Russian military jet downed by Turkey

[Yesugey]

I genuinely laughed out loud here.

Awesome argument.

Remember: I am a guy who doesn't want the moral highground. Before we go frenzy, we lost 250 soldiers, uncountable civilians including ambulance drivers, locals who have a little sense and many children. That's a shame.

Now we are called the "evil" people on duty again, so things going well. I hope it gets better and you will be able to accuse me for evil being correctly this time

[Yesugey]

"You were sniggering at them." Never did on these pictures, and it fact I never did sniggering. Give the ref and then we can see... Of course, you won.,t be able to do so...

"Ah, I see that you are already popular in forum as a guy who messes all the conversation with photos of people getting killed." I understand why Gilrandir likes you. You employ the same tactic of telling lies until in your mind they become truth. Unfortunately, if you base your analyse on Gilrandir "proof by social media", you will find some difficulties.
I understand that the link of children playing being soldiers is a massive proof....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Cam.../dp/B00ODCS9A4
You are in fact doing the same.

"the part you are lying is not the event itself" Which part is it? So, when you can't answer, you pretend your opponent is a liar. You will find a lot of liars on this forum... But, really, what we expect from someone who can write "Turkish Republic has the %100 moral highground on this debate". The only thing Turkey has higher is altitude of its bombers and helicopters.

"Our officers are legally allowed to kill them only after they launched their RPG or weapon."

You pretend Kurds kill babies, then you twist the story as if I said Turks killed babies.

"More than 200 soldiers were killed during the period, some of them in their bed sleeping" Yeap, that is what happen when the Turkish Mussolini decided for political gain to break the cease-fire. By the way, killing soldiers when they sleep in a good tactic. Behind armour and kevlar, it is more difficult. I understand you prefer to use planes and helicopters as there is not so much possibility of retaliation, mind you, but you can't expect your enemies to play your rules.

My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. That is guerilla warfare.

All right, when you will have finish to give all the Turkish Authoritarian Regime propaganda, we might debate...

I don't know Gilrandir, just saw his post.

Again, (Like thousands of time) I don't use it as a political moral highground to you. Killing babies is a logically right strategy. Children were going to school and that was banned by Kurdish rebels, and since Europe will back them up anyway, so why not murder few of them?

Brennus, mate, you blow your cover at "Kurd pretends" and My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. ... I am a person who accepts all war crimes, you just reject killing babies. But since you ok with killing people in their sleep, why you such a crybaby when we do the same?

Your grandparent will be very proud of you siding with the fascists and help Kurdish girls getting raped.

All right, when you will have finish to give all the Turkish Authoritarian Regime propaganda, we might debate.. Ok that part I literally laughed I will tell you if the true friend of Kurdish people Tayyip Erdogan collapses and real fascism comes.

[Sarmatian]

Awesome argument.

That wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. You did make me laugh.

Now we are called the "evil" people on duty again, so things going well. I hope it gets better and you will be able to accuse me for evil being correctly this time

No one accused you of being evil. You shouldn't equate yourself with you country.

Turkey, on the other hand, committed numerous atrocities against the Kurds. Not the actions of a single government, but a consistent policy of oppression.

That doesn't mean Kurds are innocent, but, as the oppressed people, fighting back, no matter how dirty at times, is to be expected and doesn't excuse Turkish continued oppression.

[Yesugey]

That wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. You did make me laugh.


No one accused you of being evil. You shouldn't equate yourself with you country.

Turkey, on the other hand, committed numerous atrocities against the Kurds. Not the actions of a single government, but a consistent policy of oppression.

That doesn't mean Kurds are innocent, but, as the oppressed people, fighting back, no matter how dirty at times, is to be expected and doesn't excuse Turkish continued oppression.

You are right. It's not a crime to be a teenager just laughs in arguments.

But to be honest, I like what all other things you wrote though, you have a pretty healthy perspective.

The atrocities you mentioned were exist, you are right. Turkey was doing some evil, by trying to convert Kurds to Turks. And the terrorism never clean this wrongdoings up.

For the last 10 years, Turkey was getting much better. Tayyip Erdogan was negotiating with them, gave them most of their rights, removed most of the language ban, which was driving the nationalist "evil" people (That's me!) crazy.

But, in historical perspective, there is no "Kurdish rights", we all are just people with ambitions.. So they decided to become "evil" themselves. First they were just asking for the right to speak freely.. But since now they have millions of population, amazing sympathy from Europe, and the weapons and have a chance to invade more lands... Why not go for more ?

Now they are declaring 10 more cities in Turkey as "Kurdistan" (Because they migrated there in the last 10 years), plus whole Northern Syria, Northern Iraq and some parts of Iran. And if you object, you are basically supporting "ISIS". Awesome politics.

So they are the "evil" side now. (Since they already have a violent culture, they do horrific massacres now, but that's irrelevant.)

That's not my perspective ofcourse. As for me, as I mentioned, historically there is no evil side. Whoever gains some power, it's logical to use it, and the most evil people were victims once. (That's the biggest mistake of our guy Brennus, by the way. If you back up any political group because they are victim, you will be shocked when that group gains power.)

Long story short: Kurds have a chance to gain power, and they are using it. Turkey being violent against Kurds at past have no affect on this. They would do exactly the same.

[Gilrandir]

"You were sniggering at them." Never did on these pictures, and it fact I never did sniggering. Give the ref and then we can see... Of course, you won.,t be able to do so...

When will you finally learn to read properly? Or are you so wise to employ your famous manipulating techniques you are so proud of having studied?
This is what I wrote (probably I will use the way you quote messages for you to understand the import better):
These were MY emotions. You were sniggering at them.
Ergo: You were not sniggering AT THE PICTURES. You were pooh-poohing my emotions. Feel the difference, dude.

And my conclusion was: it is the easiest way to evoke emotions that you need publishing pictures with people's suffering. You have probably figured that out while writing your thesis. Well, you can finally employ the tactics that you learnt and try how effective it is. For the unaware it is, no doubt.

I understand why Gilrandir likes you.

Yo, Yesugey, now you are in for trouble. If Brenus concludes that Gilrandir likes you (although he can never prove it, but never mind) it is a stigma. It means that you are nazi. Then he will roll on mentioning how he fights the nazis (never explaining why in his home country nazis' popularity has been on the rise long before the immigration deluge happened) and then he will mention his sires fighting nazis... oops he already did:

My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. That is guerilla warfare.

If he thinks it gives him moral high ground he must know, that now Russia uses the same cliche (#Dedy voevali = Grandfathers were fighting them) to cover up for the fascist state Russia is sliding into. But he knows what he does - not for naught has he studied manipulation techniques.

You employ the same tactic of telling lies until in your mind they become truth. Unfortunately, if you base your analyse on Gilrandir "proof by social media", you will find some difficulties.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29001361
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vladimir-rybak


Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media. Carry on dude.

[Greyblades]

[Brenus]

Gilrandir: Uses Dude: “Carry on dude”, “Feel the difference, dude”
Yesugey: Uses mate “Brennus, mate”, “Hey mate”


All right, let’s go for the story after the funny bits:
“you blow your cover” I don’t need a cover. This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…

“When will you finally learn to read properly?” Bla bla bla as usual. Still not giving any evidence, are you?
Now, I grant you that when I asked for hard facts (as in the medal story, the celebration of the plane going down by Ukrainian Russian rebels on, what was it, twiter, facebook?), or the spy bits, it can hurt not to be trusted. And to question your sources of knowledge as well… However, it is part of debates.

“Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media” And you are the one saying other to learn to read… None of the newspapers (well, not entirely true, I fear) rely on social media for information. Just have a look on the links you post, and, well, read them.: “The commander, a former military man, said he had not been aware of the story and was outraged by the cruelty of his fighters.”
The one you can, as “Sorry - we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.”
So, what were you trying to establish here?

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir: Uses Dude: “Carry on dude”, “Feel the difference, dude”
Yesugey: Uses mate “Brennus, mate”, “Hey mate”

I didn't know "mate" and "dude" were four-letter words (unless you really count the letters).

This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…

Now we finally have the admission from a person who claimed impartiality and abscence of bias. Curiuosly, you consider being pro-something as a thing which distorts perception of the facts by OTHERS but which doesn't harm YOUR ability to see things perfectly clear.

Now, I grant you that when I asked for hard facts (as in the medal story, the celebration of the plane going down by Ukrainian Russian rebels on, what was it, twiter, facebook?), or the spy bits, it can hurt not to be trusted. And to question your sources of knowledge as well… However, it is part of debates.

“Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media” And you are the one saying other to learn to read… None of the newspapers (well, not entirely true, I fear) rely on social media for information. Just have a look on the links you post, and, well, read them.: “The commander, a former military man, said he had not been aware of the story and was outraged by the cruelty of his fighters.”
The one you can, as “Sorry - we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.”
So, what were you trying to establish here?

The problem question is not the sources. You once were outraged by the fact (and linked to the video) of Ukrainian army seeing that it was shelling civilians with mortars and still doing it. An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars. The source showed what you wanted to prove, but was your explanation accurate?
Conclusion 1: ANY source may be found at fault if you adopt a certain perspective of things. You can quote perfectly reliable sources if you want to prove that "Ukrainians are cruel nazis" and it would seem true. But taken in a larger context the statement would look like "Some Ukrainians are cruel nazis". Which is true about any nation (including the French and - OMG - your favorites the Russians). But you opt for the first tactics.
Conclusion 2: ANY facts (from any source) may be used to prove your point if you omit other relevant facts. You like to cry how cruel to "Russian minorities" Ukrainians are and speak of the domination of nazis among the latter totally ignoring the facts that prove the opposite, e.i. cruelty of Russia-backed separatists and significant number of nazis (even at power) in Russia and fascist rhetoric of Putin.
Conclusion 3: You underestimate the role of modern social media.

[Brenus]

“Now we finally have the admission from a person who claimed impartiality and abscence of bias.” Err, how did you reach this conclusion? Really? I said, if I was, I could, and your conclusion is I admit something which would be a lie because, no, I don’t support Putin, and said it a lot, and my knowledge of the Kurdish claims is a little short…
I never claim impartiality by the way, or neutrality…

“An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars” To be frank, I don’t remember doing this.
Now, as an ex-military (not specialised in mortar, but my brother is), in order to use a mortar, you use a map (for distances), calculate angles, azimuth, number of charges you need (the circular bits you put around the shell), fire 3 shells to warm-up the tube and see your dispersion and things like wind, temperatures and humidity, all things having effect on a low speed and light projectile, adjust then open the real shelling (I am just telling what my brother told me, long time ago). So you don’t need to see the target. However, on the map, you can see on what you open fire, and with an advanced observer, you can see which kind of personnel or targets you engaged… It is a bit silly to shell at random, not knowing where and who. And a mortar (especially 120 and 80 mm) is an extremely precise weapon when well manned. So a shelling by mortar is all but random.

“Conclusion 1: ANY source may be found at fault if you adopt a certain perspective of things.” Exactly. That is why you question the sources. Same events provide different cover: i.e, hospital bombed by Russian/Assad is war crimes, hospital bombed by USA is horrible mistake, hospital bombed by Saudis is silence.

“ANY facts (from any source) may be used to prove your point if you omit other relevant facts. You like to cry how cruel to "Russian minorities" Ukrainians are and speak of the domination of nazis among the latter totally ignoring the facts that prove the opposite, e.i. cruelty of Russia-backed separatists and significant number of nazis (even at power) in Russia and fascist rhetoric of Putin.” Nope, never did. I said Russians minorities had good reasons to believe they were in danger. Never said separatist were nice people either.
What you don’t understand is I don’t believe that victims are nice and innocent, nor I believe aggressors are badies and villains. I went through this, and I so how wrong this vision is (probably an effect of the Judeo-Christian civilisation).
You ignore deliberately the fact that I said and wrote several times what I think of Putin in order to keep your posture as victim. My position was and is he is doing exactly what the Western (NATO) powers did, employed the same methods, so why all this outrage about international treaties and borders 10-15 years after Kosovo, and even less after Iraq (2nd invasion).

“Conclusion 3: You underestimate the role of modern social media” Nope, but I question its ability in term of information/propaganda/manipulation. I have however no doubt about its power as agit/prop machines.

[Gilrandir]

However, on the map, you can see on what you open fire,

People are not marked on maps. And your charge was that Ukrainian army saw that there were civilians crowded in some place but they shelled them nonetheless.

It is a bit silly to shell at random, not knowing where and who. And a mortar (especially 120 and 80 mm) is an extremely precise weapon when well manned. So a shelling by mortar is all but random.

I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery, yet it is one of the most essential parts of modern armed forces.

You ignore deliberately the fact that I said and wrote several times what I think of Putin in order to keep your posture as victim.

I don't ignore, I just can't see the logics in having a low opinion of Putin and claiming to be pro-Russian.

My position was and is he is doing exactly what the Western (NATO) powers did, employed the same methods, so why all this outrage about international treaties and borders 10-15 years after Kosovo, and even less after Iraq (2nd invasion).

Yet you are extremely critical of NATO and extremely sympathetic of Russia, although both are considered (by you) in the wrong.

[Brenus]

“People are not marked on maps” So, you are telling me that the Ukrainian army had no clue where and who they were shelling?

“I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery” Err, the WW2 is over. Modern artillery is really much better… It is law of physic and computers, you know...

“I just can't see the logics in having a low opinion of Putin and claiming to be pro-Russian” You are right. But one can have low opinion of Putin (and I have not, as I thing he is smarter than his opponents, which doesn't mean I approve his politic, even if I can see and understand why he is doing it) and as I never claim to be pro-Russian, I am perfectly logic.

“ extremely sympathetic of Russia” Only in your imagination…

[Gilrandir]

“People are not marked on maps” So, you are telling me that the Ukrainian army had no clue where and who they were shelling?

They were shelling checkpoints of separatists. But they didn't see that there were civilians nearby as well.

“I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery” Err, the WW2 is over. Modern artillery is really much better… It is law of physic and computers, you know...

Not the artillery used by Ukraine. It is basically old Soviet artillery produced in the 60-70s.

But one can have low opinion of Putin (and I have not, as I thing he is smarter than his opponents, which doesn't mean I approve his politic, even if I can see and understand why he is doing it)

By low opinion here I meant "censure somebody's views and actions".

and as I never claim to be pro-Russian, I am perfectly logic.

“ extremely sympathetic of Russia” Only in your imagination…

Say what?
#307:

I don’t need a cover. This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…

[Yesugey]

I feel you mate, to be honest. A good conversation just got filthed with empty moral arguments.

[Yesugey]

I didn't know "mate" and "dude" were four-letter words (unless you really count the letters).

Didn't know you are my second account. I am glad my fake account speaks English much better though

[Brenus]

"Say what?#307:" Yes, what did it say? " I can say openly I am Pro-Russian" if I want (referring to blow-up your cover). The fact that I can doesn't mean I will do something... So, for you only, I am not pro-Russian if I was I would be able to say it. Clearer?

"They were shelling checkpoints of separatists" And what check points are for, if not control civilian populations? And according to you, they did that with imprecise weapons, not knowing that the shells will fall on the check point, but around...

[Gilrandir]

"They were shelling checkpoints of separatists" And what check points are for, if not control civilian populations?

In that case all countries must have a developed system of checkpoints. Seen any in Wokingham?
Checkpoints are to control the roads and prevent unwanted vehicles (especially military ones) from moving along them. It is strange to explain the purpose of such constructions to a military person (even a retiree).

And according to you, they did that with imprecise weapons, not knowing that the shells will fall on the check point, but around...

Specify what you consider precise (artillery) weapons. But bear in mind that
- Ukrainian army mostly relies on the weapons of Soviet make (60s and 70s);
- any long range artillery of 60s and 70s can hardly be precise;
- depending on the specific conditions of a specific battle and on the logistics of the first months of the war those mortars may have been the only artillery available for the unit to use.

[Brenus]

"Seen any in Wokingham?" No, but a lot in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and others troubled countries. It is generally installed not to far for a Kafana, pubs or others similar kind of premises, made with few sand bags, a roof, flimsy windows, a chair, a phone (rotating one) and of course a barrier. Some time some come with obstacles (herissons) and manned by around 4 persons, often drunk.
In Brcko, they moved the initial one into the Petrol station in order to be rain proof, a little bit...
I have a LOT of experience going through them, and yes, they are supposed to control movement of populations.
So, by definition you have a lot a person, civilians, crossing this kind of constructions. Really ideal military targets?

Here, it was on the railways bridge, only open link between Serbia proper and Republika Srska (or Srska Republika, don't remember), only passage for refugees, but as well for food and other goods.

"It is strange to explain the purpose of such constructions to a military person (even a retiree)": Indeed it is.

"Specify what you consider precise (artillery) weapons. But bear in mind that
- Ukrainian army mostly relies on the weapons of Soviet make (60s and 70s);
- any long range artillery of 60s and 70s can hardly be precise;
- depending on the specific conditions of a specific battle and on the logistics of the first months of the war those mortars may have been the only artillery available for the unit to use." I give you this, but it makes your case worst. I could understand a very precise pint-point shelling with hellish precision, but to shell a position, which is not a front line one, in the middle of a town is a good definition of terror attack.

[Gilrandir]

I could understand a very precise pint-point shelling with hellish precision, but to shell a position, which is not a front line one, in the middle of a town is a good definition of terror attack.

Who said it wasn't on a front line? Usually checkpoints are erected where the road leaves a city or at important junctures within the city. When an army approaches the city the first type of chekpoints becomes the first barrier the attackers are to overcome and therefore a front line. This type of checkpoints was shelled in the case under discussion.

[Brenus]

"Who said it wasn't on a front line?" You: "People are not marked on maps" & "An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars" On a front line, you know where you shell fall, and you see people being at the check point. Front is the clue.

[Gilrandir]

"Who said it wasn't on a front line?" You: "People are not marked on maps" & "An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars" On a front line, you know where you shell fall, and you see people being at the check point. Front is the clue.

Where is front line mentioned here?
The situation was something like this: the army was drawing closer to a town and sent forth scouts who reported that the road was guarded/blocked by a checkpoint manned by enemies. They gave the artillery coordinates of the checkpoint and it started shelling. But after the scouts had left there might have been civilians who tried to cross the checkpoint unaware of what was going to happen. The same as the artillery was unaware that some civilians had approached their target.

You deal out charges of terrorism too eagerly when it involves Ukrainians and are more lenient when it is about the separatists or the Russians. They just make mistakes, but Ukrainians do it on purpose. So much for the impartiality.

[Brenus]

You have really not a clue of what you spoke about, do you?
"Where is front line mentioned here?" You wrote: "Who said it wasn't on a front line?" So, it where front lines are mentioned, in your writings.
"They gave the artillery coordinates of the checkpoint and it started shelling. But after the scouts had left there might have been civilians who tried to cross the checkpoint unaware of what was going to happen": That is the worst ever explanation you come with. The "scouts" would have been Artillery Advanced Observers, if they are able to liaise artillery and to gave coordinates. They don't leave until first shell fall, as they will have to modify the parameters, as, in your example, to hit a check-point with what you described as not really modern pieces of artillery is tricky. So, no way, your observers would have left a front line. Even during WW1, they would have launch pigeons...
The problem is you don't remember what I wrote exactly, but you remember you were offended by it. I vaguely remember mentioning the shelling of a town, when some here were celebrating the "mopping-up" by the Ukrainians forces of the left-over of the Rebels forces, when the things were looking good (at least for them). So now, you try to find your way out of it...

[Gilrandir]

That is the worst ever explanation you come with.

It is the explanation that is offered by a person who has heard a lot of the character of fighting in Donbas. Ukrainians have been obliged to create an army from scratch with all pertaining consequences of inadequate command, out-of-date weapons, cowardness of (some) officers, terrible logistsics and so on.

The "scouts" would have been Artillery Advanced Observers, if they are able to liaise artillery and to gave coordinates.

You ground your conclusions on what you think it SHOULD be. See above on how irregular was the fighting.

They don't leave until first shell fall, as they will have to modify the parameters, as, in your example, to hit a check-point with what you described as not really modern pieces of artillery is tricky. So, no way, your observers would have left a front line.

I didn't say they left FOR GOOD. They might have stayed. They might have returned and corrected the initial parameters. But the FIRST shells fell were they fell. Later they could have changed the coordinates. But the FIRST shells fell were they fell.