Jump to content

Russian jet


thefatbaboon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can someone help me understand. Turks say Russian jet was in their territory for 17 seconds and ignored 10 warnings.  And then was shot down once it had essentially returned into Syrian airspace.

 

1. How does one make 10 warnings in 17 seconds?

 

2. How quickly does one expect the plane to heed the warning and turn around?  I mean 17 secs is pretty quick in my book.

 

While I'm straying into things I don't understand...

 

I don't understand our foreign policy in the Middle East. Why do we keep destabilising all the dictators?  What has removing Mubarak, gaddafi, Hussein, Assad done for the region? Seems like all we've done is turn the whole region into a lunatic quagmire of vicious poverty and terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand. Turks say Russian jet was in their territory for 17 seconds and ignored 10 warnings.  And then was shot down once it had essentially returned into Syrian airspace.

 

1. How does one make 10 warnings in 17 seconds?

 

2. How quickly does one expect the plane to heed the warning and turn around?  I mean 17 secs is pretty quick in my book.

 

While I'm straying into things I don't understand...

 

I don't understand our foreign policy in the Middle East. Why do we keep destabilising all the dictators?  What has removing Mubarak, gaddafi, Hussein, Assad done for the region? Seems like all we've done is turn the whole region into a lunatic quagmire of vicious poverty and terrorism.

 

I don't think there is anything defensible about current U.S. foreign policy - especially in the Middle East. We're arming people in one country and blowing up those same people in another country. We've been at war for decades with extremist groups in the Middle East, and now we're arming individuals connected with those same groups to help us fight the very same dictators that we armed and funded decades ago.

 

We claim that we're there as a force for democracy to save the innocent civilians, but then are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths than terrorist groups (also, see the bombing of the Doctor's Without Borders facility). Of course, this follows a decade of other similar blunders - like declaring war on Iraq for housing terrorists cells and WMDs but largely ignoring Afghanistan (where Osama was supposedly hiding) and remaining allies with Saudi Arabia which has been linked to funding terrorist cells....

 

So yea, nothing defensible about wasting trillions in taxpayer dollars to cause chaos in a region and then fight on both sides of the war.

 

That being said, my guess is that Turkey is at fault here. I don't necessarily support Russian actions, but they have been consistently logical in their approach to these global themes - especially regarding Syria and Ukraine. I really highly doubt that they were aggravating Turks for no real reason by flying into their air space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything defensible about current U.S. foreign policy - especially in the Middle East. We're arming people in one country and blowing up those same people in another country. We've been at war for decades with extremist groups in the Middle East, and now we're arming individuals connected with those same groups to help us fight the very same dictators that we armed and funded decades ago.

 

We claim that we're there as a force for democracy to save the innocent civilians, but then are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths than terrorist groups (also, see the bombing of the Doctor's Without Borders facility). Of course, this follows a decade of other similar blunders - like declaring war on Iraq for housing terrorists cells and WMDs but largely ignoring Afghanistan (where Osama was supposedly hiding) and remaining allies with Saudi Arabia which has been linked to funding terrorist cells....

 

+ 1

 

So yea, nothing defensible about wasting trillions in taxpayer dollars to cause chaos in a region and then fight on both sides of the war.

 

Selling billions of weapons to Saudi Arabia and other "allies" must be good for the economy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand. Turks say Russian jet was in their territory for 17 seconds and ignored 10 warnings.  And then was shot down once it had essentially returned into Syrian airspace.

 

1. How does one make 10 warnings in 17 seconds?

 

2. How quickly does one expect the plane to heed the warning and turn around?  I mean 17 secs is pretty quick in my book.

 

While I'm straying into things I don't understand...

 

I don't understand our foreign policy in the Middle East. Why do we keep destabilising all the dictators?  What has removing Mubarak, gaddafi, Hussein, Assad done for the region? Seems like all we've done is turn the whole region into a lunatic quagmire of vicious poverty and terrorism.

 

I am not defending Turkey's actions, but I would say you are taking two separate "facts" and trying to blend them.  The ten warnings do not have to be within 17 seconds.  Many could have been on the jet's approach toward Turkish airspace. 

 

As for US foreign policy, there have been some successes (Israel still exists, first Gulf War, etc) and even more failings, but you seem to be blaming the current situation on the US and not them.  (1) Was the Middle East turned into a "lunatic quagmire", or was it already one?  (2) Was US foreign policy materially different than British or French?  To really analyze it you have to go back and walk through the last 75 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian's  military  aircrafts  have been violating  Turkish  borders  for a while

There were  numerous  warnings

Made by  Turkish officials  to Russians  about violating  their border.  in October this year ,Russian's drawn  was shot down at the Turkish  border etc..

in  1978 and 1980 , Soviets    shot down 2  South Korean passenger  aircraft with  270 people on board ,for violating  their border , they did not warn them  , Soviets  even had denied that  they did  so.

And If you look on the map,  isis    operates  mainly in different part of Syria. So,  Im not sure about Mr Putin's consistency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian's  military  aircrafts  have been violating  Turkish  borders  for a while

There were  numerous  warnings

Made by  Turkish officials  to Russians  about violating  their border.  in October this year ,Russian's drawn  was shot down at the Turkish  border etc..

in  1978 and 1980 , Soviets    shot down 2  South Korean passenger  aircraft with  270 people on board ,for violating  their border , they did not warn them  , Soviets  even had denied that  they did  so.

And If you look on the map,  isis    operates  mainly in different part of Syria. So,  Im not sure about Mr Putin's consistency

 

I don't think anyone ever claimed the jet in question was attacking ISIS. Rather the Russian's were likely conducting air strikes on anti-Assad rebels that Turkey supports which supports the shoot down in this instance when other airspace violations have been handled with less aggression. Russia was bombing Turkey's allies and they took the shot to get payback for it when they were technically within their rights to do so. The more I learn about the conflict in Syria and Iraq the more I think ISIS is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of regional instability that Russia and the West are going to wrestle over for some time to come.

 

To the broader point of regional instability of late, I think it's useful to at least know of the Sykes-Picot agreement that essentially created the modern Middle East following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Basically French and British diplomats drew lines on the map, completely ignoring existing tribal divisions in the region and the advice of their own personnel in the region like T.E. Lawrence, and we're stuck with those lines today. The only reason we haven't seen this kind of chaos in the region in the past few decades is dictators like Saddam and Assad held things in check with their own brand of terror.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was too strong, didn't mean to say that we had turned it into a quagmire. The chaos was there already. I should have said that what we have done seems to have exacerbated rather than improved the situation.

 

I guess some of the warnings must have been issued on approach.  Still I find I can make a fair inference that turkey wanted to do this. The plane posed no threat, the plane HAD heeded the warning and had returned to Syrian airspace. It was shot because the transgression gave them the cover to do so.

 

Now Obama has gone on TV and said that Russia was asking for it because they are bombing moderate anti Assad Turkmen groups near the Turkish border as opposed to Isis.

 

At the same time we have been treated to some horrible video of these Turkmen, that Obama (and the other western "leaders") says are moderate anti-Assad groups, shooting the parachuting Russian pilots while they dangle in the air, dancing around chanting allahu Akbat. And these are obama's "moderate" Syrian opposition fighters?!

 

I don't understand what is going on.  I can't believe that we are in this situation, running all these risks. I don't care about Assad, or Turkmen or Syria.  As a westerner I care about a couple things. I do t want terrorists crawling all over the the place. And I don't want a refugee crisis. And even more than those two I don't want a conflict with Russia over bullshit. Other than that I don't really care who runs what country or does mean things to what people.  That may sound callous but I'm yet to see a good, moderate majority in any of these countries.  Egypt, probably the most civilised of all these stupid countries, had their moment to vote. And what did they do? They vote in Muslim brotherhood. So who are we helping? Of all the various Devils I think as westerners we were better off with the bastard dictators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was too strong, didn't mean to say that we had turned it into a quagmire. The chaos was there already. I should have said that what we have done seems to have exacerbated rather than improved the situation.

 

I guess some of the warnings must have been issued on approach.  Still I find I can make a fair inference that turkey wanted to do this. The plane posed no threat, the plane HAD heeded the warning and had returned to Syrian airspace. It was shot because the transgression gave them the cover to do so.

 

Now Obama has gone on TV and said that Russia was asking for it because they are bombing moderate anti Assad Turkmen groups near the Turkish border as opposed to Isis.

 

At the same time we have been treated to some horrible video of these Turkmen, that Obama (and the other western "leaders") says are moderate anti-Assad groups, shooting the parachuting Russian pilots while they dangle in the air, dancing around chanting allahu Akbat. And these are obama's "moderate" Syrian opposition fighters?!

 

I don't understand what is going on.  I can't believe that we are in this situation, running all these risks. I don't care about Assad, or Turkmen or Syria.  As a westerner I care about a couple things. I do t want terrorists crawling all over the the place. And I don't want a refugee crisis. And even more than those two I don't want a conflict with Russia over bullshit. Other than that I don't really care who runs what country or does mean things to what people.  That may sound callous but I'm yet to see a good, moderate majority in any of these countries.  Egypt, probably the most civilised of all these stupid countries, had their moment to vote. And what did they do? They vote in Muslim brotherhood. So who are we helping? Of all the various Devils I think as westerners we were better off with the bastard dictators.

 

 

The Russians violated Turkeys Airspace....how would you feel if Russian bombers skirted the top of Maine? And you have the nerve to blame obama? No offence....

 

The plane posed no threat, the plane HAD heeded the warning and had returned to Syrian airspace. It was shot because the transgression gave them the cover to do so.

 

Maybe....Russians arnt exactly known for their spot on coordinates....and is this is a case....it make Putin look weak....even technology wise....and for the record... a guy with a tonne of nukes it doesnt look good to be weak.

 

 

Words from Sir John---https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAnwYfEUtLw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Russians skirted a fraction of Alaska, the Canadians a fraction of North Dakota, or the Mexicans a fraction of Texas. For a few seconds. That we warned them and that within a few seconds they were out of our airspace....Yes, I would hope very much that we would not shoot a missile at them.

 

If a Russian bomber flew all the way over the arctic or across the atlantic and entered airspace over Maine I would think it is ok to shoot a missile because it is hard to assume good intentions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught this on the news and I had to do several double takes to get the gist of the story.

 

The United States and Turkey (allied through NATO) have been sponsoring ethnic Turkish terrorists operating in Northern Syria. The Russian warplane in support of the current Syrian government was shot down in Syria after briefly crossing into Turkish airspace. The two Russian pilots who successfully parachuted from the plane were then killed by the US-backed terrorists and a Russian rescue helicopter was then destroyed by the same terrorists using US weapons.

 

I think it's pretty clear that Turkey has an interest in Syria (ethnic Turks) and used the incursion of their airspace as a pretext to attack the Russian plane. It seems to me that Turkey are making use of the crisis in Syria as an attempt to secure the territory in Syria were the Turkmen live. They will argue that the natural home for the Turkmen people is within Turkey - but what about the Kurds in Turkey, a people who have been totally oppressed in Iraq, Turkey and Syria and have no one supporting them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Russians skirted a fraction of Alaska, the Canadians a fraction of North Dakota, or the Mexicans a fraction of Texas. For a few seconds. That we warned them and that within a few seconds they were out of our airspace....Yes, I would hope very much that we would not shoot a missile at them.

 

If a Russian bomber flew all the way over the arctic or across the atlantic and entered airspace over Maine I would think it is ok to shoot a missile because it is hard to assume good intentions.

 

Russian fighter jets fly over the arctic fairly regularly from what I've read. Each and every time they're met by Canadian and American fighter jets and warned to turn back.

One story about them doing it twice in one week close to Alaska was thought to be a test of our response time.

 

From a quick Google search of "Russian fighter jet incursion", lists many stories of similar incidents over Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know what the fuss is about.  This kind of stuff has been going on our entire lives. 

 

Russia isn't going to do anything dramatic.  One thing they will do is take Turkey a little more seriously.  I suspect Putin et al are starting to realize the mess they have walked into. 

 

As to the comments that the US caused the Syrian Civil war; it just doesn't stand up, except under the most far fetched of scenarios.  My recollection is we had the "Arab spring" which migrated into Syria.  President Assad chose to use force against mostly peaceful demonstators.  As to Islamic State, and Al Queda, there is some culpability there.  As someone noted above, assigning cause and effect are difficult given this BS has been going on for all of our lives as well. 

 

The sooner we get off Oil, forever, the less we need to worry about the mideast.  Once that happens the need to interfere and prop up dubious regimes with poor social records and too much money will be unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughishere chiming in...cus again im drunk and i'm compelled to.

 

How soft is Russia that their bomber gets flamed out by Turkish F-16s(trust me American Abrams are not bullet proof)...this is what Tom Cruse flew 30 years ago

 

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft.  The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun.  A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark.  These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are  not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover.  A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. 

 

i dont give a fuck......so two guys go down and now they are killed by rebels (wankers) and "american made" TOWS(probably not the best of technology)....great.  From Turkey point of view...id be pissed....especially if you warned someone to deviate from your flight pattern.

 

You should give a fuck now.  Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace.  These are ground attack aircraft.  If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's.  The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia.  How do you think that would work out for everyone?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand. Turks say Russian jet was in their territory for 17 seconds and ignored 10 warnings.  And then was shot down once it had essentially returned into Syrian airspace.

 

1. How does one make 10 warnings in 17 seconds?

 

2. How quickly does one expect the plane to heed the warning and turn around?  I mean 17 secs is pretty quick in my book.

 

While I'm straying into things I don't understand...

 

I don't understand our foreign policy in the Middle East. Why do we keep destabilising all the dictators?  What has removing Mubarak, gaddafi, Hussein, Assad done for the region? Seems like all we've done is turn the whole region into a lunatic quagmire of vicious poverty and terrorism.

 

It is all good for the military industrial complex.  War is profits.  It is all good for the government.  War is the health of the state.  Most people don't want war, but most people aren't in charge.  Those who benefit from war are.    Don't look at it as "How does our foreign policy benefit the average american".  Think of it as, "Will this destabilization create more war and terrorism in the world?  Will this profit the military contractors?  Will this give politicians an excuse to do all the things they could never get away with before?  Will this make people more nationalistic (and thus more supportive of the government)?".  All you need to understand what is going on is ask "Who benefits?" and realize that they are not on your side.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughishere chiming in...cus again im drunk and i'm compelled to.

 

How soft is Russia that their bomber gets flamed out by Turkish F-16s(trust me American Abrams are not bullet proof)...this is what Tom Cruse flew 30 years ago

 

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft.  The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun.  A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark.  These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are  not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover.  A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. 

 

i dont give a fuck......so two guys go down and now they are killed by rebels (wankers) and "american made" TOWS(probably not the best of technology)....great.  From Turkey point of view...id be pissed....especially if you warned someone to deviate from your flight pattern.

 

You should give a fuck now.  Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace.  These are ground attack aircraft.  If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's.  The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia.  How do you think that would work out for everyone? 

 

That later point is my concern. Regional instability pulls larger powers in with conflicting interests and those larger powers clash. No different than world war II where everyone from Russia, Japan, the U.S., and Norther Africa got involved with a war that was mostly for Europe.

 

I'm not saying that this will be the beginning of that war, but I do fear it has the potential to escalate things until we get to that point. I posted on Facebook yesterday that I feared that we may have just witnessed the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. We'll see if things escalate or every keeps their heads cool and de-escalates the situation, but last I knew, Russia was sending in warships to the area to provide cover and the U.S. and French were discussing doing the same...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughishere chiming in...cus again im drunk and i'm compelled to.

 

How soft is Russia that their bomber gets flamed out by Turkish F-16s(trust me American Abrams are not bullet proof)...this is what Tom Cruse flew 30 years ago

 

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft.  The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun.  A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark.  These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are  not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover.  A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. 

 

i dont give a fuck......so two guys go down and now they are killed by rebels (wankers) and "american made" TOWS(probably not the best of technology)....great.  From Turkey point of view...id be pissed....especially if you warned someone to deviate from your flight pattern.

 

You should give a fuck now.  Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace.  These are ground attack aircraft.  If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's.  The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia.  How do you think that would work out for everyone? 

 

That later point is my concern. Regional instability pulls larger powers in with conflicting interests and those larger powers clash. No different than world war II where everyone from Russia, Japan, the U.S., and Norther Africa got involved with a war that was mostly for Europe.

 

I'm not saying that this will be the beginning of that war, but I do fear it has the potential to escalate things until we get to that point. I posted on Facebook yesterday that I feared that we may have just witnessed the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. We'll see if things escalate or every keeps their heads cool and de-escalates the situation, but last I knew, Russia was sending in warships to the area to provide cover and the U.S. and French were discussing doing the same...

 

I was thinking Vietnam.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong when two major powers are waging a proxy war via a country's civil war.  Sending U.S. advisors in a "non-combatant role" to assist with one side of the civil war...  Waging an air campaign which will ultimately prove to be ineffective without boots on the ground.  I swear I have I seen this story unfold before...  Oh wait, Vietnam... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughishere chiming in...cus again im drunk and i'm compelled to.

 

How soft is Russia that their bomber gets flamed out by Turkish F-16s(trust me American Abrams are not bullet proof)...this is what Tom Cruse flew 30 years ago

 

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft.  The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun.  A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark.  These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are  not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover.  A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. 

 

i dont give a fuck......so two guys go down and now they are killed by rebels (wankers) and "american made" TOWS(probably not the best of technology)....great.  From Turkey point of view...id be pissed....especially if you warned someone to deviate from your flight pattern.

 

You should give a fuck now.  Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace.  These are ground attack aircraft.  If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's.  The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia.  How do you think that would work out for everyone? 

 

That later point is my concern. Regional instability pulls larger powers in with conflicting interests and those larger powers clash. No different than world war II where everyone from Russia, Japan, the U.S., and Norther Africa got involved with a war that was mostly for Europe.

 

I'm not saying that this will be the beginning of that war, but I do fear it has the potential to escalate things until we get to that point. I posted on Facebook yesterday that I feared that we may have just witnessed the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. We'll see if things escalate or every keeps their heads cool and de-escalates the situation, but last I knew, Russia was sending in warships to the area to provide cover and the U.S. and French were discussing doing the same...

 

I was thinking Vietnam.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong when two major powers are waging a proxy war via a country's civil war.  Sending U.S. advisors in a "non-combatant role" to assist with one side of the civil war...  Waging an air campaign which will ultimately prove to be ineffective without boots on the ground.  I swear I have I seen this story unfold before...  Oh wait, Vietnam... 

 

 

You can both be correct.  Remember history doesn't repeat it just rhymes.  WWII wasn't exactly the same as WWI and WWIII won't be the same as either of them.  There are always a lot of common themes in any war.  Politicians/leaders being unnecessarily aggressive, doing stupid things, and outright lying to the public usually all play a major role in any conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...