Drowsy Emperor

The thing with kurds is that everyone wants to use them but no one actually wants them to create their own state even though they have a more legitimate claim to one than most others in the region. They're too spread out to make such a thing happen without wrecking several other stated in the process.

The Russians should now shoot down the first plane that takes off near the Syrian-Turkish border. They can always clam it was about to attack one of their aircraft. That's about as legitimate (cynical) as Turkey's 15 second airspace violation.

Yeah but that was up in the air even before this crisis. I don't know what possessed Erdogan to ruin economic relations over a pointless incident. Its not like they're going to intervene in Syria on ISIS's behalf or the Russians are going to stop doing what they're doing on account of one lost jet. The more you look at it, the more pointless it becomes. Bad Russian-Turkish relations are more in the interest of the US than either Turkey or Russia.

I've no idea how significant their economic ties are.

Well, Turkey did get scot-free for one of the worst crimes of the 20th century.

Pilot claims there was no warning and that he wasn't in violation of turkish airspace. That is neither here nor there but his comment that the F16 is so much faster it could have sat on his wing if it intended to warn him sounds plausible. Having to escort all bomber aircraft will drain russian resources, which I presume is one of the goals of the provocation.

Spectre. Piece of ****. Opening scene is the only thing worthwhile in the entire film and even there its not quite clear why Bond is beating the crap out of a pilot flying a helicopter close to the ground. Why is Craig Bond again? The man looks like a neanderthal. Every time I went to the cinema in the last few months, I regretted it. On the other hand, Akira Kurosawa's Stray Dog (1949) was very good. The Bad Sleep Well (by A.K. too) was decent as well. Yojimbo is next.

from the first Aviationist article again Why you keep bringing up the Syrian Mig incident is beyond me. I never mentioned it. What you assume is not my problem. From NATO on October 5th: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_123392.htm Given the Russian explanations for why the first incursion on October 3rd occurred, you'll excuse me if I refuse to accept anything they say as fact regarding either of those incidents or this one. YMMV This is your attitude in a nutshell:

Napalm works well too. Seriously, the only reasons ISIS is still alive is that everyone sees the other factions in the Syrian war as the more pressing enemy. The west doesn't want to fight ISIS to give Assad breathing room and the Russians have to wreck the western supported Al Qaeda elements to help Assad survive. Other than that, the Toyota Caliphate's life expectancy is about the same as of a pig in Tehran once this mess starts heading towards its conclusion.

Its rather obvious that the plane was targeted before it even entered Turkish air space, with the famous 15 seconds over Turkish territory being the filmiest excuse ever for what is essentially an ambush. They even picked a plane that is essentially defenseless and an easy target, just in case. Now with the S400 being set up on the ground and the cruiser near the Syrian coast I sincerely hope they try this again.

Whether I believe it's okay to nuke them or not is irrelevant, I'm nobody. What matters is will someone actually do it and if so, can they get away with it? I would think that you of all people should be aware of how little stuff being "okay" matters in a war. While morality is the first casualty of war we still have to have something to go on. In the case of this intervention its obvious, as in any conflict, that everyone is following their own interests. But if go from the basic argument that: 1. Syria was a relatively prosperous and modern state compared to its neighbors that did not deserve a foreign instigated civil war 2. That Assad, as a legitimate ruler (or as legitimate a ruler as a ME country can have) did not have to cave in to western demands 3. That his opponents have proven at every turn that they're likely much worse than he is, apart from being illegitimate from the start > then its not hard to claim that the current Russian intervention, apart from being motivated by realpolitik and the protection of their military interests is still more or less legitimate If it were up to me, none of this would have happened to Syria (or Iraq, or Yugoslavia or whomever else) in the first place but since it has it is presumably better to have the Russians force it to its miserable conclusion rather than have it last another 5 or 10 years. International law may be weak and circumvented often, but the gist of it is that its better that a framework exists rather than there be none at all.

You mean except for this? Without concrete proof and the proper of the sequence of events that is a meaningless claim. The Russians could claim that they: 1. were not in Turkish air space 2. didn't lock on at all 3. that the plane was defending itself outside of Turkish air space etc. etc. Except the Russians admitted that they were in Turkish airspace on both prior occasions but said it was a "mistake" caused by "navigational error" or "weather conditions" (the reason tends to vary depending on the phases of the moon). Google it yourself. @darkpriest I've seen the same info - both about the warnings and the time over Turkish airspace. If the radar track is accurate, the time over Turkish territory was indeed brief. The Turkish response may have been disproportionate but why continue on a track where you're WARNED to stand clear. It would taken a minimal course correction to avoid the situation. How many times do you need to be warned? That you need to ask the planners in Moscow. I see no point in antagonizing the Turks over a meaningless and tiny strip of land, but even less point in shooting down Russian planes that aren't going after targets in Turkey. Now Russians are fully within their rights to shoot down any Turkish airplane that goes a foot over the Syrian border, and will probably do so. Turkey cannot sit on two chairs and pretend this is about state sovereignty and air space violations when it plainly is not as long as its supporting a terrorist faction in a neighboring country. Air space violation is the excuse, and not the reason for shooting the plane down. Oh, and: https://twitter.com/INTHENOWRT/status/669244417589440512

Well, If I am not mistaken, if the body is churned by fire, tunred to ash and not buried, they are denied access to their paradise, right? So Chinese might be just smart about it. Nah they just didn't want to go into the cave to get jumped so they used the appropriate tool for the job. But its China's "no ****s were given" attitude that cracks me up. I mean, these guys were on the hunt for two months in some ****hole to do the job. That's thoroughness for you.

Bottom line really, all they're doing is proving that Putin is right. If there are no "moderate" rebels, and they don't abide by the rules of engagement, then they're basically marauders and its feuer frei. And if Turkey is supporting them the only appropriate thing to do is to impose economic sanctions against the country until Erdogan steps down. I mean, if we're all against ISIS and banditry?

Totally unrelated but the chinese make me lol every time https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/chinese-police-use-a-flamethrower-to-smoke-out-muslim-terrorists/

You mean except for this? Without concrete proof and the proper of the sequence of events that is a meaningless claim. The Russians could claim that they: 1. were not in Turkish air space 2. didn't lock on at all 3. that the plane was defending itself outside of Turkish air space etc. etc. Its he said- she said. But shooting a plane down is no longer a guessing game.

While not excusing their actions by any means, it's interesting how people saying something like that forgetting the fact these pilots were dropping bombs on them in the first place. And i've heard reports that they're not even particularly choosy on who they drop them, militants or civilians. In any case, it's a bit hypocritical to expect these people to act differently. "We're dropping bombs on you, but shooting a pilot is just too much!" Really? I was going to post something along these lines, too. I can't understand how folks can be scandalized by the fact that the people usually on the receiving end of white phosphorus would jump at the chance to shoot an ejected pilot who can't do anything about it. These were military pilots flying a combat sortie. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Well, the British had their own airforce they could and did retaliate with, didn't they? This is asymmetrical warfare. Wonder if you chaps would be more at ease if they had tried the pilots in a kangaroo court and hanged them. "Civilized war" is an oxymoron. Then its okay to nuke them? By the way, read the first comment under the video you posted.

All the people Russia and everyone else are bombing aren't exactly able to fight against that either. Yet i don't see you worried about it all that much. They're unable to fight yet they downed that helicopter and killed a marine a few hours later? What?

You already have NATO jets operating in close enough proximity that a no holds barred ROE like that is going to end in more deaths. So unless that is what you are really interested in, those vague and open ended ROEs are untenable. Under those ROEs the US jets attacking the ISIS oil trucks would have been exposed to attack because I assure you BOTH sides would have been in BVR missile range. Do you really think that sort of ROE is a good idea? Seriously? FFS, the Turks were edgy after Syria shot down an unarmed recon plane in 2012, They also warned the Russians about violating their airspace after Russian Su-30s violated Turkish airspace on October 3rd (and again on October 4th) and then went further and locked up two F-16Cs with missile locks while still in Turkish territory. And you think this depends on the TURKS behavior? Maybe if the Russian jets had exercised a little more discretion and steered just a couple of miles south this whole mess would have been avoided. @darkpriest Thanks. At least I have a source. That's good enough. Lets not play stupid here. The Russians are fighting in Syria. The russian jets are plainly not a danger to Turkey, its army or its civilian population. There is no cause to shoot them down. The breach of airspace is a technicality and the strip of land that it allegedly occurred over is both small and irrelevant. Additionally, since Russia is attacking ISIS (among others) and Turkey is "officially" against ISIS that is even more reason for cooperation and leeway in this regard. Unless the Turks are trying to prove what everyone else knows and suspects - that they're supporting the worst terrorist group currently in existence. As for these ROE, they're obviously intended to deter further Turkish adventures of this sort and not to proclaim all NATO fighters and such free targets.

Wow, just, wow. He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat. Lol. Well, please explain me where i'm wrong. Why killing them is ok, but them killing us is not. I really don't understand that kind of logic. Come into a foreign country, drop bombs on the people daily and then be outraged that these people are fighting back... This is not fighting back. Killing parachuting pilots is a war crime. Its shooting a man who can't defend himself and is not done by civilized people and armies. If they let him land and killed him in a shootout, provided he did not surrender, they'd be within the rules of war. By shooting him like a sitting duck they're forfeiting the status of combatants under the geneva conventions. This essentially means they're bandits and its a total free for all with any subsequent retaliation justified. In other words they're just proving that killing them and supporting Assad is the right thing to do. If you're asking how Russia can be allowed to kill people in Syria the answer is simple: the Syrian government asked them to do it. Former Yugoslavia captured several NATO pilots, and could have just as easily flayed the skin off their backs for all the war crimes they committed but did not, because that's not how things are done among civilized people.

Its open ended so as to be a credible threat. Whether we find out what it means in practice depends on the Turks.

Wow, just, wow. He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat.

Why would the Russians not launch as many ICBM's as they could in that situation? Proving responsibility at that point becomes rather moot. They can't know in Moscow who gave the orders and they wouldn't wait to find out. If Cuba used its hypothetical missiles on US soil turning Washington DC and NY into a ruin do you think the US would limit its response to Cuba?

Meanwhile off the coast of Syria

MAD isnt the only possible response. Per Google, Turkey "hosts" 60-70 US nukes as part of NATO's nuclear umbrella. I have no doubt some would mysteriously go missing and then suddenly Moscow is aglow. That would still trigger retaliatory strikes and MAD as everyone is aware that the final word on nuke usage is given by US.