Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Iron_Captain wrote: Greece's territorial airspace was established in 1931. The ICAO statutes that regulate that airspace = to territorial waters is from 1948.
And the ICAO says explicitly that territorial airspace = territorial waters. Greece's claim that 'something' was established in 1931 is meaningless. There was no agreement to that effect. It has no bearing on anything. At the time, Turkey was respectful of that boundary absent an agreement for two reasons; The territorial layout of the Aegean sea was completely different pre-WWII, and they had no reason to complain that Greek territorial claims would shut them out of the Aegean and the passage of the 1948 agreement, which Greece signed, established territorial airspace = territorial waters, meaning Greece has no right under international law to claim an addition 4 km/nautical miles/I admit I forget what the unit of measure is
The law is not retroactive, and thus does not apply here.
What? Retroactivity has nothing to do with it. Greece actually has signed an agreement that defines what territorial airspace is and how it is determined. They're claim to an additional 4 km beyond their territorial waters flies in the face of that agreement.
I don't think you understand this. Greece's airspace border was already established and internationally recognised by the entire world before the ICAO statutes of 1948. The ICAO statutes of 1948 did not have the authority nor intention to change already established borders, and any such claim is quite simply ridiculous. The ICAO statutes of 1948 are completely irrelevant here because they do not apply to borders established before 1948 and do not have the authority to change anything. They are the statutes of ICAO, they are not law.
Also, 1948 is after WW2, did you seriously forget when WW2 was? Greece's claim also does not go against international law, because it does not violate the international law (Law of the Sea) regulating this, which states that a nation can claim up to 12 miles of airspace extending from its borders.
As another note, Turkey has only disputed Greek airspace starting from 1974, after their also completely illegitimate invasion of Cyprus. If Turkey had any objections to the Greek 10 mile zone, it should have made those in 1931. Turkey's acception of Greek claims for so long qualifies as tacit agreement under international law. You can't just accept something for decades and then suddenly start to dispute it. Turkey's claim is nothing but pure expansionist agression, and there is no international law or other country backing them up on this. I challenge you to find one.
International law is firmly on the side of the Greeks.
As was explained last time this came up, Turkey was not signatory to those agreements precisely because of the Aegean Sea. International Law is barely even law. It's a body of agreements. Naturally, countries tend to pick and choose when ones they want to be party too. Countries that aren't party to them are not bound for them. Pretending otherwise would be like demanding a Canadian in Quebec be charged with murder in a US court for a crime committed in Montreal. Laws don't work that way. Dubiously standing international agreements more so.
The problem here is that Greece is a signatory to those agreements, and the "crimes" in questions are being committed on Greek territory according to those agreements. So it is like a Canadian being charged with murder in an US court for a murder committed in the US, and the Canadian then saying US law does not apply to him because he did not sign it? It is a bad comparison, because as you noted already, international law is very different from national laws. States are sovereign, people aren't. Therefore you can't compare it.
Greece has shown great consideration towards outrageous Turkish demands by limiting its territorial waters to a smaller size than it has a right to
Both countries have shown great consideration towards one another. Turkey's demands are actually quite reasonable, and Greece's position is very understandable. 100 years ago, there would have been a war over the matter, but they've both managed to go nearly a century now with only a few scuffles and lots of chest beating. They've made slow and steady progress in resolving their differences themselves, so you might understand that people get frustrated when certain news outlets decide to start rattling sabers for the gain of a third party.
What is so reasonable in Turkish demands?
Spoiler:
This is the situation with a 6 mile border:
This is the situation with a 10 mile border:
I can see why they are making these demands, for if Greece's 10 mile border is applied, they would have to make a treaty with the Greeks regarding Turkish usage of the Aegan (since the Aegan would be effectively locked by Greek territory), but that is nothing different from the situation with the Bosporus or Sea of Marmara.
Also, no one is rattling sabers, it is just that people are noting Turkish hypocrisy.
Unless they want to go to war over the matter, they have every obligation to do so. There is no standing agreement between Greece and Turkey over territorial rights in the Aegean. Turkey is not a signatory to the Law of the Sea, and thus the law has no relevance towards the matter.
But Greece is a signatory to the Law of the Sea, which gives them the right to extend their territory to 12 miles. The only reason Greece has stated it won't do this is because of Turkish agression (Turkey threatening war over the matter, is against international law, btw). Under international law, Greece has no obligations to limit its territory.
If Greece would shoot down those Turkish aircrafts, it would be in its full right to do so,
No it wouldn't. It would be an act of war. Whether or not a war followed would depend on circumstance, but no one in NATO or western Europe is going to jump up to defend Greece in that scenario.
Actually, they would be jumping to negotiate to prevent both Turkey and Greece from doing anything more drastic.
It is no coincidence Turkish invasions of Greek airspace suddenly stopped after the incident with the Russian jet.
LordofHats wrote: And as I pointed out last time you brought that up Turkey flew 3 planes through Greece's claimed airspace 2 days after the Russan jet was shot down. You linked to the page with the date and airspace incursions clearly marked.
Was it the Greek military link? I can't find it on there anymore, all I see is one single traffic violation for entire November. You will have to link me.
I have little doubt the entire world would condemn it.
The international community always condemns war, unless the US has put one of its lynch mobs together, in which case they only pretend to condemn war That doesn't really change that Greece would be seen as the aggressor in the scenario, as functionally they'd be shooting down a Turkish aircraft in what all documentation says is neutral airspace.
It depends on where they shoot down the jet. Turkish jets do not just violate the disputed 4-mile zone, they also go beyond that into the 6-mile zone or even fly armed jets over inhabited Greek islands.
1948 comes after 1931. An agreement signed in 1948 overrides a non-agreement in 1931 for obvious reasons.
Also, 1948 is after WW2, did you seriously forget when WW2 was?
That's what I said... In 1948, the territorial holdings in the Aegean were different than in 1931. The British had annexed several islands over to the Greeks (and I'd add, did so with Turkey's consent with the understanding that those holdings would not later be used to make territorial claims to the Aegean).
As another note, Turkey has only disputed Greek airspace starting from 1974,
Because Maritime Law talks in 1974 switched from a 6 nautical mile limit for territorial waters to 8 nautical miles (they switched again a few years later to the current 12). At Six nautical miles, Turkey had no reason to be concerned as even though the Greeks wanted more than that, both were party to International talks that would set territorial waters at 6 NM.
after their also completely illegitimate invasion of Cyprus.
Hence why Greece unsurprisingly and understandably changed their position to support a much larger territorial water limit.
If Turkey had any objections to the Greek 10 mile zone, it should have made those in 1931.
There was no such zone in 1931. There was no agreement to that effect, and any agreement to that end would have to be negotiated between Greece and Turkey, which has pretty much been Turkey's position for decades now; that the two countries need a standing agreement on territorial claims in the Aegean.
Turkey's acception of Greek claims for so long qualifies as tacit agreement under international law.
That's not how international law works. No written agreement = no agreement.
You can't just accept something for decades and then suddenly start to dispute it.
Yes you can. It happens all the time.
Turkey's claim is nothing but pure expansionist agression
Technically speaking, Turkey's position is one where both Turkey and Greece have equal claims to the Aegean and are playing by identical rules. Greece is the one that wants special privileges in the region, absent any agreement or international law. Greece's position is understandable as Turkey hasn't been particularly nice towards them for a long time, but that doesn't really make Turkey the aggressor. If anything Greece is the aggressor (though I'd hesitate to call either of them aggressors in a fairly low boil conflict) for trying to make unilateral territorial claims.
I challenge you to find one.
Why? There is no international law that covers this. That's why there is a dispute. You seem to have a very poor understanding of what international law is or how it works. I can't prove a negative. No one can.
The problem here is that Greece is a signatory to those agreements,
International agreements don't work that way. I have no idea why anyone would ever think they do.
What is so reasonable in Turkish demands?
Greece using international agreements Turkey didn't sign as a pretext to making sweeping territorial claims is straight up casus belli (it literally is). That's been Turkey's position since the Maritime Law talks changed the territorial waters from 6 to 8.
different from the situation with the Bosporus or Sea of Marmara.
There is no other place in the world quite like the Aegean Sea. Turkey wanted an exception in the Law of the Sea for the region for that precise reason (and they're not wrong, no where is is like the Aegean sea Geographically). That exception never made it into the Law of the Sea, and Turkey withdrew from the agreement because signing it would literally be screwing themselves economically.
Also, no one is rattling sabers, it is just that people are noting Turkish hypocrisy.
No. It's Russian news media taking an international disagreement and blowing it up into something else to try and excuse Russian airspace violations.
But Greece is a signatory to the Law of the Sea,
And? That isn't how international law works. I don't know why that's hard to understand. If the US and Britain make an agreement that every time their ships pass one another in open water, they will stop and search each other's vessels for contraband, the US cannot then use that agreement to stop and search a French ship. France was not party to that agreement. It has no bearing on them.
Turkey didn't agree to that part of international law. They never signed it. It has no bearing on them and Greece can't use that law to make territorial claims that would infringe on Turkish access to the Aegean Sea. That's called territorial aggression, and to do so is straight up casus belli.
Turkish jets do not just violate the disputed 4-mile zone, they also go beyond that into the 6-mile zone or even fly armed jets over inhabited Greek islands.
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts as they say.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 20:01:06
Like, push push, or another one of their "interventions" to "protect their spiritual and cultural heritage." I use quotes there to say nicely what they've really been doing; grave robbing and appropriation (Someone took a note from Henry Ford). So my question really would be where are they pushing this time and is anyone important buried there
I'm not sure how much more real it can get short full scale national war. gak seems pretty real right now, what with all the double dealing, triple dealing, historical/cultural desecration, and backdoor bargaining going on while thousands of people get killed as a result of the game of thrones
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 23:00:42
LOL. oh LOL!
They kniw nothing about "fire and movement". If that were my men, we would have killed those Dushman and taken that position.
They even had a tank and a Shilka(AA vehicle) for support.
These guy suck.
bound for glory wrote: LOL. oh LOL!
They kniw nothing about "fire and movement". If that were my men, we would have killed those Dushman and taken that position.
They even had a tank and a Shilka(AA vehicle) for support.
These guy suck.
I have no military experience, but...couldn't they just go around the building on the right and flank the enemy? Didn't seem very sensible trying to scramble up a steep hill with grenades raining down on you. Reminds of the scene in Saving Private Ryan when they're storming the beach, trying to assault the MG nest up the hill.
Ahem. You do realise this is the Kurds we're talking about here? The only ones who've really been taking the fight to ISIS? (At least as I understand it Turkey is blaming the Kurds for the bombing).
If it was the Kurds then I don't blame them, given how much Turkey has been bombing them. The article says the bombing was targeting a military convoy, which is a legitimate target however much we might disagree with their methods. Erdogan wanted the Kurds to retaliate so he could paint as the villains, looks like he got what he wanted.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 03:44:22
Oh get off your fething high horse. The target was a MILITARY CONVOY. Bombing a convoy is a form of ambush, a tactic that ALL military forces use, including our own. Military forces are legitimate targets in war. Are American soldiers cowards when they use claymores?
My only concern is whether or not there were civilian casualties, which I imagine there were.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 03:49:13
If this is going to devolve into "I'm in the armed forces so I can talk about this, YOU can't", then people are going to be taking a break from the off topic subforum. Be polite and don't try and shut people out of the discussion
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 04:56:51
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
bound for glory wrote: You hit on my point. The news has'nt said if civilians were injured. I was thinking that may be the case.
And i was'nt on a "high horse'. I know how these jackass's fight. I have 18 months expeience. How much do YOU have?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the claymore is a battlefield weapon. I don't remember the US army setting them up on a city street.
Alright then, with your wealth of experience, how would you suggest the Kurds retaliate against Turkeys air strikes? Turkey has all the might of a modern military including a modern air force, the Kurds are just a well organised militia.
The civilians were not the target, a military convoy was. Deliberately targeting civilians is cowardice. Targeting the military is not. Using indiscriminate methods that cause civilian casualties can and should be condemned, but its not cowardice. Otherwise, doesn't that make US and British pilots cowards every time they drop a bomb that accidentally kills innocent civilians? The result is the same, they took an action intended to kill enemy combatants but which had a high risk of killing non combatants.
I think a more appropriate word would be 'callous'.
Hay, i'm not claiming to be an expert on all things military. I only comment on this as someone who has had the misfortune in fight dushman in afghanistan for 18 months.
I will say its cowardly to use IED's in areas where civilians may be hurt or killed.
Mock me all you like. No skin off my nose.I just find it interesting that YOU seem to know so much about IED'S and "ambush" as ligit forms of warfare.
And i don't know what you've been told about Mark 18a3 claymore directional mine, but i can tell you, its not used wily-nily.
I will now step aside as you troll me. Because i don't know what i'm talking about.
You were making an Appeal to Authority. Had I know you were a Veteran I obviously would not have presumed to lecture you on military matters, but your experience and my lack of experience does not render you right and me wrong.
I will say its cowardly to use IED's in areas where civilians may be hurt or killed.
Thats a ridiculously broad criteria, and it would actually apply to a lot of Western soldiers and airmen too. If the criteria for cowardice is doing something that will probably kill civilians, then every time a pilot drops a bomb, or a tank or artillery crew shell a location in a residential area, they're being cowards.
Like I said, its more callousness than cowardice.
Mock me all you like. No skin off my nose.
I'm not mocking you, it was a lightly sarcastic response to your appeal to authority.
I just find it interesting that YOU seem to know so much about IED'S and "ambush" as ligit forms of warfare.
You don't need to be a Veteran to understand what an ambush is. My point is that in an asymmetric war IED's are one of the few practical ways for the Kurds to strike back at Turkey's modern military in retaliation for Turkish airstrikes.
And i don't know what you've been told about Mark 18a3 claymore directional mine, but i can tell you, its not used wily-nily.
I merely used it as an example of ambushing a target with a risk of collateral damage. Refer to my other example.
I will now step aside as you troll me
I'm not trolling, I'm disagreeing. You asserted that the Kurds are cowards without backing the claim up, and I disagreed because your criteria would apply to a lot of people include our own soldiers and airmen.
However, I do apologize for saying off "Get off your fething high horse", that probably wasn't the friendliest way to start the argument.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 12:24:30
I keep in contact with several men i served with, and asked if he remembered either of the Lats names(of the 2 men killed by the Chechens).
One(confirmed to be a private) was a man named "Puskis".
Still can't find any info. Somebody doesn't want for people to know about it.
On the bright side, earlier this week, Turkey's PM Ahmet Davutoglu accused Moscow of "behaving like a terrorist organization" and put its anti-terror actions in Syria in one line with IS offensive in the region.
"Russia and other terrorist organizations - first and foremost, the Islamic State in Syria - are responsible for numerous crimes against humanity," Davutoglu said during his brief visit to Ukraine, adding that "if Russia continues behaving like a terrorist organization and forcing civilians to flee, we will deliver an extremely decisive response."
Is there a level below "imbecile" on the scale of severe intellectual disabilities?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/20 10:28:19
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
That doesn't really change that Greece would be seen as the aggressor in the scenario, as functionally they'd be shooting down a Turkish aircraft in what all documentation says is neutral airspace.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
(At least as I understand it Turkey is blaming the Kurds for the bombing).
