International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Putin: Russia will not tolerate such crimes as attack against its Sukhoi-24 plane
Source:
Tass
URL Source: http://tass.ru/en/politics/838825un
Published: Nov 24, 2015
Author: Uncredited
Post Date: 2015-11-24 08:28:10 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13548
Comments: 72
According to the president, the attack against Su-24 plane in Syria goes beyond normal struggle against terrorism, and it is "a stab in Russia’s back" delivered by "terrorism accomplices"
SOCHI, November 24. /TASS/. Russia's Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft was downed with an air-to-air missile launched from a Turkish F-16 fighter, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday.
The Russian leader stressed that the Russian Su-24 fighter-bomber was posing no threat to Turkey.
"Anyway, our pilots and jet posed no threat to the Turkish Republic. This is obvious. They were conducting an operation against ISIL," Putin said at the meeting with King Abdallah II of Jordan.
Putin called the attack a crime and stressed that Russia would not tolerate it. According to the president, the Su-24 plane crash in Syria goes beyond normal struggle against terrorism, and it is "a stab in Russia’s back delivered by terrorist accomplices."
"Today’s loss is linked with a stab in our back delivered by terrorism accomplices. I can’t characterize otherwise what has happened today," the Russian leader said.
The Russian bomber was shot down over Syria by an air-to-air surface fired from a Turkish F-16 plane when the bomber was at an altitude of 6,000 meters at a distance of 1 km from the Turkish bomber." Putin said.
The president said the attack on the Russian jet will have tragic consequences to Russia-Turkey ties.
Turkey's military attache in Russia has been summoned to the Russian Defense Ministry. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, Pericles (#0)
The president said the attack on the Russian jet will have tragic consequences to Russia-Turkey ties.Turkey's military attache in Russia has been summoned to the Russian Defense Ministry.
NATO's members have also summoned the Turks. I would guess they have some very pointed questions and will demand more evidence than just allegations by Turkey.
It was unwise to extend NATO membership to Turkey to begin with. As members, if they start a war with Russia by shooting down their warplanes who did not attack anything or anyone in Turkey, NATO will still be obligated by Article Five to follow Turkey into warfare with Russia.
I'm thinking NATO will make it clear they are not starting WW III with Russia even if a Russian plane strayed over the Turkish border, considering that no Turks or Turkish territory was attacked. There is a proportionality to any response.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
A turkey picking a fight with a bear, does not seem wise.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
#3. To: TooConservative (#1) (Edited)
NATO will still be obligated by Article Five to follow Turkey into warfare with Russia.
Not exactly. Rather, Turkey can invoke Article V, and that obliges the NATO governments to MEET, to DISCUSS what to do.
The invocation of Article V does not act as a declaration of war for all of NATO. It acts as a trumpet to call a meeting. The parties to the treaty are bound, in theory, by the results of the meeting.
So, Turkey invokes Article V. NATO chiefs meet. The French say "Are you out of your MINDS?" The Greeks say "The Russians are our friends." The Spanish say: "We have no money for such an adventure", to which the Portuguese add "...nor any interest in it." The British say "We're with the French on this one" (and the Eurosceptics say "See! Europe is going to drag us into some crazy war!" The Canadians say "We're with the British." Obama says "Wake me up when November ends."
And like the cheese, the Turks stand alone, the Turks stand alone (Hi Ho the dairy-o, the Turks stand alone...)
No war.
#4. To: cranky (#0)
The president said the attack on the Russian jet will have tragic consequences to Russia-Turkey ties.
The main Turkish advantage over Kurds is air power.
#5. To: TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, , sneakypete, Pericles (#1)
von Bismarck described pre-WWI Europe as "a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal … A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all … I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where … Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off."
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#6. To: A Pole (#4)
There are already too many nations flying missions over very confined air space. The French have vowed more activity and the Brits want in . Here is a warning that went out from Baghdad.
'Carriers operating over northern Iraq are being warned about the possibility of cruise missiles being used in the region.
The advisory, contained in a NOTAM for the Baghdad flight information, warns of cruise missile activity, crossing the Kurdistan region from the Caspian Sea to Syria.'
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iraqi-airports-closed-over-cruise- missile-warning-419378/
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#7. To: TooConservative (#1)
It was unwise to extend NATO membership to Turkey to begin with.
I disagree... when Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it was a different world...
If there was a mistake that was made, it was allowing NATO to justify its existance and redefine its mission after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. THAT was when NATO should've been disbanded as an unnecessary anachronism.
#8. To: Willie Green (#7)
I disagree... when Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it was a different world...
Our missiles in Turkey played a major role in the Soviet attempt to place missiles in Cuba, provoking the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy got out of a likely nuke war by promising secretly to remove those missiles from Turkey after six months. Which he did.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
So, Turkey invokes Article V. NATO chiefs meet. The French say "Are you out of your MINDS?" The Greeks say "The Russians are our friends." The Spanish say: "We have no money for such an adventure", to which the Portuguese add "...nor any interest in it." The British say "We're with the French on this one" (and the Eurosceptics say "See! Europe is going to drag us into some crazy war!" The Canadians say "We're with the British." Obama says "Wake me up when November ends."
As with Russia summoning Turkey's military attache, I think NATO summoned the Turks. Not the other way around.
I think you are right that the EU won't be interested since Russia did not attack Turks or Turkish territory.
#10. To: TooConservative (#8)
Our missiles in Turkey played a major role in the Soviet attempt to place missiles in Cuba, provoking the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So what? The Cuban Missle Crisis was 10 years later....
In '52 friggin' STALIN was still the Soviet Dictator...
And old "Uncle Joe" makes Pooty-poot look like Mahatma Ghandi.
#11. To: TooConservative (#9)
In fact, Turkey attacked Russia, shooting down a Russian plane in Syrian airspace, where it was operating at the invitation of the Syrian government.
Turkey has no excuse here whatever. And after the bit about booing the moment of silence for France, and all of the strident Islamism, the Turks should not expect to be given the benefit of the doubt.
At the end of the day, they are Muslims, eager to wriggle out from under the sensible secular straightjacket that Ataturk gave them, and slide back down the poopchute into the general Islamic cesspool.
They should never be allowed into the EU, and nobody should expect anything good out of them.
And they ought to lose the piece of Turkey that is Kurdish, and the piece of Turkey that was Armenia, because they got that land through genocide. Nations that gain land that way should, when they weaken later, suffer the humiliation of the partial dismemberment of their empire, just to rub their faces in the loss.
It was very important that the very first piece of the British Empire to be lost in contemporary times was Ireland. It is very important that India left on its own terms.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
In fact, Turkey attacked Russia, shooting down a Russian plane in Syrian airspace, where it was operating at the invitation of the Syrian government.
The Turks are claiming some evidence that the Russian plane initially overflew Turkey as they issued warnings.
That was the time when Turkey should have shot it down. Not over Syria where they have no right to fire, especially since the plane did not attack Turkey itself.
I would guess NATO/EU is having exactly these discussions right now and perusing the claimed Turkish "evidence".
OTOH, Russia should be much more careful about any strikes so close to Turkey's border. So I am not exactly brimming with sympathy for them either.
#13. To: Willie Green, Vicomte13 (#10)
So what? The Cuban Missle Crisis was 10 years later.... In '52 friggin' STALIN was still the Soviet Dictator... And old "Uncle Joe" makes Pooty-poot look like Mahatma Ghandi.
Willie, you ignorant slut.
Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy
| The PGM-19 Jupiter was the first medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force (USAF). It was a liquid-propellant rocket using RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer, with a single Rocketdyne LR70-NA (model S-3D) rocket engine producing 667 kN of thrust. It was armed with the 1.1 megaton W49 nuclear warhead. The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation. The Jupiter was originally designed by the US Army, who was looking for a highly accurate missile designed to strike high-value targets like bridges, railway yards, troop concentrations and the like. The Navy also expressed an interest in the design as an SLBM, but left the collaboration to work on their Poseidon. Jupiter retained the short, squat shape intended to fit in submarines. The Army set accuracy goals so high that some expressed skepticism, but the team successfully designed a system with a circular error probable (CEP) of 0.5 miles (0.80 km), substantially more accurate than similar designs like the US Air Force's Thor. This led to continual interservice fighting between the Army and Air Force, and ultimately to Charles Erwin Wilson's decision to give the Jupiter missiles to the Air Force. The Air Force was never greatly interested in supporting Jupiter, but the missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 as part of NATO's Cold War deterrent against the Soviet Union. All were removed by the United States as part of a secret agreement with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was also used as the basis for a satellite launcher known as Juno II, but had a short and unsuccessful career in this role. |
Stalin was completely irrelevant to the missile threats and Cuban missile crisis in the early Sixties. Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, was in control.
#14. To: TooConservative (#12)
The Turks are claiming some evidence that the Russian plane initially overflew Turkey as they issued warnings.
Turks are liars. They shot down a Russian plane over Syrian airspace. The Russians should respond by aiding the Kurds.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Turks are liars. They shot down a Russian plane over Syrian airspace.
Not so fast. The plane went down in Syria, supposedly 1km from the border. A missile might easily be fired at the Russian plane as it is over Turkey or on the border line and it could come down subsequently in Syria.
The Russians should respond by aiding the Kurds.
I imagine Pootie is discussing those kinds of options with Lavrov now. Russia and Turkey have a lot of trade and economic interests too, among them control of the Black Sea.
It is a fight that is not in the interest of either country. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Russia will certainly be angry about the murder of their pilots:
Yahoo: Jet pilots 'shot dead' as descended with parachutes...
I think the Turkmen will pay a heavy price for this foolishness. Russia will respond to the Turkomen, if not Turkey itself.
#17. To: TooConservative, tomder55, CZ82, liberator (#1)
NATO's members have also summoned the Turks. I would guess they have some very pointed questions and will demand more evidence than just allegations by Turkey.It was unwise to extend NATO membership to Turkey to begin with. As members, if they start a war with Russia by shooting down their warplanes who did not attack anything or anyone in Turkey, NATO will still be obligated by Article Five to follow Turkey into warfare with Russia.
I'm thinking NATO will make it clear they are not starting WW III with Russia even if a Russian plane strayed over the Turkish border, considering that no Turks or Turkish territory was attacked. There is a proportionality to any response.
Turkey was a Cold War 'necessity.' They have not been much help to NATO or the US since the end of the Cold War, other than 'allowing' us to have bases there.
The entire snafu with Turkey not allowing us their ports for a northern option for OIF was the cherry on top.
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
#18. To: redleghunter (#17)
The entire snafu with Turkey not allowing us their ports for a northern option for OIF was the cherry on top.
Erdogan's rise has coincided with the increasing unreliability of Turkey as an ally.
You may recall they also sided with Russia in 2008 when Putin's puppet president invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia (while Vlad was conveniently attending the Beijing Olympics, all innocent-like). Turkey was quite obstinate about any cooperation over their control of access to the Black Sea.
Turkey doesn't behave like an ally on a regular basis.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
Turkey doesn't behave like an ally on a regular basis.
They are Muslims. Taqiyya is a fundamental doctrine of their religion. And that means that Muslims can never, ever be really trusted. If they want to, they can suddenly turn and knife you in the back, because you're not a Muslim. There is no language you can conclude with them that their religion does not, by the fact they are Muslims, allow them to break on a moment's notice, without warning.
Now, of course, people other than Muslims behave that way too. The difference is that when Christians lie, it's a sin that may cost them their soul in the end. The Christian God warns them of that. But when Muslims do it, their God tells them that it's ok if they do it to an infidel.
The US defense contractors want a new Cold War with Russia so bad they can almost taste it.
#20. To: Willie Green, TooConservative (#7)
I disagree... when Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it was a different world...
"Through a mindless adherence to policies that date to a long-dead past, America is forfeiting her future." - Pat Buchanan, August 2, 2013.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
The US defense contractors want a new Cold War with Russia so bad they can almost taste it.
Speaking of war lust, has McCain or his South Carolina Mini-Me had a chance to pontificate on the latest developments?
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
Turkey has no excuse here whatever. And after the bit about booing the moment of silence for France, and all of the strident Islamism, the Turks should not expect to be given the benefit of the doubt.
And the "Turkish" territory in question, was actually part of Syria. In September of 1938, when France and Britain handed over the Sudetenland to Hitler, France also handed this territory (including Antioch of the Bible) over to Turkey.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#23. To: TooConservative (#13)
Stalin was completely irrelevant to the missile threats and Cuban missile crisis in the early Sixties. Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, was in control.
Krushchev and the Cuban Missile crisis are what's irrelevant...
Stalin was the Soviet dictator in 1952 when Turkey joined NATO.
If you were a good little Bircher, you should know that.
#24. To: nativist nationalist (#20)
"Through a mindless adherence to policies that date to a long-dead past, America is forfeiting her future." - Pat Buchanan, August 2, 2013.
Well it's good to see that PJB can still remember his history...
but sad that he can no longer keep up with current events...
Then again, maybe it's merciful that he no longer recalls that George W Bush downsized and outsourced America's future a dozen years ago, and the skeletal remnants that persist can't be salvaged.
#25. To: TooConservative (#12)
The Turks are claiming some evidence that the Russian plane initially overflew Turkey as they issued warnings.That was the time when Turkey should have shot it down.
Not even then. Turkey is not at war with Russia or Syria...the only two nations that would have military aircraft near that portion of the border. And IS (AFAWK) does not have aircraft.
So the right thing to do is show restraint and send up a couple of jets to get a visual and go on international channel and give a warning.
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
#26. To: TooConservative, CZ82, tomder55 (#13)
It was armed with the 1.1 megaton W49 nuclear warhead.
That's quite a warhead in today's parlance for a shorter range ballistic missile. The PII's had the W85 warhead (dial a yield) going from 5Kts to 80Kts.
The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation.
Yes, because everyone knows anything made by Chrysler is no good after travelling 2,000 miles. So the Juniper had to be a medium range missile:)
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
#27. To: TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, Pericles (#1)
It was unwise to extend NATO membership to Turkey to begin with. As members, if they start a war with Russia by shooting down their warplanes who did not attack anything or anyone in Turkey, NATO will still be obligated by Article Five to follow Turkey into warfare with Russia.
No. The agreement only requires a member to provide such assistance as it sees fit, when a member is the victim of an armed attack.
Article 5The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
#28. To: redleghunter (#25)
So the right thing to do is show restraint and send up a couple of jets to get a visual and go on international channel and give a warning.
Putin could reignite the Cyprus Missile Crisis. Cyprus climbed down in the first one, but now Russia is stronger, and looking for payback. Cyprus wanted the S-300 in the first place due to constant Turkish overflights.
This time Russia can sell the S-300's, and send in troops to defend the batteries. The Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus is not recognized by her NATO partners, and should be outside the scope of the agreement. Turkey has been very perfidious, I'd love to see Putin get some payback. My concern is that we do not end up having to cash the checks that the Turkish mouth has been writing. Moving the dispute to Cyprus gets us off the hook legally.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#29. To: nativist nationalist (#28) (Edited)
My concern is that Obama, hellbent on protecting the Muslims and blocking the Russians, put the Turks up to this.
Turkey just hosing off missiles at a Russian jet? No. It does not compute.
That's the problem here. The US is absolutely determined NOT to see Russia regularize its situation with Europe.
Yes, this is a flat out conspiracy theory.
Of course I have no proof. And I'm glad for that too, because if I DID have the proof, and posted this, you would never hear from me again.
Instead, now I'm just another Internet crank conspiracy theorist.
But yes, this feels very much like a US operation.
#30. To: cranky (#0)
#31. To: redleghunter (#26)
That's quite a warhead in today's parlance for a shorter range ballistic missile. The PII's had the W85 warhead (dial a yield) going from 5Kts to 80Kts.
You can see why Nikita was kinda peeved to have these in Turkey and pointed at Moscow with a launch warning window of around 5 minutes. The missiles in Italy weren't nearly as destabilizing as the ones in Turkey.
#32. To: nolu chan (#27)
The agreement only requires a member to provide such assistance as it sees fit, when a member is the victim of an armed attack.
But Turkey was not attacked. I know, I'm stating the obvious.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#29) (Edited)
The US is absolutely determined NOT to see Russia ...
Russians will not back off. They see it as a matter of national survival for them. They will go all the way as they have nothing to lose.
They feel pushed into a corner, and they rather perish than end up like Serbia did.
#34. To: All (#0)
NATO denounces Russian incursion into Turkish air space
Reuters
By Ayla Jean Yackley and Humeyra Pamuk
October 5, 2015 12:28 PM
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The United States and its NATO allies denounced Russia on Monday for violating Turkish air space along the frontier with Syria, and Ankara threatened to respond if provoked again, raising the prospect of direct confrontation between the Cold War enemies.
NATO held an emergency meeting of ambassadors of its 28 member states to respond to what Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called "unacceptable violations of Turkish air space" after Turkey said a Russian jet had crossed its frontier.
NATO members "strongly protest" and "condemn" incursions into Turkish and NATO territory, the alliance said.
"Allies also note the extreme danger of such irresponsible behavior. They call on the Russian Federation to cease and desist, and immediately explain these violations," it said in a statement released after the meeting in Brussels.
Moscow's unexpected move last week to launch air strikes in Syria has brought the greatest threat of an accidental clash between Russian and Western forces since the Cold War.
Russian war planes and those of the United States and its allies are now flying combat missions over the same country for the first time since World War Two, with Moscow repeatedly targeting insurgents trained and armed by Washington's allies.
Turkey, a NATO member with the alliance's second biggest army, scrambled two F-16 jets on Saturday after a Russian aircraft crossed into its airspace near its southern province of Hatay, the Turkish foreign ministry said.
In a second incident, the Turkish military said a MiG-29 fighter jet - an aircraft used both by Russia and Syria's own air force - had harassed two of its F-16s by locking its radar on to them on Sunday as they patrolled the border.
Turkey summoned Moscow's ambassador to protest against the violation and said Russia would be held "responsible for any undesired incident that may occur" if it were repeated. Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu spoke with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, as well as key NATO partners.
By Monday afternoon, Russia had not given its own public account of the incidents. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the Russian ambassador had been summoned and said "some facts were mentioned there which are to be checked", but gave no further details.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said he had been told by Russia that the violation was a "mistake" that would not happen again.
"Turkey's rules of engagement apply to all planes, be they Syrian, Russian or from elsewhere ... Necessary steps would be taken against whoever violates Turkey’s borders, even if it’s a bird," he said on HaberTurk TV.
"For Russia, which long opposed foreign intervention in Syria and blocked UN Security Council resolutions, to be actively involved in Syria is both a contradiction and a move that has escalated the crisis."
A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington doubted the incursions were an accident.
"We’re deeply concerned about it and consider it something that just contributes to our overall sense that there’s real strategic and tactical problems with the way Russia is conducting itself in Syria right now."
The United States and its allies are waging their own air campaign against Islamic State fighters in Syria, while demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and supporting other insurgents fighting against him.
Russia says it is targeting Islamic State, but the anti-Assad coalition including Washington, European powers, Turkey and most Arab states, say Moscow has mainly targeted other insurgents and hit few Islamic State targets.
The potential confrontation comes at a time when relations between Russia and the West are at their worst since the Cold War, with the United States and European Union having imposed financial sanctions on Moscow over its intervention in Ukraine.
Over the past year, NATO has repeatedly accused Moscow of sending planes to violate the air space of the alliance's member countries in Europe.
Speaking during a trip to Spain, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter compared Moscow's effort to bolster Assad to tethering itself to a sinking ship.
"By taking military action in Syria against moderate groups targets, Russia has escalated the civil war," Carter said in a speech in Madrid.
More than 40 Syrian insurgent groups, including some of the most powerful groups fighting against Assad and armed by Arab states, called on regional states to forge an alliance against Russia and Assad's other big foreign backer, Iran.
Regional cooperation was needed to counter "the Russian-Iranian alliance occupying Syria", they said. "Civilians have been directly targeted in a manner that reminds us of the scorched earth policy pursued by Russia in its past wars."
ENEMIES LIST
By infuriating Ankara, Russian President Vladimir Putin risks adding another name his costly and expanding enemies list: fast-growing Turkey is a big buyer of Russian gas and Moscow has announced ambitious plans to build pipelines across it to reach markets further west.
Turkey is one of Assad's fiercest foes in the region, has by far the biggest army on the border with Syria and has taken in the largest number of refugees.
President Tayyip Erdogan said Russia's defense of Assad was a "grave mistake".
"Assad has committed state terrorism, and unfortunately you find Russia and Iran defending (him)," Erdogan was quoted by the Hurriyet newspaper as telling a crowd of supporters in Strasbourg, France, late on Sunday.
"Those countries that collaborate with the regime will account for it in history," he said.
Britain's Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Twitter: "(The) Russian incursion into Turkish air space raises stakes in what is already a high risk situation."
(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow, Phil Stewart in Madrid, Robin Emmott in Brussels; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Peter Graff and Giles Elgood)
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#35. To: CZ82 (#34) (Edited)
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said he had been told by Russia that the violation was a "mistake" that would not happen again.
It was in October, and according to Russia it did not happen this time. Turks are desperate, they cannot subdue Kurds and Russians destroyed ISIS export of oil. Turks might want NATO to get involved.
#36. To: A Pole (#35)
Turkey is a Muslim nation. If the Muslims can get America and Russia fighting each other, they will be happy. Our Muslim president would be a great help in that venture.
Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS
#37. To: A Pole (#35) (Edited)
It was in October, and according to Russia it did not happen this time. Turks are desperate, they cannot subdue Kurds and Russians destroyed ISIS export of oil. Turks might want NATO to get involved.
I would imagine there is at least 1 AWACS plane in this area at all times and would not be afraid to say it has the evidence to prove or disprove both sides claims...
And if an AWACS wasn't close enough (250-300 miles) then an overhead satellite has the information...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#38. To: CZ82 (#37)
The US does not WANT to confirm Russia's side of the story.
#39. To: TooConservative (#32)
But Turkey was not attacked. I know, I'm stating the obvious.
And if it were attacked, a member of NATO only need provide such assistance as said member sees fit. And that, only after an Article 4 call to fine dining, wine tasting, and discussion.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
My concern is that Obama, hellbent on protecting the Muslims and blocking the Russians, put the Turks up to this.
I have the same feeling, and same lack of evidence. I doubt Turkey did this without the U.S. greenlighting it.
The timing is suspect. It was just in time to save Obama from deciding on joining, or refusing to join, the joint effort of France and Russia against ISIS.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
#42. To: A Pole, tooconservative, nolu chan, cz82, vicmonte13 (#35)
A formation of Turkish fighter jets violated Greek airspace a total of 20 times on Wednesday before being chased off by Greek aircraft, Kathimerini English reports.
A total of six Turkish fighter jets flying in formation carried out repeated violations of Greek airspace, according to the newspaper, which is one of the most respected in Greece. The reported violations took place http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-and-greek-jets-engaged-in-dogfight-2015- 7in Greek airspace over the north, central, and southern Aegean Sea.
#43. To: TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete (#1)
It seems to me the Turk downing was an ambush at the same day the French president is meeting with Obama and before he goes to Moscow to meet with Putin. Was this the CIA involved? Having France buck NATO to join up with Russia in Syria is a big deal and Turkey pretty much took a shit in the party's punchbowl and soured the potential hook up.
#44. To: nolu chank, Vicomte13, A Pole (#40)
My concern is that Obama, hellbent on protecting the Muslims and blocking the Russians, put the Turks up to this.I have the same feeling, and same lack of evidence. I doubt Turkey did this without the U.S. greenlighting it.
My feelings as well - also fear Russia's rapprochement with France would weaken NATO. How will a French and Russian hook up work now after a NATO member shot down a Russian fighter jet in the back via an ambush?
#45. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, A Pole (#27)
NATO amended its charter to allow offensive operations - the justification for Bosnia and Kosovo intervention. It stopped being a purely defensive alliance since then.
#46. To: PericlesTooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, sneakypete (#43)
Possibly ; the emperor was in Turkey last week conferring with Erdogan .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#47. To: A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan (#42)
A formation of Turkish fighter jets violated Greek airspace a total of 20 times on Wednesday before being chased off by Greek aircraft, Kathimerini English reports.
I read elsewhere that Turkish planes violated Greek airspace 2,244 times last year.
You suppose the Turks would just take it quietly if Greece was shooting down its planes?
I wonder if Russia will be offering some free missiles to the Greeks. : )
#48. To: Pericles, tomder55 (#43)
It seems to me the Turk downing was an ambush at the same day the French president is meeting with Obama and before he goes to Moscow to meet with Putin.
Good catch. And this meeting was known about weeks in advance so prior planning is quite possible.
The GLONASS system used by Russia as their GPS system does have limitations and is not as accurate as our own GPS system. Which means it might possibly be spoofed locally by the Turks to make the Russian pilots think they were still inside Syria when they weren't. The Russians know their GLONASS system's weaknesses, they would know how possible it was for Turkey to do this, perhaps with some help from CIA or another NATO power.
I certainly wouldn't put it past Turkey. Luring an enemy in so you can kill him is classic Turkish thinking.
#49. To: Pericles (#43)
Was this the CIA involved?
Let me see if I understand your question,ok?
Do *I* think the CIA is in charge of Russia and Turkey,and can manage the flight paths and actions of fighter bombers from two different countries in a remote region of the earth from Langley?
A CIA that has a political hack director that is a political appointee of an AA President who is without a doubt the dumbest MoFo who has ever been in the White House?
Of course. After all,the CIA controls the wurld,right?
BOO!
Scared ya,huh? That was my inner CIA agent coming out. We are everywhere!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#41)
The shooting down of the Russian jet is obviously a false flag op...I mean we have Turkey in the news around American Thanksgiving! Really!/s
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
#51. To: Pericles, TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, A Pole (#45)
NATO amended its charter to allow offensive operations - the justification for Bosnia and Kosovo intervention.
I believe there is no such amendment to the NATO Charter. The NATO Charter only requires a nation to do something when a member nation is subjected to an armed attack, and then only what they determine is necessary.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 194904 Apr. 1949 | Last updated: 09 Dec. 2008 13:01
#52. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, A Pole (#44)
How will a French and Russian hook up work now after a NATO member shot down a Russian fighter jet in the back via an ambush?
Russia will bomb the living shit out of the Turkmen in Syria and protect its aircraft. I a Turkish plane approaches them, it will commit suicide.
>
Turkey letter of 24 Nov 2015 to President of United Nations Security Council: "both planes at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1,36 miles and 1,15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9.24'05" local time."
1.15 miles in 17 seconds is 243 MPH.
1.36 miles in 17 seconds is 288 MPH.
Were the Russian jets really flying that slowly?
#53. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, A Pole (#44)
Another interesting possibility of potential Turkish escalation is invoking the Montreau agreement regarding the Turkish straights, banning Russian right of passage.
A potential Russian escalation could be to shut off the gas and prevail upon Iran to withhold assistance. That does not leave a great deal of alternative sourcing.
http://sam.baskent.edu.tr/belge/Montreux_ENG.pdf
TRADUCTION - TRANSLATION CONVENTION REGARDING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS SIGNED AT MONTREUX, JULY 20 TH, 1936French official text communicated by the Permanent Delegate of Turkey to the League of Nations. The registration of this Convention took place December 11th, 1936.
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BULGARIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES, HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROMANIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC, THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AND HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF YUGOSLAVIA.
Desiring to regulate transit and navigation in the Straits of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus comprised under the general term "Straits" in such manner as to safeguard, within the framework of Turkish security and of the security, in the Black Sea, of the riparian States, the principle enshrined in Article 23 of the Treaty3 of Peace signed at Lausanne on the 24th July, 1923;
Have resolved to replace by the present Convention the Convention signed at Lausanne on the 24th July, 1923, and have appointed as their PIenipotentiaries:
[excerpts]
Article 5.
In time of war, Turkey being belligerent, merchant vessels not belonging to a country at war with Turkey shall enjoy freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits on condition that they do not in any way assist the enemy. Such vessels shall enter the Straits by day and their transit shall be effected by the route which shall in each case be indicated by the Turkish authorities.
Article 20.
In time of war, Turkey being belligerent, the provisions of Articles 10 to 18 shall not be applicable; the passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish Government.
Article 21.
Should Turkey consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war she shall have the right to apply the provisions of Article 20 of the present Convention.
Vessels which have passed through the Straits before Turkey has made use of the powers conferred upon her by tbe preceding paragraph, and which thus find themselves separated from their bases, may return thereto. It is, however, understood that Turkey may deny this right to vessels of war belonging to the State whose attitude has given rise to the application of the present Article.
Should the Turkish Government make use of the powers conferred by the first paragraph of the present Article, a notification to that effect shall be addressed to the High Contracting Parties and to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
If the Council of the League of Natiobs decide by a majority of two-thirds that the measures thus taken by Turkey are not justified, and if such should also be the opiniontdf the majority of the High Contracting Parties signatories to the present Convention, the Turkish Government undertakes to discontinue the measures in question as also any measures which may have been taken under Article 6 of the present Convention.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
The US does not WANT to confirm Russia's side of the story.
The truth always comes out one way or another and in it's own time...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#55. To: nolu chan (#52)
Turkey letter of 24 Nov 2015 to President of United Nations Security Council: "both planes at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1,36 miles and 1,15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9.24'05" local time."1.15 miles in 17 seconds is 243 MPH.
1.36 miles in 17 seconds is 288 MPH.
Were the Russian jets really flying that slowly?
It is slow. The altitude is about right to make a bomb run on a target.
Our jets use an altitude of 16-20K MSL to engage targets. Aircraft like the A-10 will do well at the speeds listed. The F16 would fall out of the sky:) Normal run for the higher performance jets is a bit higher.
Payload leading to drag also factors in. So yes they could be going that slow.
"I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." Psalm 86:12-13
#56. To: nolu chan, ooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, A Pole (#51)
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htmApproved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C.
"NATO forces must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
This enables NATO to act outside of Article 5............
#57. To: redleghunter (#55)
A more intriguing question is ;was the Turk planes in Syrian air space when they launched the missile that took down the Russian jet ? Also there is a possible Turk intel. connection to the Tartar take down of power lines in Crimea.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#58. To: Pericles (#56)
"NATO forces must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations."This enables NATO to act outside of Article 5............
Perhaps it "enables", but it does not oblige, and certainly does not compel.
#59. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, tomder55 (#52)
Were the Russian jets really flying that slowly?
Very doubtful, that would only make sense (somewhat) if they were down in the weeds looking for a very small target. But they would basically be sitting ducks to ground fire and the infamous "Golden BB", and have no room/speed to maneuver/escape...
I think those figure weren't reported correctly and that they were flying at normal cruising speeds of at least 5-600 MPH...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#60. To: CZ82 (#59)
Were the Russian jets really flying that slowly?Very doubtful, that would only make sense (somewhat) if they were down in the weeds looking for a very small target.
Cab they even fly that low? These are BHMF's when loaded with fuel and armament,and below a certain speed they become rocks instead of airplanes.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#61. To: sneakypete (#60)
Cab they even fly that low? These are BHMF's when loaded with fuel and armament, and below a certain speed they become rocks instead of airplanes.
They were designed and are used for low level flight and have swing wings to help control them at lower altitudes. From what I could find on the plane landing speed is around 180 MPH and takeoff speed is at 240 MPH. Finding what the plane can do (minimum speed) at low level with full fuel tanks and weapons load is just about impossible. Most of the specs you get are max speed at both sea level and max ceiling altitudes with no weapons load and who knows how much fuel on board...
Now since they were supposedly flying at 19000 ft I suppose they could be flying that slow but would imagine they were losing altitude fast... Which just doesn't make sense if you know F16s are in the neighborhood looking for you, talk about a sitting duck...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#62. To: Pericles, TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, A Pole (#56)
[Pericles #45] NATO amended its charter to allow offensive operations - the justification for Bosnia and Kosovo intervention.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htmApproved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C.
"NATO forces must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
This enables NATO to act outside of Article 5............
A slightly more complete quote:
The Alliance's forces must therefore be able to deter and defend effectively, to maintain or restore the territorial integrity of Allied nations and - in case of conflict - to terminate war rapidly by making an aggressor reconsider his decision, cease his attack and withdraw. NATO forces must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations.
A concept of an Alliance Force Posture was approved.
That is not an amendment to the NATO Charter, which remains unchanged.
That does not authorize any armed attack on anyone. It says NATO must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations.
They must train to do the real thing.
The Alliance's Strategic ConceptApproved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C.
24 Apr. 1999 | Press Release NAC-S(99) 65
Issued on 24 Apr. 1999 | Last updated: 25 Jun. 2009 12:18
Introduction
At their Summit meeting in Washington in April 1999, NATO Heads of State and Government approved the Alliance's new Strategic Concept.
[...]
The Alliance's Force Posture
The Missions of Alliance Military Forces
47. The primary role of Alliance military forces is to protect peace and to guarantee the territorial integrity, political independence and security of member states. The Alliance's forces must therefore be able to deter and defend effectively, to maintain or restore the territorial integrity of Allied nations and - in case of conflict - to terminate war rapidly by making an aggressor reconsider his decision, cease his attack and withdraw. NATO forces must maintain the ability to provide for collective defence while conducting effective non-Article 5 crisis response operations.
The 1949 Strategic Concept was to similar effect. This refers to "offensive operations" in a training context, but does not authorize NATO members to go out and start wars.
http://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a491128a.pdf
M.C.3/2
28 November 1949
Pages 19 - 25, incl.NOTE BY THE SECRETARY
to the
NORTH ATLANTIC MILITARY COMMITTEE
on
THE STRATEGIC CONCEPT FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE NORTH
ATLANTIC AREA[...]
IV
MILITARY MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT DEFENSE CONCEPT
Basic Undertakings
7. Over-all defense plans must provide in advance of war emergency, specifically for the following basic undertakings furtherance of the common objective to defend the North Atlantic area. The successful conduct of these undertakings should be assured by close coordination of military action as set forth in over-all plans. a. Insure the ability to carry out strategic bombing including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a U.S. responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations.
b. Arrest and counter as soon as practicable the enemy offensives against North Atlantic Treaty powers by all means available, including air, naval, land and psychological operations. Initially, the hard core of ground forces will come from the European nations. Other nations will give aid with the least possible delay and in accordance with over-all plans.
c. Neutralize as soon as practicable enemy air operations against North Atlantic Treaty powers. In this undertaking the European nations should initially provide the bulk of the tactical air support and air defense, other nations aiding with the least possible delay in accordance with over-all plans.
d. Secure and control sea and air lines of communication and ports and harbors, essential to the implementation of common defense plans. The defense and control of sea and air LOC’s will be performed through common cooperation in accordance with each nation’s capabilities and agreed responsibilities. In this regard it is recognized that the United States and United Kingdom will be primarily responsible for the organization and control of ocean lines of communication. Other nations will secure and maintain their own harbor defenses and coastal LOC’s and participate in the organization and control of vital LOC’s to their territories as may be indicated in over-all plans.
e. Secure, maintain and defend such main support areas, air bases, naval bases and other facilities as are essential to the successful accomplishment of the basic undertaking. These undertakings will be a responsibility of the nations having sovereignty over these essential bases, area and facilities, aided as necessary and to the extent set forth in collective defense plans.
f. Mobilize and expand the over-all power of the Treaty nations in accordance with their planned contribution to later offensive operations designed to maintain security of the North Atlantic Treaty area.
#63. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, sneakypete, A Pole (#62)
The 1999 amendment to the NATO charter is what allowed NATO to wage offensive war in Libya without unanimous participation (and what justified Kosovo).
#64. To: Pericles (#63)
The 1999 amendment to the NATO charter is what allowed NATO to wage offensive war in Libya without unanimous participation (and what justified Kosovo).
You could be right but I've always heard NATO signatories were bound by a 'mutual defense treaty'.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#65. To: cranky (#64)
You could be right but I've always heard NATO signatories were bound by a 'mutual defense treaty'.
When it comes to these NATO offensive operations it does not require full member state participation - see Libya.
#66. To: Pericles (#65)
When it comes to these NATO offensive operations it does not require full member state participation - see Libya.
Then it would not be a NATO (funded) operation just an operation by a coalition of nations, I would think.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#67. To: Pericles (#65)
When it comes to these NATO offensive operations it does not require full member state participation - see Libya.
Where some members of NATO start offensive operation outside of NATO area, it does not mean that NATO does it.
Same way if you and your buddy belong both to Alcoholic Anonymous go together for a beer, it does not mean that it is an AA trip.
#68. To: CZ82 (#61)
Cab they even fly that low? These are BHMF's when loaded with fuel and armament, and below a certain speed they become rocks instead of airplanes.They were designed and are used for low level flight and have swing wings to help control them at lower altitudes.
My apologies for the typo. I had intended to write "slow",but it came out as "low".
Damn stroke! I still know how to spell,but sometimes I can read a post three or four time before hitting the send button,and still not see typos.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#69. To: Pericles, nolu chan, TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, tomder55, A Pole (#63)
The 1999 amendment to the NATO charter is what allowed NATO to wage offensive war in Libya without unanimous participation (and what justified Kosovo).
It doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference what any treaty says. From what I have seen,nations read them to mean whatever they want them to mean,and short of declaring war there is nothing that can be done about it.
Makes no difference if it is "your" nation,"my" nation,or anyone else's nation. They all operate the same way.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#70. To: sneakypete (#69)
It doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference what any treaty says.
I thought the various mutual defense pacts were commonly blamed for both world wars.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#71. To: cranky (#70)
I thought the various mutual defense pacts were commonly blamed for both world wars.
They were,but they only meant something because the European nations wanted to replay WW-1.
People have an amazing ability to discover that treaties and other promises only mean what they want them to mean.
If they hadn't wanted to go to war,they wouldn't have.
Just like WE are now finding excuses to not go to war with Islam,despite the fact that Islam has declared war on us.
All of Islam should be VERY happy that I am not in charge,or they would find out REAL quick exactly what war means.
And I could find plenty of legal justification to light their asses up if I were in charge,too.
Next time we would have to have a game of "Islam versus the Infidels",Islam would have a tough time fielding a whole team.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#72. To: sneakypete (#68)
Damn stroke! I still know how to spell,but sometimes I can read a post three or four time before hitting the send button,and still not see typos.
Sometimes you misspell words just right and the spell checker doesn't catch them, like yours for instance... :)
My problem is the particular keyboard I like hasn't been made in about 8 years or so and when one of them goes tits up I have a hard time finding a decent replacement... The one I'm using right now has issues with the "CAPS" and "S" keys so I constantly have to reread and correct typos, that and I have fat fingeritis... :)
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]