Turkey shoots down russian jet

[Darkpriest]

^Didn't you just make the same post on #119?

 

Maybe I was unclear. If Russia nuked Turkey, Turkey would not wait for the US to say "sure, go use our nukes", they would just take them. IMO, it would result in a tit-for-tat citybusting exchange, not full on worldwide nuclear exchanges.

 

Might have double posted... the last one is the one i edited most recently. Was using a phone and then laptop :D

 

EDIT: edited the previous one.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Drowsy Emperor]

Meanwhile off the coast of Syria

 

[Fighter]

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?

 

Wow, just, wow.

[Drowsy Emperor]

^Didn't you just make the same post on #119?

 

Maybe I was unclear. If Russia nuked Turkey, Turkey would not wait for the US to say "sure, go use our nukes", they would just take them. IMO, it would result in a tit-for-tat citybusting exchange, not full on worldwide nuclear exchanges.

 

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?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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?

 

Wow, just, wow.

 

 

He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat.

[kgambit]

First offical response:

 

- all targets posing even a remote threat will be engaged and destroyed.

 

Do you have a link?    I'm not surprised by the other items, even the fighter escorts for fighter bombers, but this one is ridiculously open-ended and vague.

 

Both sides have BVR missiles with ranges from 40 to over 80 nautical miles.   Going weapons free with those sort of ROEs is a recipe for utter disaster.   Are you maintaining that the Russians are now weapons free to engage any NATO aircraft that gets within missile range?  That's utter lunacy.

[Drowsy Emperor]

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

[Gfted1]

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?

I dunno what would happen if someone vaporized DC but I cant see any lone explosion resulting in the emptying out of silos and subs. As you say, it is rudimentary to determine the source of the nuke, so my guess would be that the response would be limited to whoever fired it off and whoever gave it to them.

[Darkpriest]

Siergiej Rudski, Chief general - their offical said this during their press conference, that was on one of the news agencies that deliver information to news outlets, can't give you a link.

 

I am assuming that it is mainly targeted towards Turks and their self governance of airspace over north Syria.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Sakai]

 

 

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?

 

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... What exactly did you expect? 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Sakai

[Fighter]

He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat.

 

Yes. And he's just done it again. That kind of attitude common amongst Russian 'liberals' is one reason why Putin is popular. They have no loyalty to their own. The type of people that would put their own soldiers in prison while praising islamist head cutters as freedom fighters because "it's our own fault".

[Sakai]

 

He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat.

 

Yes. And he's just done it again. That kind of attitude common amongst Russian 'liberals' is one reason why Putin is popular. They have no loyalty to their own. The type of people that would put their own soldiers in prison while praising islamist head cutters as freedom fighters because "it's our own fault".

 

I'm not praising anybody. I'm asking a simple question. Why us killing them is ok, and them killing us is not. Can you answer it? And yes, i'm not "loyal". Or i am, but to myself and my own pricinples. And i'm not going to abandon them just because the dead happen to be from my country this time. 

[Malcador]

 

I saw the video as well. Shooting exiting pilots is about the same level as torturing animals because it is fun. Little can be done against such people except for:

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?

 

Ah yes, the ever common preface which is proven a lie by what follows. I don't think British routinely executed German pilots during the Blitz, if they survived, after all.

 

Also, you must be dreaming if you expect withdrawing and running away is an acceptable solution for state, especially a power like Russia. They don't need to bomb Turkey or anything, but those Turkmen are in a country that they were invited into, and are fighting against Assad. Not a big escalation to put the squeeze on them.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Malcador

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

 

He's the living proof that Putin is a democrat.

 

Yes. And he's just done it again. That kind of attitude common amongst Russian 'liberals' is one reason why Putin is popular. They have no loyalty to their own. The type of people that would put their own soldiers in prison while praising islamist head cutters as freedom fighters because "it's our own fault".

 

No he isn't that bad, he cares about Russia ......just not Putins rashness 

[BruceVC]

But guys killing is wrong, it seems like you guys want to see bloodshed?

[Darkpriest]

killing per se is not wrong... is why you kill, who you kill, and in what purpose you kill that matters...

 

you kill animals to eat, you kill plants to eat, you kill some individuals, that are a threat to a peacful co-existence.

 

I mean someone famous said this thing:

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.

 

 

Sometimes you just need to kill a few so many can have peaceful lives.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Sakai]

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.

I very much doubt they heard of geneva convetion. And about shooting someone who can't defend themselves, it's not like these rebels can defend themselves against planes. So... And yes, Assad invited us to kill all of his enemies, so it all a-okay. Nothing wrong there whatsoever. But personally i see it as a very flimsy excuse.

 

And btw, if we're talking about civilized people, i've heard plenty of horror stories (and seen some of those) from Ukraine, about what russia supported separatists did there. 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Sakai

[kgambit]

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

 

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. 

[Meshugger]

 

I saw the video as well. Shooting exiting pilots is about the same level as torturing animals because it is fun. Little can be done against such people except for:

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?

 

 

If you do not understand the basic concept shooting someone unarmed or unable to fight, then i do not know what to tell you except that may God have mercy on your soul.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I saw the video as well. Shooting exiting pilots is about the same level as torturing animals because it is fun. Little can be done against such people except for:

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?

 

 

If you do not understand the basic concept shooting someone unarmed or unable to fight, then i do not know what to tell you except that may God have mercy on your soul.

 

What if God isn't real...who will grant mercy ?

[Sakai]

If you do not understand the basic concept shooting someone unarmed or unable to fight, then i do not know what to tell you except that may God have mercy on your soul.

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.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Sakai

[Darkpriest]

PLEASE lets nto derail it to another religion interpretation and identification topic that will further derail into food topic... lets stay focused...

 

It's still surprising that no statement was presented by NATO countries.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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

 

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.

[Gfted1]

What do you have against mayonnaise?