night they are going to Turkey. Trucks always go there loaded, and back from there – empty.”
Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
Spoiler:
In the next few days, we will present a full breakdown of Bilal's various business ventures, starting with his BMZ Group which is the name implicated most often in the smuggling of illegal Iraqi and Islamic State through to the western supply chain, but for now here is a brief, if very disturbing snapshot, of both father and son Erdogan by F. William Engdahl, one which should make everyone ask whether the son of Turkey's president (and thus, the father) is the silent mastermind who has been responsible for converting millions of barrels of Syrian Oil into hundreds of millions of dollars of Islamic State revenue.
By F. William Engdahl, posted originally in New Eastern Outlook:
Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games
More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. Turkey, as a result of Erdogan’s pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.
In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…” Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an’s permission to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan’s backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.
ISIS militants were trained by US, Israeli and now it emerges, by Turkish special forces at secret bases in Konya Province inside the Turkish border to Syria, over the past three years. Erdo?an’s involvement in ISIS goes much deeper. At a time when Washington, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar appear to have cut off their support for ISIS, they remaining amazingly durable. The reason appears to be the scale of the backing from Erdo?an and his fellow neo-Ottoman Sunni Islam Prime Minister, Ahmet Davuto?lu.
Nice Family Business
The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdogan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.
Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdogan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.
Gürsel Tekin vice-president of the Turkish Republican Peoples’ Party, CHP, declared in a recent Turkish media interview, “President Erdogan claims that according to international transportation conventions there is no legal infraction concerning Bilal’s illicit activities and his son is doing an ordinary business with the registered Japanese companies, but in fact Bilal Erdo?an is up to his neck in complicity with terrorism, but as long as his father holds office he will be immune from any judicial prosecution.” Tekin adds that Bilal’s maritime company doing the oil trades for ISIS, BMZ Ltd, is “a family business and president Erdogan’s close relatives hold shares in BMZ and they misused public funds and took illicit loans from Turkish banks.”
In addition to son Bilal’s illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.
Turkish citizen Ramazan Bagol, captured this month by Kurdish People’s Defence Units,YPG, as he attempted to join ISIS from Konya province, told his captors that said he was sent to ISIS by the ‘Ismailia Sect,’ a strict Turkish Islam sect reported to be tied to Recep Erdogan. Baol said the sect recruits members and provides logistic support to the radical Islamist organization. He added that the Sect gives jihad training in neighborhoods of Konya and sends those trained here to join ISIS gangs in Syria.
According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan “organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. “
Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan’s then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.
Gen. John R. Allen, an opponent of Obama’s Iran peace strategy, now US diplomatic envoy coordinating the coalition against the Islamic State, exceeded his authorized role after meeting with Erdogan and “promised to create a "no-fly zone" ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the "Juppé-Wright plan". The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.” Meyssan adds.
There are never winners in war and Erdogan’s war against Syria’s Assad demonstrates that in bold. Turkey and the world deserve better. Ahmet Davutoglu’s famous “Zero Problems With Neighbors” foreign policy has been turned into massive problems with all neighbors due to the foolish ambitions of Erdogan and his gang.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the Russians blow up all of ISIL's tanker lorries, it won't matter whom we ought to blame for buying oil from them.
Part of me is concerned that that strategy won't work any better than the US' current War of Drugs. By the time the oil is on some truck going to wherever, ISIS has already been paid,Attacking cocaine in Florida doesn't make much difference to the Colombians who made the stuff. They'll just find someone else to move it. And all the countries currently air striking are only striking oil going to parties they don't support. Turkey and the US attack oil going to Syria. Russia attacks a oil going to Turkey. Uncertain if anyone is bombing the Kurdish smuggling line (the Kurds are clamping on part of it themselves, but they're simply rerouting the oil away from Turkey to others or themselves).
Another part of the issue is that completely cutting the oil could result in a significant humanitarian crisis. Assad's side of Syria for example has electric power plants, but nothing to fuel them with without ISIS' oil and gas. Same for the Syrian rebels and Iraq. Turkey and Iran have been doing everything from stock piling to resale, but Turkey also is unlikely to be able to meet it's energy needs without ISIS oil* (a problem complicated by most of it's internal energy resources being in the East, where the Kurds are).
I.E. All these parties have a profound need for oil and gas, and ISIS is selling the stuff at ludicrously low prices. Any plan to combat ISIS' oil profits will likely require a plan on how we're going to provide power and gas to Turkey, Syria, and Iraq (I don't know enough about the Kurd's territory in regards to this), and I don't think anyone wants to foot the bill for that for who knows how long.
*This is a simplification. This conflict and Turkey's energy industry is a huge quagmire mix of necessity and regional ambition.
It will, however, create a marvellous boost for the tanker lorry market.
Rule of Acquisition #34 War is good for business (so sad but so true)
Kilkrazy wrote: It's easy to find more drug mules. Each shipment is relatively small and high value. There is no alternative source of supply.
Point taken.
It also must compete with legal markets.
While this will effect it to some degree, the issue of supply also comes into play particularly, ISIS' ability to influence the legal supply of oil vs the illegal supply. Syria (Assad) is unlikely to get a better deal than what ISIS is currently offering (direct pumping to Syria's power plants in exchange for keeping the lights on in ISIS controlled areas and some cash). Especially with the US and EU maintaining trade sanctions on Assad. Turkey has geopolitical concerns in it's immediate way. It's internal energy resources are in the East where it faces the growing problem of the KPP and a full war with the Kurds. The biggest exporter of energy to Turkey is Russia. Geopolitical ambitions in direct conflict and all that.
Legal oil would have to go way down, or bombing way up (a more concerted effort than currently exists) to fully eliminate the profitability of smuggling oil, and of course ISIS can always just lower the price further. The estimates I can find give ISIS as selling oil at $40 a barrel, compared to what, the $90+ a barrel cost of legal oil? Smugglers can double their investment selling the stuff. Can we make it so expensive, or lower the price of legal oil so much, that smuggling ceases to be so profitable? We saw prices like, $20, $25 dollars (EDIT lower tan current that is) a year or two ago didn't we? That's back when ISIS was setting all this up.
Attacking the actual well heads and refineries would be a more strategic action but ideally we want to recapture the ISIL areas intact.
Yeah, but the more I follow the conflict, the more I get a sinking feeling ISIS really might not be going away so easily. I originally proposed this as a hypothetical outcome, but with my Masters program prep finished I've been catching up on my world news, and the outcome seems increasingly less far fetched. They're becoming a middle man for conflict between surrounding groups. They all fight ISIS, but their all working with ISIS at the same time to undermine rivals Iran and Syria vs Turkey and Syrian Rebels.. Islamists vs Islamists. Kurds vs nearly everyone else, All while Western states complain and moan, and promptly proceed to do very little because we're all arguing over Assad, Turkey, and the Kurds. The situation could easily evolve to the point where our involvement (or lack there of) is no longer relevant. ISIS is already a power all parties in the immediate region recognize and make deals with.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the Russians blow up all of ISIL's tanker lorries, it won't matter whom we ought to blame for buying oil from them.
Part of me is concerned that that strategy won't work any better than the US' current War of Drugs. By the time the oil is on some truck going to wherever, ISIS has already been paid,Attacking cocaine in Florida doesn't make much difference to the Colombians who made the stuff. They'll just find someone else to move it. And all the countries currently air striking are only striking oil going to parties they don't support. Turkey and the US attack oil going to Syria. Russia attacks a oil going to Turkey. Uncertain if anyone is bombing the Kurdish smuggling line (the Kurds are clamping on part of it themselves, but they're simply rerouting the oil away from Turkey to others or themselves).
The two situations are not compatible.
Oil is easy to bomb, it burns better than cocaine, its also less valuable and there is no need to control the entire incoming supply. If you attack a drugs convoy the remainder that gets through has a high street value. Attack an oil convoy and the remainder has less value as a row of exploding oil containers rid hemselves of most of the problem.
Oil is also bulky and needs to be transported in vast volumes to be profitable on th same level as drugs. All this means drone strikes are more viable.
Second you cant just use drones on random guys in Mexico, in Syria no one cares too deeply about collateral and there is almost always collateral.
I would however argue that attacking any point of the supply train is potentially effective. Sure hitting drugs in Mexico wont harm Coloumbian producers, but they arent the main drug kinpins. From Colombia to US entry the drugs multiply in value 20x, this is handled by the intervening cartels, most notably the Mexican cartels like the Sinaloa. Unlike oil drugs rise in value as they geographically approach the US (or Europe) so being a part o the supply chain is viable business and an effective drugs campaign would need to target portions of the entire chain to deal with all the organisations along the chain. Breaking the chain is not possible as drug shipment routes repair themselves and parts of the chain are more than happy to bypass intermediaries that are compromised.
Oil doesnt have that dynamic, unless deliberately oil starved oil has a more or less set price globally, prior to consumer profit margins/taxation.
Another part of the issue is that completely cutting the oil could result in a significant humanitarian crisis. Assad's side of Syria for example has electric power plants, but nothing to fuel them with without ISIS' oil and gas. Same for the Syrian rebels and Iraq. Turkey and Iran have been doing everything from stock piling to resale, but Turkey also is unlikely to be able to meet it's energy needs without ISIS oil* (a problem complicated by most of it's internal energy resources being in the East, where the Kurds are).
Turkey can always buy it's oil and gas from Russia.
Russia is slapping the Turkmen with heavy ordnance. And I don't think Turkey will be happy about it, which is the point really. 0:28 Looks like thermobaric bombs.
jhe90 wrote: That one at .28 does look different to rest. Could not tell you what it was. I can tell you its not a regular weapon.
It's probably a harsh language bomb. Russian is good for swearing, I've heard.
Market.ft.com says the benchmark oil Brent Crude is currently trading at $43.57 a barrel, which is not a lot more expensive than the price of the ISIL oil, though admittedly ISIL get their oil nearly for free by stealing it so their profit margin is a lot higher. They steal the tankers as well, of course. Also, regular customers buy legal oil on the futures market, which makes a difference to the prices they pay day to day.
However, there is the cost of buying replacement tankers, if ISIL can find someone to deliver to them! Alibaba is listing Chinese built tanker lorries at a rough average of $50,000 each, so if it's true that the Russians have already blown up 500 of them, that's $25 M that ISIL have to try and find in foreign exchange, then there's lead time on deliveries, and so on.
I think the key thing is that ISIL aren't really concerned with managing a modern supply and demand technical economy. They are basically just a bunch of pirates, they even want to run everything on gold coins! From this viewpoint they may not care that they keep losing tankers, they think they will just steal more or that they will be supplied by Allah. Until their system falls apart..
jhe90 wrote: That one at .28 does look different to rest. Could not tell you what it was. I can tell you its not a regular weapon.
Putin is not stupid are unstable enough to throw nukes.
However a thermobaric bomb is intense enough it has some of the signitures of a nuclear weapon though it is far smaller and non radiological. Very bright detonation flash could mean a phosphor or magnesium based weapon, but it doesn't appear to be one of those. Phosphor weapons do localised heat damage and are designed to fragment into multiple bomblets to cover an arrea. This was one intense blast. It could be something new, but my guess is that it was a single large thermobaric weapon.
Russia doesnt need to drop ordnance of that scale, napalm is good enough for the job, but hitting Turkmen with thermobaric weapon sends a very clear message. Being under or near that is essentially similar to being targeted with a nuke.
jhe90 wrote: That one at .28 does look different to rest. Could not tell you what it was. I can tell you its not a regular weapon.
Putin is not stupid are unstable enough to throw nukes.
However a thermobaric bomb is intense enough it has some of the signitures of a nuclear weapon though it is far smaller and non radiological. Very bright detonation flash could mean a phosphor or magnesium based weapon, but it doesn't appear to be one of those. Phosphor weapons do localised heat damage and are designed to fragment into multiple bomblets to cover an arrea. This was one intense blast. It could be something new, but my guess is that it was a single large thermobaric weapon.
Russia doesnt need to drop ordnance of that scale, napalm is good enough for the job, but hitting Turkmen with thermobaric weapon sends a very clear message. Being under or near that is essentially similar to being targeted with a nuke.
Well if you compare to other thermal images and such on the video, that is one massive localised hit, nothing like the other small ones. Only one to strobe the entire camera like that.
Whatever was hit, well from what you said, its going to not be healthy to say the least.
Regular bombs with high explosives do pretty devastating damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an update; Turkey has released an Audio Recording reportedly from a com station in their territory that warned the Russian jets to alter their course before entering Turkish airspace. This is the longest excerpt of the recording I can find (32 Seconds).
To the Russian pilot, no wonder you didn't hear it, I'm sitting in a quiet room and I can barely make out this choppy crap without a jet engine under my seat. Do military radios really sound like this?
Well if you compare to other thermal images and such on the video, that is one massive localised hit, nothing like the other small ones. Only one to strobe the entire camera like that.
Whatever was hit, well from what you said, its going to not be healthy to say the least.
The list of what it could be is relatively short, but Russia has an arsenal of thermobaric weapons including FOAB which is of uncertain specifications, but know to be very large.
I expect those images are attracting intense scrutiny.
Regular bombs with high explosives do pretty devastating damage.
Yes they do, and are considerably cheaper. Russia produces artillery and aircraft ordnance by the hundred of thousands, they construct thermobaric weapons in the tens.
The use of such a weapon is 99% political, a cluster of smaller ordnance would do the same job, but doesn't send the same message.
Putin is no pussy, I fully expected him to use ordnance like this, and authorise televising it swiftly. Both for consumption at home it would look very impressive to the average Muscovite on the evening news, and a slap in the face to Turkey.
For maximum effect the demonstration attack weapon would likely have been launched from Syria at a target very close to Turkey but probably never crossing the border. At a military target with clear links to Turkey.
Note that it is unexplained, other than for the impressive flash, which indicate Putin is drawing a political picture he expects the Turkish government an military to read without further explanation.
It's like people haven't been following the Syrian War at all.
Turkey has been attacking the Syrian Army for awhile now (long before this happened).
Russia is as much to blame for the mess as they are.
A whole bunch of double standards still flying around.
But I might as well stop bothering. People seem more willing to ignore fact to rant about Muslims than to actually look at anything realistically reflecting ME politics. Carry on.
Anyone else catch electronic warfare now being conducted by the Russian military now to avoid another incident like this from happening again. Now we're going to see who has the latest generations of SINGARS now in fighter aircraft's
It's not the biggest thing in the international scale of events, but right now things are pretty tense, only take a small pebbble to start a landslide and a powerful one.
Turkey stopped violating Greek airspace after Russian Su-24 downing
Turkish warplanes abruptly ceased violating Greek airspace after downing a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber on November 24. Previously, air intrusions made by Turkish fighter jets took place on a daily basis and amounted to thousands a year.
The data comes from a diplomatic source in Athens, cited by RIA Novosti.
The last time Turkish warplanes were spotted in Greek airspace was on November 25, when six jets, two of them carrying weapons, entered the neighbor’s aerial domain.
Intrusions of Turkish jets into Greek national airspace remain a constant headache for Athens. Turkey and Greece, while partners in NATO, have been adversaries for centuries. The two nations have warred with each other before and still have territorial disputes.
In particular 2014 was marked with a sharp increase of Greek airspace violations by the Turkish Air Force, which amounted to 2,244 incidents. From January to October 2015, Greece’s airspace was violated by Turkish warplanes 1,233 times, including 31 flights over Greek territory itself, according to the Greek Air Force’s headquarters. In November, before the downing of the Russian bomber, there were at least 50 registered airspace violations.
Turkish jets habitually intrude into Greek airspace over disputed islands in the Aegean Sea, provoking the Greek Air Force to scramble fighter jets to intercept. Such airborne rendezvous often end with mock dogfights, with pilots performing real lock-ons of their air-to-air missiles onto their NATO partner’s aircraft.
Athens has repeatedly raised the matter at NATO meetings. Greece’s representative to NATO last reported Turkish violations of their national airspace on November 24. The reaction of other NATO member states has been usually to sit on the fence, and Ankara continued to test Athen’s patience.
When Turkey shot down the Russian bomber on Tuesday, Greek Foreign Minister Nikas Kotzias expressed solidarity with Russia in a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.
“Athens agrees with the Russian president’s assessment on Ankara’s hostile actions, which are contrary to the goals of the anti-ISIS coalition,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said, as reported by RIA Novosti.
Greece, according to its Foreign Ministry, “especially comprehends provocative moves by Turkey given regular multiple violations of Greek air space by Ankara lasting for years.”
According to Greece’s General Staff, on November 24, the day a Turkish F-16 fighter jet fired an air-to-air missile at Russia’s bomber, the Turkish Air Force made no violations of Greek airspace for the first time in a long period.
Once the Russian warplane went down in flames, “there was zero activity of Turkish aviation in Greek FIR in the Aegean Sea, and it is understandable why,” RIA Novosti cited a diplomatic source in Athens.
The Turkish Air Force also halted strikes on Syrian territory after Russia deployed S-400 long-range air defense complexes at the Khmeimim airbase in Syria’s Latakia, from where the Russian Air Force strikes Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Turkey stopped violating Greek airspace after Russian Su-24 downing
Turkish warplanes abruptly ceased violating Greek airspace after downing a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber on November 24. Previously, air intrusions made by Turkish fighter jets took place on a daily basis and amounted to thousands a year.
The data comes from a diplomatic source in Athens, cited by RIA Novosti.
The last time Turkish warplanes were spotted in Greek airspace was on November 25, when six jets, two of them carrying weapons, entered the neighbor’s aerial domain.
Intrusions of Turkish jets into Greek national airspace remain a constant headache for Athens. Turkey and Greece, while partners in NATO, have been adversaries for centuries. The two nations have warred with each other before and still have territorial disputes.
In particular 2014 was marked with a sharp increase of Greek airspace violations by the Turkish Air Force, which amounted to 2,244 incidents. From January to October 2015, Greece’s airspace was violated by Turkish warplanes 1,233 times, including 31 flights over Greek territory itself, according to the Greek Air Force’s headquarters. In November, before the downing of the Russian bomber, there were at least 50 registered airspace violations.
Turkish jets habitually intrude into Greek airspace over disputed islands in the Aegean Sea, provoking the Greek Air Force to scramble fighter jets to intercept. Such airborne rendezvous often end with mock dogfights, with pilots performing real lock-ons of their air-to-air missiles onto their NATO partner’s aircraft.
Athens has repeatedly raised the matter at NATO meetings. Greece’s representative to NATO last reported Turkish violations of their national airspace on November 24. The reaction of other NATO member states has been usually to sit on the fence, and Ankara continued to test Athen’s patience.
When Turkey shot down the Russian bomber on Tuesday, Greek Foreign Minister Nikas Kotzias expressed solidarity with Russia in a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.
“Athens agrees with the Russian president’s assessment on Ankara’s hostile actions, which are contrary to the goals of the anti-ISIS coalition,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said, as reported by RIA Novosti.
Greece, according to its Foreign Ministry, “especially comprehends provocative moves by Turkey given regular multiple violations of Greek air space by Ankara lasting for years.”
According to Greece’s General Staff, on November 24, the day a Turkish F-16 fighter jet fired an air-to-air missile at Russia’s bomber, the Turkish Air Force made no violations of Greek airspace for the first time in a long period.
Once the Russian warplane went down in flames, “there was zero activity of Turkish aviation in Greek FIR in the Aegean Sea, and it is understandable why,” RIA Novosti cited a diplomatic source in Athens.
The Turkish Air Force also halted strikes on Syrian territory after Russia deployed S-400 long-range air defense complexes at the Khmeimim airbase in Syria’s Latakia, from where the Russian Air Force strikes Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Or Russia Today remembered the Aegean Sea Dispute exists and stopped counting the extra four miles of airspace Greece claims beyond it's territorial waters (which is how they created that absurd number in the first place).
LordofHats wrote: Or Russia Today remembered the Aegean Sea Dispute exists and stopped counting the extra four miles of airspace Greece claims beyond it's territorial waters (which is how they created that absurd number in the first place).
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
Not what I'm referring to.
One of the big sticking points in the Aegean Sea Dispute is that Greece claims 4 miles of air space beyond it's territorial waters (no country has airspace that extends beyond its territory). Given all the islands and rocks sticking out of the ground that belong to Greece in the Aegean Sea, this has the effect of Greece claiming the entire sea as it's own personal air defense buffer, which is how Russia Today invented the myth that Turkey violates Greek air space "thousands of times a year" earlier this year.
And now, the same news source that invented the myth claims that Turkey has stopped. Possibility? Russia Today simply decided to stop counting all the Turkish planes flying in that 4 mile band as air space violations.
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
Not what I'm referring to.
One of the big sticking points in the Aegean Sea Dispute is that Greece claims 4 miles of air space beyond it's territorial waters (no country has airspace that extends beyond its territory). Given all the islands and rocks sticking out of the ground that belong to Greece in the Aegean Sea, this has the effect of Greece claiming the entire sea as it's own personal air defense buffer, which is how Russia Today invented the myth that Turkey violates Greek air space "thousands of times a year" earlier this year.
And now, the same news source that invented the myth claims that Turkey has stopped. Possibility? Russia Today simply decided to stop counting all the Turkish planes flying in that 4 mile band as air space violations.
Was Greece charging Turkey for the use of the air space? Have they even attempted to? has that idea occur to Greece politicians?
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
Not what I'm referring to.
One of the big sticking points in the Aegean Sea Dispute is that Greece claims 4 miles of air space beyond it's territorial waters (no country has airspace that extends beyond its territory). Given all the islands and rocks sticking out of the ground that belong to Greece in the Aegean Sea, this has the effect of Greece claiming the entire sea as it's own personal air defense buffer, which is how Russia Today invented the myth that Turkey violates Greek air space "thousands of times a year" earlier this year.
And now, the same news source that invented the myth claims that Turkey has stopped. Possibility? Russia Today simply decided to stop counting all the Turkish planes flying in that 4 mile band as air space violations.
Was Greece charging Turkey for the use of the air space? Have they even attempted to? has that idea occur to Greece politicians?
No. There are a few international agreements on how the air space is to be managed but Greece and Turkey love poking one another over the fine details of international law. For Greece it's more about domestic politics than international politics. Turkey is the opposite.
The Aegean Sea dispute probably deserves a little credit as Greece and Turkey have made very slow progress in resolving the various issues it entails over the years (it's like pulling teeth, but they've been dealing with it). The major sticking points has been the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and Turkey's threat of war if Greece claims the traditional 12 miles of territorial water. Because of the former, Greece wants as much territorial water and airspace as it can get because there's been a prevailing fear of Turkish aggression ever since 1974. As to the later, Turkey is afraid of Greece's own personal great lake shutting it out of the Aegean entirely.
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
Not what I'm referring to.
One of the big sticking points in the Aegean Sea Dispute is that Greece claims 4 miles of air space beyond it's territorial waters (no country has airspace that extends beyond its territory). Given all the islands and rocks sticking out of the ground that belong to Greece in the Aegean Sea, this has the effect of Greece claiming the entire sea as it's own personal air defense buffer, which is how Russia Today invented the myth that Turkey violates Greek air space "thousands of times a year" earlier this year.
And now, the same news source that invented the myth claims that Turkey has stopped. Possibility? Russia Today simply decided to stop counting all the Turkish planes flying in that 4 mile band as air space violations.
afaik the Aegean dispute is that Turkey claims that in the Aegean (and for some reason only there), territorial waters should only extend 6 miles from the nearest territory. Airspace normally covers all of a nations territorial waters. By the international Laws of the Sea, Greece is entitled to 12 miles of territorial waters and therefore also 12 miles of airspace. It is with consideration to Turkey that Greece only claims 10 miles of airspace. Only Turkey is still not satisfied with this and claims this should be 6 miles.
RT did not invent any myth, they got that information from the Greek government, and it is not a myth. The Greek claims are completely justified by international treaties, whereas those of Turkey are not.
The territory that the Russian's planes crossed also is disputed, so same thing.
Not what I'm referring to.
One of the big sticking points in the Aegean Sea Dispute is that Greece claims 4 miles of air space beyond it's territorial waters (no country has airspace that extends beyond its territory). Given all the islands and rocks sticking out of the ground that belong to Greece in the Aegean Sea, this has the effect of Greece claiming the entire sea as it's own personal air defense buffer, which is how Russia Today invented the myth that Turkey violates Greek air space "thousands of times a year" earlier this year.
And now, the same news source that invented the myth claims that Turkey has stopped. Possibility? Russia Today simply decided to stop counting all the Turkish planes flying in that 4 mile band as air space violations.
afaik the Aegean dispute is that Turkey claims that in the Aegean (and for some reason only there), territorial waters should only extend 6 miles from the nearest territory. Airspace normally covers all of a nations territorial waters. By the international Laws of the Sea, Greece is entitled to 12 miles of territorial waters and therefore also 12 miles of airspace. It is with consideration to Turkey that Greece only claims 10 miles of airspace. Only Turkey is still not satisfied with this and claims this should be 6 miles.
RT did not invent any myth, they got that information from the Greek government, and it is not a myth. The Greek claims are completely justified by international treaties, whereas those of Turkey are not.
It is fairly easy to see why both sides are making their arguments.
Here is the current map at 10 miles:
Here is the map at 12 miles:
And here it is at 6 miles:
Again, it's fairly easy to see why each country is making their respective arguments. A 12 mile zone pretty much locks Turkey out of the sea, but on the other hand it's nothing that every other country that happens to be landlocked has to deal with.
afaik the Aegean dispute is that Turkey claims that in the Aegean (and for some reason only there), territorial waters should only extend 6 miles from the nearest territory.
The Aegean sea represents a unique geographic problem for Greece and Turkey. There aren't really any other regions like it in the world. The closest would be the Caribbean and Melanesia, but neither of those regions have the Black Sea on one side and the the Mediterranean on the other with the sea in between falling almost completely into the economic and territorial sphere on one country.
And it's not just Turkey that takes issue with it. Pretty much everyone disagrees with the idea of letting Greece have full control of the Aegean Sea. it would give them unprecedented power over a vital waterway.
Airspace normally covers all of a nations territorial waters.
Turkey currently accepts that it does. They dispute that Greece can extend that air space 4 additional miles (and love poking the bear). This dispute goes back to even before the international law of the sea existed (to which Turkey is not a signatory for this exact reason). Turkey's claim is that the application of 12 miles is not equitable (they're not wrong), and Greece says they refrain to 6 miles because Turkey has stated extending waters to 12 miles would be Casus Belli (they're not wrong, strictly speaking).
As far as territorial disputes go, the Aegean Sea one is probably the least slowed out there (not like they're fighting over a bunch of rocks no one lives on). Greece to it's credit has largely recognized Turkey's position as far as territorial waters are concerned, and Turkey to it's credit has agreed to mutual arbitration on the issues and both countries have mostly been pretty tame about it, a real achievement considering we're talking about Turkey and Greece (those two really don't like each other).
The airspace conflict is really the only part where they're virtually at each other's throats (sometimes literally, like that time two F16's flew so close to each other they crashed)
RT did not invent any myth, they got that information from the Greek government, and it is not a myth.
At worst it's purposeful misinformation. At best, it's ignoring inconvenient facts to sell sensationalist garbage as news.
The Greek claims are completely justified by international treaties, whereas those of Turkey are not.
No they're not. That's what half the dispute is about. International treaties do not effect countries that don't sign them, which is why they're useless in these situations.
LordofHats wrote: No they're not. That's what half the dispute is about. International treaties do not effect countries that don't sign them, which is why they're useless in these situations.
The fact that Turkey has not signed the treaty does not mean that other states who did sign suddenly lose their right to a 12-mile zone of territorial waters. Greece, like any other nation in the world, has a right to extend its territory that far. It is a great show of Greek self-constraint and consideration towards Turkey that they don't, and instead tries to solve the dispute in a friendly way.
Your claim that Greece and Russia Today invented some kind of myth together is quite simply ridiculous. There is no myth. Just Greece and Turkey having a conflict regarding the size of Greek territorial waters, and Turkey frequently "invades" the territory claimed by Greece. That is what RT reported on, they got the information from the Greek government (who has started mentioning these Turkish intrusions a lot since the SU-24 was shot down). Then they reported that the Greek government has reported that the intrusions have stopped (which would make sense from a Turkish point of view, it would not be very smart to continue now given the circumstances.). I don't see where you got this myth from.
LordofHats wrote: No they're not. That's what half the dispute is about. International treaties do not effect countries that don't sign them, which is why they're useless in these situations.
The fact that Turkey has not signed the treaty does not mean that other states who did sign suddenly lose their right to a 12-mile zone of territorial waters. Greece, like any other nation in the world, has a right to extend its territory that far. It is a great show of Greek self-constraint and consideration towards Turkey that they don't, and instead tries to solve the dispute in a friendly way.
Your claim that Greece and Russia Today invented some kind of myth together is quite simply ridiculous. There is no myth. Just Greece and Turkey having a conflict regarding the size of Greek territorial waters, and Turkey frequently "invades" the territory claimed by Greece. That is what RT reported on, they got the information from the Greek government (who has started mentioning these Turkish intrusions a lot since the SU-24 was shot down). Then they reported that the Greek government has reported that the intrusions have stopped (which would make sense from a Turkish point of view, it would not be very smart to continue now given the circumstances.). I don't see where you got this myth from.
If Turkey and Greece sign a treaty that Russians can only eat Pickles for breakfast, does that mean that the agreement is binding to Russia?
There is no "right" to a 12-mile zone for any single nation on this planet. A bunch of nations got together and agreed that they would recognize each other's claim of a 12-mile zone, but that's it. Turkey didn't sing that treaty so it's not bound by it and can continue to work with Greece on an agreement like they have been doing.
Trust me, Turkey does a lot of stupid stuff and there is not really any need to invent even more stupid stuff to blame them for.
LordofHats wrote: No they're not. That's what half the dispute is about. International treaties do not effect countries that don't sign them, which is why they're useless in these situations.
The fact that Turkey has not signed the treaty does not mean that other states who did sign suddenly lose their right to a 12-mile zone of territorial waters. Greece, like any other nation in the world, has a right to extend its territory that far. It is a great show of Greek self-constraint and consideration towards Turkey that they don't, and instead tries to solve the dispute in a friendly way. Your claim that Greece and Russia Today invented some kind of myth together is quite simply ridiculous. There is no myth. Just Greece and Turkey having a conflict regarding the size of Greek territorial waters, and Turkey frequently "invades" the territory claimed by Greece. That is what RT reported on, they got the information from the Greek government (who has started mentioning these Turkish intrusions a lot since the SU-24 was shot down). Then they reported that the Greek government has reported that the intrusions have stopped (which would make sense from a Turkish point of view, it would not be very smart to continue now given the circumstances.). I don't see where you got this myth from.
If Turkey and Greece sign a treaty that Russians can only eat Pickles for breakfast, does that mean that the agreement is binding to Russia?
There is no "right" to a 12-mile zone for any single nation on this planet. A bunch of nations got together and agreed that they would recognize each other's claim of a 12-mile zone, but that's it. Turkey didn't sing that treaty so it's not bound by it and can continue to work with Greece on an agreement like they have been doing.
Trust me, Turkey does a lot of stupid stuff and there is not really any need to invent even more stupid stuff to blame them for.
Yes, but Greece did sign the treaty, which means that other countries have to respect Greece's 12-mile zone (if Greece were to claim that). Turkey not signing the treaty or not recognizing claims is completely irrelevant to the fact that other nations are bound by the treaty. If the entire world, including Russia, but except Turkey, sign a treaty that Russians can only eat pickles, does the fact that Turkey did not sign this treaty stop Russia and other countries from making Russians eat pickles? No. It is completely irrelevant. And now if Turkey is really angry about Russians having to eat pickles, does that change anything? Still no. The other nations are still fully in their right by making Russians eat pickles, and if they show consideration towards Turkish concerns, this is an act of goodwill. Turkey can't demand anything regarding the pickle treaty. I am not blaming Turkey for anything regarding the Aegean dispute (every nation would do the same in their place), but the cause of the dispute really is not with Greece. The Greeks are in fact very considerate towards the Turks by not claiming a 12-mile zone, despite the fact that the Laws of the Sea treaty allows them to do so and have it recognised by most of the world.
As a side note, Turkey does claim a 12-mile zone of its own in other areas.
Iron_Captain wrote: Greece, like any other nation in the world, has a right to extend its territory that far.
Only with other signers of said agreement. With non-signers you only have the right to whatever you can hold with military force.
Or the right to whatever you get by just being nice to each other and making an alternative agreement. Greece making compromises to adress Turkish concern is very good. More nations should treat their enemies that way.
But again I want to stress that it is Greece who has to compromise and adress Turkish concerns regarding the size of the Greek territorial zone, not the other way around.
Your claim that Greece and Russia Today invented some kind of myth together is quite simply ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as claiming the US invented Ebola, right?
I said nothing about Greece.
That is what RT reported on, they got the information from the Greek government (who has started mentioning these Turkish intrusions a lot since the SU-24 was shot down).
It's pretty topical. In 2004 (or 2006 I forget) there was an incident where Greek and Turkish jets collided in the air. In 1996 Greece was accused of shooting down a Turkish jet. The two air forces engage in mock dog fights in those 4 mile belts regularly. So much that if you ignored anything close to reality and pretended there was no Aegean Dispute you'd get something like 2000 airspace violations.
International law is not a 40k rule book. There is no RAW or RAI. They're RAN (Rules as Negotiated). Negotiations are ongoing. Ignoring that is lying (i.e. creating a myth).
Yes, but Greece did sign the treaty, which means that other countries have to respect Greece's 12-mile zone (if Greece were to claim that). Turkey not signing the treaty or not recognizing claims is completely irrelevant to the fact that other nations are bound by the treaty.
Correct. Every country that signed the treaty recognizes that Greece has a 12-mile zone and Greece recognizes that every other treaty signer has a 12-mile zone.
But the treaty doesn't have anything to do with Turkey nor is Turkey bound by it since they never signed it.
You will find that not signing treaties, and therefore not caring about what treaties say, is a US specialty. You are arguing with the experts when it comes to irrelevant treaties here
That is what RT reported on, they got the information from the Greek government (who has started mentioning these Turkish intrusions a lot since the SU-24 was shot down).
It's pretty topical. In 2004 (or 2006 I forget) there was an incident where Greek and Turkish jets collided in the air. In 1996 Greece was accused of shooting down a Turkish jet. The two air forces engage in mock dog fights in those 4 mile belts regularly. So much that if you ignored anything close to reality and pretended there was no Aegean Dispute you'd get something like 2000 airspace violations.
International law is not a 40k rule book. There is no RAW or RAI. They're RAN (Rules as Negotiated). Negotiations are ongoing. Ignoring that is lying (i.e. creating a myth).
So? Rules as negotiated are still rules. I do not see how this is relevant. Greece has reported thousands of Turkish violations of its airspace. This is true. The fact that Turkey does not recognise those areas as Greek airspace is irrelevant, because Greece does consider it to be their airspace, and this is Greece reporting on violations of its airspace.
Iron_Captain wrote: On the other hand, "US inventing ebola" is completely off-topic, ridiculous and I really do not see where you are getting that from. Your arguments are getting stranger and stranger...
For someone who espouses that Russian news outlets are reliable, you don't seem to know much about them.
Calling something irrelevant doesn't actually make it irrelevant (especially not when it's completely relevant). I think the word you actually want is 'inconvenient.'
Iron_Captain wrote: On the other hand, "US inventing ebola" is completely off-topic, ridiculous and I really do not see where you are getting that from. Your arguments are getting stranger and stranger...
For someone who espouses that Russian news outlets are reliable, you don't seem to know much about them.
Calling something irrelevant doesn't actually make it irrelevant (especially not when it's completely relevant). I think the word you actually want is 'inconvenient.'
I completely fail to see your argument, and therefore will assume you are just rambling at his point. Therefore, my counterargument will consist of this song about pancakes:
Seriously, I can't see any sense in this. You still did not explain the relevance of the US supposedly inventing ebola to Turkish violations of Greek airspace.
Let's not forget that Greece and Turkey are so-called Arch-enemies. Whatever area of sea or air one wants to monitor the other wants to monitor too. Hopefully from a safe distance, but they've actually had fighter jets collide in the air since neither wants to back down from their traditional enemy.
Was really fun to go for dinner with a Turkish couple living here - they're really relaxed on alcohol and unclean food. But when one guy said the salad looked like "Greek salad" the Turkish man went ballistic. NO! It's TURKISH SALAD, the Greeks just stole it from us!
Therefore, my counterargument will consist of this song about pancakes:
I do like IHOP, though I often wonder if they really are international. I mean, they only have like, 1 location outside the US and Canada. I feel like calling themselves international is some kind of lie.
You still did not explain the relevance of the US supposedly inventing ebola to Turkish violations of Greek airspace.
I was referring to a famous RT report that ran in RT America and RT Spain (Could have sworn we had a thread on this) which claimed the US invented Ebola. Their source? Some guy.
The point was that just because X claims Y, does not mean Y is true or that X is honest. Further, reporting that Y is true in spite of obvious (one might say relevant) information to the contrary is a lie. Knowing that Russia today had previously pushed a lie that Turkey was violating Greek air space, as if it was some kind of sure thing, I proposed that RT simply changed what it considered an air space violation (especially given that the only source for any of these claims is RT. All other news outlets trace the story back to them).
Iron_Captain wrote: On the other hand, "US inventing ebola" is completely off-topic, ridiculous and I really do not see where you are getting that from. Your arguments are getting stranger and stranger...
For someone who espouses that Russian news outlets are reliable, you don't seem to know much about them.
Calling something irrelevant doesn't actually make it irrelevant (especially not when it's completely relevant). I think the word you actually want is 'inconvenient.'
So your only counter argument is ad hominem?
"It's a Russian News outlet, so it's automatically wrong".
Iron Captain makes reasoned arguments backed up by sources (which aren't Russian), and you can't help but constantly bring up his nationality...frankly it's tedious.
International law is not a 40k rule book. There is no RAW or RAI. They're RAN (Rules as Negotiated). Negotiations are ongoing. Ignoring that is lying (i.e. creating a myth).
To be fair, that sounds EXACTLY like a 40k rule book. Forge the narrative!
Iron_Captain wrote: On the other hand, "US inventing ebola" is completely off-topic, ridiculous and I really do not see where you are getting that from. Your arguments are getting stranger and stranger...
For someone who espouses that Russian news outlets are reliable, you don't seem to know much about them.
Calling something irrelevant doesn't actually make it irrelevant (especially not when it's completely relevant). I think the word you actually want is 'inconvenient.'
So your only counter argument is ad hominem?
"It's a Russian News outlet, so it's automatically wrong".
Iron Captain makes reasoned arguments backed up by sources (which aren't Russian), and you can't help but constantly bring up his nationality...frankly it's tedious.
How is holding Turkey to a treaty they haven't signed a "reasoned argument"?
I tend to find RT and Sputnik (they're the big ones I pay attention to) about on par with Fox News and the National Inquirer respectively. The former isn't always wrong, but it very happily downplays inconvenient facts or pretends they don't exist to push it's point. The later is entertaining for applying tabloid reporting to things other than Tom Cruise's love life and questions about whether or not Elvis is still alive. And between programming about conspiracy theories and political propaganda, RT actually puts out some fun stuff now and then. Loved that time they slammed Glenn Beck
My issue with most Russian news I see is that it takes "everyone has a bias" to the point "being completely biased is fine." That doesn't make them wrong all the time, but it results in mountains of slanted and inaccurate reporting including dedicating hours of air time to conspiracy theories. For those exact reasons, they are not "just as reliable" as Iron Captain said earlier in this thread. Everyone has bias, but not all bias is equal. In this matter, RT has been extremely biased.
Iron Captain makes reasoned arguments backed up by sources (which aren't Russian)
You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes reason. Further, this is the article linked that started this current talk; https://www.rt.com/news/323861-turkey-greek-airspace-violations/. The only other link he's made in support of that article actually invalidates it's first line, as Greece claimed two airspace violations on the 27, and 4 on the 26th. It in fact, records 1 violations on the 25th while the linked RT article claims 6. So yes. The linked article is, according to other linked information, immediately unreliable. EDIT: Nope. Reading this bit wrong.
and you can't help but constantly bring up his nationality...
He linked a news article from Russia Today, which I haven't really hidden my distaste for as a news source. Not once have I mentioned his nationality. Do you assume someone is insulting Americans every time they criticize MSNBC or Fox News?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair, that sounds EXACTLY like a 40k rule book. Forge the narrative!
. I'm hiding somewhere in siberian woods.
