Russian SU-24 shot down by Turkey.

[FlameOn]

Janes is reporting that the SU-24M in question would not have had the optional radio components installed to hear any emergency broadcast sent by the equipment Turkey used to broadcast warnings.

Turkish authorities have stated that the aircraft was warned 10 times within a five-minute period. However, the surviving crewmember told Russian media on 25 November that he and the aircraft commander, who was shot from the ground while parachuting, did not receive the signal.

Russian specialists familiar with the R-862 model VHF radio installed on the Su-24M say it requires an optional add-on receiver module in order to receive emergency channel transmissions in the ultra-high frequency (UHF) and very high frequency (VHF) bands.

http://www.janes.com/article/56295/r...-for-shootdown

Meanwhile Erdogan is demanding that the S-400s Russia has just installed in Syria not shoot down any Turkish aircraft that fly inside Syrian airspace. How long before Putin decides to 'accidentally' shoot down a Turkish F-16?
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015...URL_shortening

[CaptainCrunch]

About 2 days before a oops sorry my finger slapped the launch button while I was reaching for my sandwich. Totally my bad, this wasn't ordered by the great Putin.

[Pointman]

Russia says there were no warnings on "the agreed frequency", implying that there was certain wavelength agreed upon to communicate on.

Also some people were questioning why Russia disguise what the plane was doing there to.begin with. They say, it was bombing targets in Kepir-Mortlu-Zahia triangle.

[calgaryblood]

NATO has come out and flat out said the data they've seen shows Russia was in Turkey airspace and warned repeatedly.

NATO Secretary General says Russia is mostly bombing Rebels who are against Assad and who are not ISIS.

Knowing this how can anyone defend Russia? They don't care about ISIS. They are fighting a war for Assad and ISIS is a convenient excuse.

Turkey did the right thing and any country should do the same thing if Russia decides to push the limits again.

[calgaryblood]

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-turkey-de...112648154.html



"Their bombing is taking place in areas where ISIL is not present at all," Stoltenberg said.

They deserved to be shot down, good for Turkey. You want to help Assad? Fine, but don't infringe on another country's airspace to do it.

What would Russia do if Turkey entered their airspace to help Putin's enemies?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Janes is reporting that the SU-24M in question would not have had the optional radio components installed to hear any emergency broadcast sent by the equipment Turkey used to broadcast warnings.


http://www.janes.com/article/56295/r...-for-shootdown

Meanwhile Erdogan is demanding that the S-400s Russia has just installed in Syria not shoot down any Turkish aircraft that fly inside Syrian airspace. How long before Putin decides to 'accidentally' shoot down a Turkish F-16?
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015...URL_shortening

I have a 1978 Hudson Bay 14 inch Black and White television that has both VHF AND UHF.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-turkey-de...112648154.html



"Their bombing is taking place in areas where ISIL is not present at all," Stoltenberg said.

They deserved to be shot down, good for Turkey. You want to help Assad? Fine, but don't infringe on another country's airspace to do it.

What would Russia do if Turkey entered their airspace to help Putin's enemies?

Turkey is constantly bombing non-ISIS targets. Turkey is also constantly infringing on the airspace of neighbouring countries. Not sure they have a leg to stand on for this very minor infringement of their airspace.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

NATO has come out and flat out said the data they've seen shows Russia was in Turkey airspace and warned repeatedly.

Turkey being a NATO country, NATO is hardly a neutral party in this. It's also already established by Turkey's own press releases that at most the Russian fighter crossed the Turkish border for some seconds.

NATO Secretary General says Russia is mostly bombing Rebels who are against Assad and who are not ISIS.

Yes. In this case that would be the Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, such as Al-Nusra.

In that part of Syria the fighting is split mostly four ways.
We have

1) SDF rebels, lead by the Kurds and partially backed by the West.
2) Daesh / ISIS, partially backed by Turkey.
3) Al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda affiliated islamist forces, backed by Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Qatar at least. There are also persistent rumours that the US is still backing these guys.
4) Assads government forces, backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah.


Those four parties are involved in five active conflicts, which are:
1) Assad vs. ISIS
2) Assad vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
3) ISIS vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
4) SDF vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
5) SDF vs. ISIS

There seems to be an unofficial truce between Assad and SDF, as there hasn't been any active fighting between those two sides. I think that can only be seen as a good thing. It's an indication that if they could crush the both ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, there's a chance the SDF and goverment could come together for peace talks.

The lack of fighting between SDF and Assad also strongly implies that there's no reason for Russia to bomb the SDF.

(On the other hand, Turkey is bombing the SDF. Who are the main force fighting ISIS.)

Knowing this how can anyone defend Russia? They don't care about ISIS. They are fighting a war for Assad and ISIS is a convenient excuse.

Knowing the above, I don't see why it's hard to defend Russia. What I'm struggling with is why would anyone defend Turkey here?

Russia was most likely there bombing Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, who the Turkey is backing. Screw the islamists, and screw Turkey for trying to protect them. And screw NATO for trying to excuse Turkey.

[2Stonedbirds]

Would a flight plan not have been issued with NATO authorities prior to the Russian planes operations?

What Id really like to know though is why a NATO ally such as Turkey isn't having their guts stomped out after its come to light they have been taking in black market oil and supporting ISIS?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Would a flight plan not have been issued with NATO authorities prior to the Russian planes operations?

What Id really like to know though is why a NATO ally such as Turkey isn't having their guts stomped out after its come to light they have been taking in black market oil and supporting ISIS?

"Strategic ally".

In other words:
ISIS is a lower priority for the West than the power game with Russia and Iran.
If there's a conflict of interest between supporting Turkey and resisting ISIS, they go with supporting Turkey. Not that complicated really.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Turkey being a NATO country, NATO is hardly a neutral party in this. It's also already established by Turkey's own press releases that at most the Russian fighter crossed the Turkish border for some seconds.



Yes. In this case that would be the Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, such as Al-Nusra.

In that part of Syria the fighting is split mostly four ways.
We have

1) SDF rebels, lead by the Kurds and partially backed by the West.
2) Daesh / ISIS, partially backed by Turkey.
3) Al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda affiliated islamist forces, backed by Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Qatar at least. There are also persistent rumours that the US is still backing these guys.
4) Assads government forces, backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah.


Those four parties are involved in five active conflicts, which are:
1) Assad vs. ISIS
2) Assad vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
3) ISIS vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
4) SDF vs. Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists
5) SDF vs. ISIS

There seems to be an unofficial truce between Assad and SDF, as there hasn't been any active fighting between those two sides. I think that can only be seen as a good thing. It's an indication that if they could crush the both ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, there's a chance the SDF and goverment could come together for peace talks.

The lack of fighting between SDF and Assad also strongly implies that there's no reason for Russia to bomb the SDF.

(On the other hand, Turkey is bombing the SDF. Who are the main force fighting ISIS.)



Knowing the above, I don't see why it's hard to defend Russia. What I'm struggling with is why would anyone defend Turkey here?

Russia was most likely there bombing Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, who the Turkey is backing. Screw the islamists, and screw Turkey for trying to protect them. And screw NATO for trying to excuse Turkey.

I don't defend Turkey. However, I don't defend Russia either. A major factor in all this was Assad's refusal to step down early when protests started for a democratic election. Since 2012, Russia has been vetoing any kind of action against Assad. Assad is also using Russian made weaponry to kill hundreds of thousands of his countrymen. While ISIS is exceptionally brutal, Assad is responsible for far more deaths in sheer numbers.

Russia stepping in as soon as it became clear that Assad was really on the ropes is hardly commendable. They've had numerous chances to work with the UN to find a solution, but have consistently vetoed any action, for the simple reason that Syria is within their sphere of influence and they want to keep it that way.

[blueski]

This:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ying-isis-oil/

And more analysis:
https://www.rt.com/news/323895-isis-...il-iraq-syria/

[T@T]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

NATO has come out and flat out said the data they've seen shows Russia was in Turkey airspace and warned repeatedly.

NATO Secretary General says Russia is mostly bombing Rebels who are against Assad and who are not ISIS.

Knowing this how can anyone defend Russia? They don't care about ISIS. They are fighting a war for Assad and ISIS is a convenient excuse.

Turkey did the right thing and any country should do the same thing if Russia decides to push the limits again.

Congrats for pointing out things already said in this thread, none of this is a secret. A couple of seconds in someone's airspace doesn't mean you shoot them down..like everyone else you escort them out.

Now please post something showing why Turkey shouldn't be kicked out of NATO.

And I double dare Turkey to scramble jets after the Russians if the slip into Turkish airspace again.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't defend Turkey. However, I don't defend Russia either. A major factor in all this was Assad's refusal to step down early when protests started for a democratic election. Since 2012, Russia has been vetoing any kind of action against Assad. Assad is also using Russian made weaponry to kill hundreds of thousands of his countrymen. While ISIS is exceptionally brutal, Assad is responsible for far more deaths in sheer numbers.

Russia stepping in as soon as it became clear that Assad was really on the ropes is hardly commendable. They've had numerous chances to work with the UN to find a solution, but have consistently vetoed any action, for the simple reason that Syria is within their sphere of influence and they want to keep it that way.

I agree with all that. I'm not really interested in defending Russia anyway, I just felt like pointing out why I don't think it's unreasonable to do so in this one situation.

And I guess I felt like talking about why I don't really see much of a difference between Russia and the West. They're all generally speaking a bunch of a-holes, even though they also occasionally can be in the right.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Itse

"Strategic ally".

In other words:
ISIS is a lower priority for the West than the power game with Russia and Iran.
If there's a conflict of interest between supporting Turkey and resisting ISIS, they go with supporting Turkey. Not that complicated really.

No I totally get that. But the rules are not, and should not be different for those NATO nations in a different strategic location than any others. Tow the company line, and all that. It's extremely offensive to me that our NATO allies and supposed partners in all this are defending Turkey; knowing full well what they are doing in the region.

IMO if you are a member of NATO, and are not doing what is in line with their goals; then wtf.

NATO is fast turning into a joke, like the UN. NATO was supposed to render military aide to Ukraine if it was ever attacked by non NATO states; such as what we were being told was happening by the media earlier this year. This deal was brokered on Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal in the early 90s, which at that time was the third largest in the world.

But I digress. What Turkey is doing is equivalent to say, a cop selling handguns out of the trunk of their car. Or teachers diddling kids.

Either get on board or prepare your anus IMO.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't defend Turkey. However, I don't defend Russia either. A major factor in all this was Assad's refusal to step down early when protests started for a democratic election. Since 2012, Russia has been vetoing any kind of action against Assad. Assad is also using Russian made weaponry to kill hundreds of thousands of his countrymen. While ISIS is exceptionally brutal, Assad is responsible for far more deaths in sheer numbers.

Russia stepping in as soon as it became clear that Assad was really on the ropes is hardly commendable. They've had numerous chances to work with the UN to find a solution, but have consistently vetoed any action, for the simple reason that Syria is within their sphere of influence and they want to keep it that way.

Syria is 85% Sunni, Assad had zero chance of winning a democratic election. Right or wrong, Like it or not a Sunni ruled Syria would not be good for the Middle East.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by T@T

Syria is 85% Sunni, Assad had zero chance of winning a democratic election. Right or wrong, Like it or not a Sunni ruled Syria would not be good for the Middle East.

It's not like giving democracy a chance could have gone much worse than this.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

I agree with all that. I'm not really interested in defending Russia anyway, I just felt like pointing out why I don't think it's unreasonable to do so in this one situation.

And I guess I felt like talking about why I don't really see much of a difference between Russia and the West. They're all generally speaking a bunch of a-holes, even though they also occasionally can be in the right.

The whole Syria situation really illustrates what happens when dozens of parties all act in their own self interest with zero regard for anyone else or the Syrians themselves.

Bush's Iraq war really destroyed the credibility of and will towards international intervention.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Itse

Russia was most likely there bombing Al-Qaeda affiliated islamists, who the Turkey is backing.

Too unintentionally hilarious not to quote.

Don't piss off The Turkey...

[T@T]

Obama finally calls out Turkey.

enough is enough, the border must be sealed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6753836.html