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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

243.5 MPH is stall speed?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do you believe everything the Turks say without proof?

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?

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

243.5 MPH is stall speed?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do you believe everything the Turks say without proof?

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

243.5 MPH is stall speed?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do you believe everything the Turks say without proof?

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.

It has a maximum speed of 815 mph according to wikipedia, but that's all I can find on it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Seaward wrote:

 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.

Would it be flying anywhere near that slow?
Because if not Turkeys claims are BS.

Seaward wrote:

 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:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

 Tyran wrote:

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.

New videos have emerged of burning trucks and panicked onlookers after an apparent air strike in Syria near the Turkish border.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33e_1448478406&use

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.

Drivers was warned to turn around 100 times in 15 seconds.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Drivers was warned to turn around 100 times in 15 seconds.

How are you supposed to understand a warning repeated every 0.15 seconds ?

 loki old fart wrote:
New videos have emerged of burning trucks and panicked onlookers after an apparent air strike in Syria near the Turkish border.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33e_1448478406&use

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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shooting_down_of_Flight_655
Relevant part of what the US position was over the whole fracass

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.

M.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
New videos have emerged of burning trucks and panicked onlookers after an apparent air strike in Syria near the Turkish border.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33e_1448478406&use

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.??

 loki old fart wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
New videos have emerged of burning trucks and panicked onlookers after an apparent air strike in Syria near the Turkish border.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33e_1448478406&use

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 ?

 LethalShade wrote:
Wasn't there a rumor about Turkish trucks sent in Syria to deliver supplies to ISIS ?

Trucks carrying oil bought by Turkey from ISIS.

 Ustrello wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Then I don't why people believe the Turks are credible.

It's not so much a matter of credibility as a matter of finding the resulting political fall out to be loaded with hypocrisy and empty grand standing.

After all, they are the people who totally didn't massacre the Armenians, no?

Don't say that in Turkey. They'll prosecute (or put you on a Terrorist No Fly list)

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!!!"

I like this quote by Erdogan

“A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack,”

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Hardly unprecedented.

 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.

Sources for that, please. Russia ignoring ISIS is a blatant lie

It's no secret that Russia has spent more time bombing Syrian Opposition forces than ISIS (to the point ISIS has barely been bombed at all) It's obvious to everyone that Russia is not in the fight to fight ISIS, but to keep Assad in power. More links. Not that I expect anything you read in them to be convincing. If it's anything short of kissing Russia's ass, it's just 'western propoganda.'

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.