View Full Version : Russian military jet downed by Turkey
A Su 24 was shot down by Turkish F-16 fighters last night after supposedly breaching Turkish airspace. The Kremlin states that they are certain the plane was flying only over Syria. The two pilots catapulted, one is reputedly in the hands of the syrian rebels.
Shit. This is bad, really bad.
rory_20_uk
11-24-2015, 13:40
Expected by all sides I imagine - the current situation in Syria is a complete mess with different factions fighting different factions.
All parties appear to be talking and so far no cruise missiles have been launched at Istambul or other similar acts of insanity.
Russians tend to be hard-headed strategists and they have far more to gain by focussing on Syria and Ukraine than directly starting trouble with NATO.
I imagine that the PKK might be getting more intel / supplies than up until now.
~:smoking:
Yeah, Turkey is really oversensitive, when it comes to airspace violations. That's why they violate our airspace on a daily basis since the 90s, with the result of shot down aircraft and dead pilots.
No sympathies for the Turkmen, almost all of them are Al-Nusra affiliates and have ethnically cleansed Northern Syria from religious minorities.
One of the Russian pilots is dead. Be warned that a dead body is shown in the video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=425_1448360570
Montmorency
11-24-2015, 13:48
What are they saying in the video? I caught "mujahideen" a few times...
And some Allah u Akbars hear and there...
Turkmeni rebels are mainly extremists. Not the softcore porn of FSA, but really extremists. Not officially integrated into Al-Nusra, but they are her most loyal allies.
The Turkmens outside Syria (Uzbekis, Tajikis) are one of the most prominent recruitment pools of ISIL and Al-Nusra.
The Turkmens outside Syria (Uzbekis, Tajikis) are one of the most prominent recruitment pools of ISIL and Al-Nusra.
Tajiks are not neither Turkish nor Turkmen in any way at all.
Shit. This is bad, really bad.
Not necesarily, Nato has no obligations if a member-state strikes first. This is Turkey's problem.
They kinda deserve a problem lately.
Sarmatian
11-24-2015, 14:49
Downing of a jet is a minor diplomatic issue. A dead body is what is problematic. If the plane was indeed in Syria, and the pilot murdered by the Turkmens, it could get ugly really quickly.
Both pilots are dead, machine-gunned by the Turkmens, while landing with their parachutes (http://www.tribune.gr/world/news/article/190873/aftos-ine-o-rosos-pilotos-pou-skotose-o-erntogan-vinteo-foto.html).
Now, Putin will be forced to make a retaliatory act for symbolic and PR reasons, but I wouldn't expect anything excessive.
Both pilots are dead, machine-gunned by the Turkmens, while landing with their parachutes (http://www.tribune.gr/world/news/article/190873/aftos-ine-o-rosos-pilotos-pou-skotose-o-erntogan-vinteo-foto.html).
Now, Putin will be forced to make a retaliatory act for symbolic and PR reasons, but I wouldn't expect anything excessive.
I don't share your optimism, gunning down parachutees is a really unaccceptable war-crime, in a you just don't do that kinda way. This is going to be a developing story.
Greyblades
11-24-2015, 15:34
Russian President Vladimir Putin has bitterly condemned the downing of a Russian jet on the Turkey-Syria border. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34913173)
Russian President Vladimir Putin has bitterly condemned the downing of a Russian jet on the Turkey-Syria border. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34913173)
That doesn't sound too bad, Crandar is probably right in expecting nothing exsessive
rory_20_uk
11-24-2015, 17:11
I don't share your optimism, gunning down parachutees is a really unaccceptable war-crime, in a you just don't do that kinda way. This is going to be a developing story.
War crime?
They are soldiers who had not surrendered. They are fair game.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
11-24-2015, 17:23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists
Attacking persons parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. However, it is not prohibited under this Protocol to open fire on airborne troops who are descending by parachutes, even if their aircraft is in distress.[1]
How can you tell that an enemy combatant in the process of descent has surrendered?
If they don't have a parachute.
I of the Storm
11-24-2015, 17:38
I guess this will have a lot of loud and aggressive diplomacy as a consequence, but Russia won't bomb Turkey, I'm quite sure.
I'll be playing some more Fallout for practice, just in case my prediction is wrong...
Sarmatian
11-24-2015, 18:29
They won't bomb Turkey, but Turkmens just became fair game, which is gonna piss off Erdogan even more.
"They are soldiers who had not surrendered. They are fair game." Nope. They are the air equivalent of sailors abandoning sinking ships. War crime it is according to Article 42 of Protocol I of Geneva Conventions.
We are living interesting times...
rory_20_uk
11-24-2015, 19:49
Shot by rebels - not the state. I don't think that one can have "War crimes" without either a war or a defined enemy.
~:smoking:
"Shot by rebels " Yeap. That is why Putin will be able to do whatever he well, if not want, can... And Turkey won't be happy.
I wouldn't be surprised id the Kurds would finally received the heavy equipment they are crying for, and some AA missile for the next time Turkish bomber crossed the Iraqis' borders...
I guess this will have a lot of loud and aggressive diplomacy as a consequence, but Russia won't bomb Turkey, I'm quite sure.
I'll be playing some more Fallout for practice, just in case my prediction is wrong...
Russians also lost a rescue chopper to the rebel fire... and they keep insisting that the plane was shot down in Syrian airspace. This has serious potential of getting very ugly.
The aircraft was shot down in Syria, that's something that is even admitted by the War Ministry of Erdogan. Their claim is that they launched the missile, when the Russians dared to violate their precious airspace for seven seconds.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/141C7/production/_86857328_russian_plane_shot_down_624.png
Shot by rebels - not the state. I don't think that one can have "War crimes" without either a war or a defined enemy.
~:smoking:
Rebels are the officially recognized representatives of Syria by the West.
Therefore, they are going to be punished rightfully according to their fanboys and not so rightfully but much more enjoyably by their enemies.
It's a pity, the Turkmens were such gentlemen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessab
I'm sorry but I'm laughing because this is completely retarded.
And people wonder why I'd rather run away than fight in a conflict spawned by such retardedness...
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/141C7/production/_86857328_russian_plane_shot_down_624.png
If the Turkish missile was launched after the Russian plane left Turkish airspace, then this is a casus belli.
Sarmatian
11-24-2015, 23:22
"Shot by rebels " Yeap. That is why Putin will be able to do whatever he well, if not want, can... And Turkey won't be happy.
I wouldn't be surprised id the Kurds would finally received the heavy equipment they are crying for, and some AA missile for the next time Turkish bomber crossed the Iraqis' borders...
That would really make it interesting.
First reaction from other NATO countries is - we're washing our hands off this, it's Turkey's problem. We'll see how it goes.
Shot by rebels - not the state. I don't think that one can have "War crimes" without either a war or a defined enemy.
~:smoking:
In the nineties, NATO maintained that all Serbian rebels in Bosnia in Croatia could be tried for war crimes if committed. Also leadership of Serbia proper. Even though those were three separate political organizations, US/NATO argued that they were supported and instructed by Belgrade and that by extension, Serbian leaders were all guilty.
Applying that standard, Erdogan is a war criminal.
If the Turkish missile was launched after the Russian plane left Turkish airspace, then this is a casus belli.
I'm pretty sure there's no way to determine if the missile was launched within the 7 seconds Russian airplane was in Turkish airspace. Which is probably good, as it allows Russia a face saving excuse not to push it. If it were possible to confirm that, Russia would be pressured to react more strongly.
Interesting conspiracy theory is that Turkey is especially angry as Russian planes are routinely destroying oil transports and refineries, and Turkey, together with Gulf states, is the main outlet for ISIS/Al Nusra oil.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 06:27
I was going write something about an automated missile, then I remembered this plan was shot down by F-16's in air-to-air combat. Or air-to-air shanking, if you prefer.
So now I'm thinking the Russians were probably warned that they were approaching Turkish Airspace and decided to thumb the Turks by just skimming through it, and the Turks fired. It's entirely possible that the missile could have been launched within that 7-second time frame, at which point it was probably brown trousers all around.
The Russians have been playing silly sods with everyone else's air-space for a while now, it was just a matter of time before someone shot one of their planes down, and whilst the European powers might say "They didn't actually cross into our airspace, honest guv," the Turks appear less inclined to mess about.
I hear a Russian marine died during the recovery op, too. So, the rebels are clearly morons if they thought they could get away with this. On the other hand, we have Russian planes in a war zone supporting the enemies of the guys we're supporting in the same warzone...
So - Now that WWIII is in the offing what regiment are you guys thinking?
I'm hoping for SigInt but I'd take artillery. Fingers crossed I get posted to the Romanian Front, pretty girls, good food everything's cheap if you're paid in Sterling.
What they say is their airspace isn't internationally recognised, it's a zone of 5 kilometers they say it's theirs. Turkey is in trouble diplomatcly and it really wouldn't have to be that way. Really stupid action.
I of the Storm
11-25-2015, 09:50
IMO it's an unwise overreaction. Looking at the flightpath the SU was taking a shortcut of 7 seconds over that little appendix of turkish airspace protruding into Syria, while probably being in a combat situation.
Would've been better to just let it go and call in the russian ambassador afterwards. Moral high ground etc.
Fortunately, I'm too old for front line duty. Unless things go bad quickly and we'll have to reinstitute the Volkssturm...
IMO it's an unwise overreaction. Looking at the flightpath the SU was taking a shortcut of 7 seconds over that little appendix of turkish airspace protruding into Syria, while probably being in a combat situation.
Would've been better to just let it go and call in the russian ambassador afterwards. Moral high ground etc.
Fortunately, I'm too old for front line duty. Unless things go bad quickly and we'll have to reinstitute the Volkssturm...
That airspace isn't even theirs, it isn't internationallu recognised as such, Turkey just claims it is theirs but it isn't. Turkey is in trouble, Russia doesn't play nice
Sarmatian
11-25-2015, 10:15
Russia says all of its bombers will be flying with fighter escort and missile cruiser Moskva will be actively deployed to counter any threats, in addition to more land based AA.
There may be a few F16 downed if Turkey tries to repeat this.
That airspace isn't even theirs, it isn't internationallu recognised as such, Turkey just claims it is theirs but it isn't. Turkey is in trouble, Russia doesn't play nice
I've never heard this. Where did you read that?
Don't know where I read it but it's true, Turkey expanded their airspace by 5 kilometers without concent by the Nato partners. I am kinda happy this happened actually, Turkey under Erdogan doesn't belong in the Nato
edit, 5 miles my bad, but that plane wasn't flying over Turkish airspace. So Turkey has a problem now.
Fisherking
11-25-2015, 11:20
Don't know where I read it but it's true, Turkey expanded their airspace by 5 kilometers without concent by the Nato partners. I am kinda happy this happened actually, Turkey under Erdogan doesn't belong in the Nato
edit, 5 miles my bad, but that plane wasn't flying over Turkish airspace. So Turkey has a problem now.
got a link or info on this?
got a link or info on this?
Best I can do http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-violated-turkish-airspace-because-turkey-moved-its-border/5480430
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umsp9wIjolY
Greyblades
11-25-2015, 12:20
I find myself rather ambivalent to this situation. I hope that this doesn't end with bloodshed between Turkey and Russia but seeing as turkey fired first I don't think I'd object if Russia gives Turkey a good ball kicking in response.
I of the Storm
11-25-2015, 12:48
I find myself rather ambivalent to this situation. I hope that this doesn't end with bloodshed between Turkey and Russia but seeing as turkey fired first I don't think I'd object if Russia gives Turkey a good ball kicking in response.
Problem is, Russia kicking Turkey's balls in response would give Turkey a cause to invoke the NATO clause on mutual defense. And then it would be kinda hard to deny assistance if NATO still wants to be taken seriously internationally.
Greyblades
11-25-2015, 13:05
It depends, NATO is primarily a defensive pact; as Turkey is obviously the aggressor in this we can opt to just sit back and let it happen. Besides by ball kicking I don't include outright invasion or annexation.
I of the Storm
11-25-2015, 13:20
Maybe, but I have a hunch that Erdogan will invoke nevertheless as soon as the Russians act aggressively towards Turkey.
And opting not to act upon that invocation is bad PR for NATO, no matter how justified/legal.
That's what I mean.
First of all, if WW III erupts I'm going to buy a little cottage high in the mountains and just eat cheese with tomatoes and buttered bread and go arund the forests with my german shepherd dog. i'd be in a place similar to this: http://beautybg.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/1/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD.jpg
Screw killing people for some political agenda, screw nuclear fallout, screw all of that.
In regards to the incident: It is safe to say that no pilot is a trigger happy moron, especially considering they are targeting the aircraft of a (belligerent) nuclear capable superpower. Orders came up, someone gave this the a-ok.
It was NOT a simple overzealous enforcement of turkish airspace, nobody is that stupid. This was planned and someone benefits from it, but I can't tell whom.
Right now, there aren't many ways for Russia to respond. There is a US missile cruiser in the Black Sea and a French carrier group in the Medditerranean. Can they bomb Turkey? Doubtful. That would be a declaration of war. And what would they bomb anyway? Can't kill civilians, and the military targets would be protected. Do they start sending guided missiles at Turkey? Unlikely.
Can they blockade them with their fleet? Highly unlikely, since they'd have to bring in support vessels and fighters to prevent said fleet to be blown out of the water by Turkish bomber jets. And the US/French presence there is further discouraging.
Can they send in boots and tanks? Definitely not. Invading Turkey is the fastest way to a nuclear hollocaust I can imagine. Even if somehow this didn't trigger US/English/French nukes to fly at Russia and the reverse, there is little to be gianed by attacking Turkey by land OR sea. They can't hold that territory, and they don't particularly need it.
I wouldn't be surprised if some assassinations happen though and if the kurds become Russia's veersion of the "moderate" rebels.
Greyblades
11-25-2015, 13:30
Assassinations, rebel supporting, all that good stuff is likely, but personally I predict that the life expectancy for Turkish warplanes leaving Turkish airspace is about to drop sharply.
Maybe, but I have a hunch that Erdogan will invoke nevertheless as soon as the Russians act aggressively towards Turkey.
And opting not to act upon that invocation is bad PR for NATO, no matter how justified/legal.
That's what I mean.
I disagree, Turkey being the instigator gives us carte-blanche to refuse their request for military support and supporting a overly aggressive member in a war of their own making would be even worse PR.
Now if Turkey owns up to it, offers reparations and Russia refuses to let it go then maybe NATO would be obligated to help Turkey.
Interesting bit read just now. What if this was coordinated? An excuse for Putin to station his C-300 and C-400 mobile SAM sites which are even now on their way? Now the legitimiate Syrian govenment can close off Syrian airspace, thus ending the airborne weapon deliveries coming from Turkey and other US proxies. It will be free rein for Syrian army and Russian jets to fry ISIS and "moderate" opposition troops.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 16:06
If Turkey warned the Russian plane that they would be fired upon if they entered Turkish airspace and then the Russians entered their airspace and were fired upon then that's not just "turkey's Fault".
That's both sides being stupid.
Of course the surviving Russian pilot claims they weren't warned - he's obviously lying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34925229
He also claims there's "no way" they violated Turkish airspace.
Gilrandir
11-25-2015, 16:13
Chill out guys. There won't be any WWIII. It didn't start when Russia annexed Crimea, which was a more serious felony. A plane downed is just such a trifle. Putin will have to lump it. Turkey won't press its cause either since Russia is the greatest tourist exporter for Turkey's resorts.
As for how legitimate it was to shoot down a plane which has left the alien airspace: just TO ENTER it is a crime worth a punishment, especially if it was NOT THE FIRST TIME Russia did it and if Russian pilot(s) on that mission are claimed to have been warned over the radio and even gestured by the Turkish pilots that they were trespassing. If someone invades your house and then leaves, does it mean that he is not guilty of trespassing/burglary?
As for Russia initiating navy blockade against Turkey:
http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_report-russia-purchased-8-turkish-ships-for-arms-supply-to-syria_402573.html, which means that:
1) Russia lacks ships even for its Syrian campaign to say nothing of other assignments;
2) at any time Turkey may close its straits to ANY vessels coming from the Black sea which may be sent by Russia (or anyone else).
They have enough of a navy to choke out Turkey: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia
That they bought a few tubs to transport weapons in doesn't affect that IMO. Not to mention that they seized a lot of Ukranian ships when they annexed Crimea, their navy actually grew. Still lightyears behind the USA, but enough to fix Erdogan's Ottoman Empire.
Montmorency
11-25-2015, 16:23
As for how legitimate it was to shoot down a plane which has left the alien airspace: just TO ENTER it is a crime worth a punishment, especially if it was NOT THE FIRST TIME Russia did it and if Russian pilot(s) on that mission are claimed to have been warned over the radio and even gestured by the Turkish pilots that they were trespassing. If someone invades your house and then leaves, does it mean that he is not guilty of trespassing/burglary?
The plane was over internationally-recognized Turkish airspace for a few seconds.
Gilrandir
11-25-2015, 16:57
They have enough of a navy to choke out Turkey: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia
That they bought a few tubs to transport weapons in doesn't affect that IMO. Not to mention that they seized a lot of Ukranian ships when they annexed Crimea, their navy actually grew. Still lightyears behind the USA, but enough to fix Erdogan's Ottoman Empire.
If you go by the figures you linked to then you must be aware of the fact that in the article the estimation of Russia's TOTAL navy was given. How long will it take Russia to send the ships from the Pacific, Baltic and Polar navies to the Mediterranean? Will NATO countries (i.e. Denmark and Norway) let those out of the Baltic Sea or through the North Sea? What part of their numerous navies are they ready to spare to intimidate Turkey? Will they risk leaving other seas naked just to scare Turkey? If they sent just a part, will it be enough to blockade the whole of Turkish coastline? As for the Black Sea navy - that will be the most easily pent by Turkey in the sea in question.
The plane was over internationally-recognized Turkish airspace for a few seconds.
And? Does it mean that there was NO TRESPASSING? Especially if Russia was explicitely told (and not once) to quit doing it and warned that the trespassers will be shot (and as it appeared survivors were shot again).
17001
So - Now that WWIII is in the offing what regiment are you guys thinking?
The refugee regiment, and if that does not work, maybe go have a beer or a tea with Myth in the mountains while you patriots die in glorious fires of righteous indignation over basically nothing...
As for why they shot that plane down, maybe they're mad that Russia isn't bombing the Kurds...
Montmorency
11-25-2015, 18:02
And? Does it mean that there was NO TRESPASSING? Especially if Russia was explicitely told (and not once) to quit doing it and warned that the trespassers will be shot (and as it appeared survivors were shot again).
17001
And? This wasn't exactly a deviation from the West Berlin Corridor.
Gilrandir
11-25-2015, 18:08
And? This wasn't exactly a deviation from the West Berlin Corridor.
I guess Turkey was pissed off so it was looking for a slightest pretext to do what it did. And Russia was stupid enough to disregard the warnings and deemed it could act the way it did. Turkey showed it means business and will not shilly shally as Norway or the UK do in similar cases issuing warning after warning and expressing concerns, one deeper than the other.
Montmorency
11-25-2015, 18:36
Turkish political belligerence and social unrest are a concern to everyone, as Turkey is the balance and the nexus of West Asia (with respect to Europe, Israel with respect to Africa). Pitting NATO and Russia against each other so as to gain territory and promote Islamism and Turkish nationalism is not a good thing. Another expression of the global turn toward fascism...
Hooahguy
11-25-2015, 18:51
On the plus side, Russia said they wont go to war over this incident. So I guess WWIII has been averted. For now.
Also a relevant Polandball comic:
https://i.imgur.com/isMD9bk.png
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 19:58
The plane was over internationally-recognized Turkish airspace for a few seconds.
Turkey is entitled to shoot down the warplanes of other nations in its airspace without its consent.
Russia does this quite a lot - and according to a US general they have tapes telling the Russians to turn back ten times.
You talk about Turkey being finicky all you want but we all know Russia has been playing silly sods in Ukraine for almost two years now, so what is Turkey supposed to do?
Wring it's hands like a good EU country?
Perhaps, but then that hasn't achieved anything - has it?
Not saying Turkey is blameless, I'm just saying the Russian pilot and his superiors have a degree of responsibility too.
They do, but if you take the borders so seriously, why not destroy the missile once the plane leaves your airspace? The missile apparently impacted long after the plane left Turkish airspace again, at a time when the "danger" for Turkish airspace was not existent anymore. It was not heading into Turkish airspace anymore but they went through and executed what is more or less a death penalty.
Is it not a violation of Syrian airspace to fire a missile into it?
Not to forget that they claimed to bomb ISIS and "accidentally" bombed the Kurds (our allies) instead. Russia and Turkey seem like very similar countries at the moment, at least as far as the political leadership is concerned.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 20:53
Fair point, but this mess is still 50% Rusiia.
Russia has been skimming the edges of NATO airspace since forever. I remember that when the sanctions were raised over the Crimea annexation, Russian bombers flew over the Pacific and reached California. They congratulated the US fighter jets sent to intercept them (it was the 4th of July) and turned back. They were 20 kilometers from US airspace. Putin likes taunting the US like that. This skimming over the edge of enemy airspace was a common drill during the cold war I hear.
Can't imagine anything going wrong, seems like a brilliant plan.
Let's see what Erdogan think about all this, shall we?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-accuses-turkey-of-hypocrisy-after-erdogan-himself-says-airspace-violation-does-not-justify-a6748146.html
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself said “a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack”.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 21:15
Warning issued: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-releases-audio-of-moment-its-f16-pilots-warned-russian-warplane-before-shooting-it-down-over-a6747921.html
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528ce7a0e4b0ef8d92c453e8/t/52d04684e4b02a78a59c916a/1389381254942/En+Garde+1.png
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2015, 21:22
Well, we have to use the off bit of vulgar Frankish Latin or the French complain that all international air coms are in English.
~;p
Sarmatian
11-25-2015, 21:49
It is possibly Russian pilots didn't receive that, I presume.
WW3 was never on the cards, here. Kurds getting some good AA, Turkmens getting bombs on their heads, a Turkish jet straying even for a second into Syrian airspace might get shot at - those are very realistic possibilities, on the other hand.
Personally, I don't believe Russia will go to great lengths to antagonize Turkey. They can use this small "capital" in better ways.
Fair point, but this mess is still 50% Rusiia.
That fits very well with their similar political leadership, doesn't it?
It's like a clash of two hard-headed conservatives...
Russia has been skimming the edges of NATO airspace since forever. I remember that when the sanctions were raised over the Crimea annexation, Russian bombers flew over the Pacific and reached California. They congratulated the US fighter jets sent to intercept them (it was the 4th of July) and turned back. They were 20 kilometers from US airspace. Putin likes taunting the US like that. This skimming over the edge of enemy airspace was a common drill during the cold war I hear.
Can't imagine anything going wrong, seems like a brilliant plan.
Eh, well, that's a really bad comparison for a number of reasons.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that NATO also operates or exercises somewhere near the Russin border once in a while, the SAC always had planes in the air ready to head to Russia real quick and bomb a city or two. As for real danger, they don't necessarily have to enter enemy airspace if they have cruise missiles.
Secondly, as you say yourself, they fly close to it, they do not necessarily enter it. If we are being so technical about lines, the Russians never seems to cross the line in Europe so what they do is perfectly fine and happening in international airspace.
Thirdly, Syria is a war zone and Europe and the US are not, these Russian visits are almost like games, in 70 years or so I don't remember anything "going wrong" (meanwhile the US lost a nuke or two over its own territory...) and the pilots almost act like friends unless the Euros happen to be super serious.
And lastly, how can you warn someone ten times if it takes them only 7 seconds to fly through?
Yes, it was partially the fault of the Russians for flying through in the first place, but I assume the Turkish pulled the trigger more out of spite than any legitimate safety concerns.
That part about the pilots being almost friends - you made that up didn't you.
I'm no military guy but if I were on duty and I heard the alarm summoning me to mount my F 22 and intercept a russian bomber off the coast of California I sure as hell wouldn't be all daisies and giggles.
HopAlongBunny
11-26-2015, 05:01
I think its all about messaging; too bad some people had to die.
Turkey likes looking tough and it plays well in Turkey.
Russia can maintain that the West is dangerous; good thing we are strong and united.
That part about the pilots being almost friends - you made that up didn't you.
I'm no military guy but if I were on duty and I heard the alarm summoning me to mount my F 22 and intercept a russian bomber off the coast of California I sure as hell wouldn't be all daisies and giggles.
I read a report of Russian pilots winking to the NATO pilots and stuff.
Look at this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/us-russian-bombers-july-4-intercept/
The most nervous person in all of this is probably the news guy.
For a fighter pilot, such a bomber is probably not an immediate threat, the chance that they actually try to drop off a nuclear load exists mostly in the minds of newspeople and I do not recall that they ever shot one down. Maybe "almost friends" was not the best way to formulate it, but given that they've done this for 70 years it seems more like a tradition of friendly banter. If Russia actually wanted to nuke us, why would they send those old Bear bombers that show up on any radar hours before they arrive and not the most modern ICBMs? I can see why our governments scramble fighters if they come close to the country, but that still doesn't make it a super serious situation, why else would the interceptors fly so close that they can give eachother hand signals?
Of course a lot of "important" people make a big deal out of this to proliferate themselves, sell more papers or get more budget. I'm more scared by Putin saying he aims his ICBMs at Europe than by him sending a post-WW2 bomber to say hello to our interceptor pilots because that can hardly show any serious intentions. They just returned home every single time so far, big deal.
The pilots are so intensely intensed that they whip out their phones and make videos: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-its-like-to-get-intercepted-by-a-eurofight-1686827358
And US spy planes seem to get intercepted as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/world/europe/to-evade-russians-american-reconnaissance-plane-crossed-into-swedish-air.html?_r=0
At least the Swedish didn't shoot it down immediately...
Looks like both sides are posing a lot, the Russians with planes and the West with sharp words.
"That part about the pilots being almost friends" One French pilot, long time ago, confirmed it to me. It was "game" between "East" and "West" pilots over the then border between East and West Germany, a kind a corridor where they were testing each others planes and capacities...
Now, about how Russia can exploit this:
One possibility is to apply Air space borders control, so Syrian government to issue warning to French, USA and others that game is over within their airspace, and all unauthorised planes will be shot-down. It would give the total upper-hand to Russia and Assad to crush whatever they can.... In the other hand, the bombing campaign is still a plus against ISIL, so, I don't thing they will do it, plus the fact at this moment it would be difficult to enforce.
An other option is to copy Turkey, so to extend protection of border inside the neighboring countries, allowing Russian Airplanes to pursuit aggressors into Iraq, then to protect the ant--ISIL forces against aggression, providing air superiority on Kurdish controlled area, making very difficult for Turkish Air Forces to bomb them, as Turkey violated Iraq's air space in doing so. Provide heavy equipment to PKK, then see results (as reward to Turkmen in Syria). Of cause bomb Turkmen with Air assault planes with heavy fighters protection. Put a little bit of pressure on the other side of Turkey and few Naval training might help.
The third one is I don't know. However Putin has proved with Ukraine he is fast to take advantage of an initially bad situation. One has to remember the French are now in need of him in order to retaliate, so that is a gap within NATO. And US cannot deny France to do so.
So?
How does France need Russia to bomb ISIS?
ICantSpellDawg
11-26-2015, 12:16
Tajiks are not neither Turkish nor Turkmen in any way at all.
"Tajik" is a Turkic word meaning "non-turk"
Personally, I'm thrilled by this. We need to be less predictable in our actions with Russia. Take down an aircraft every so often, escalate where they expect us to back off. Cause their operations to increase in cost.
Let's see if we can get them to attack a NATO ally and cause an article 5 incident
rory_20_uk
11-26-2015, 13:34
Seems unlikely that Turkey would do something like this without the quiet nod of some of its more important allies - who might want to punish Russia for destroying the rebels / freedom fighters that they'd spent a lot of money in creating.
~:smoking:
"Tajik" is a Turkic word meaning "non-turk"
Personally, I'm thrilled by this. We need to be less predictable in our actions with Russia. Take down an aircraft every so often, escalate where they expect us to back off. Cause their operations to increase in cost.
Let's see if we can get them to attack a NATO ally and cause an article 5 incident
You and your death wish again...
If you want the cleansing fires of war so bad, why don't you join a militia in the ME or in Ukraine or wherever?
I for one do not look forward to millions of lives being eradicated...
Seems unlikely that Turkey would do something like this without the quiet nod of some of its more important allies - who might want to punish Russia for destroying the rebels / freedom fighters that they'd spent a lot of money in creating.
~:smoking:
It's Turkey, they have pride and stuffs.
Gilrandir
11-26-2015, 16:40
Yes, it was partially the fault of the Russians for flying through in the first place, but I assume the Turkish pulled the trigger more out of spite than any legitimate safety concerns.
I heard that Erdogan claimed that they first shot down the plane and only then learned it was Russian.
Now, about how Russia can exploit this:
In the other hand, the bombing campaign is still a plus against ISIL, so, I don't thing they will do it, plus the fact at this moment it would be difficult to enforce.
And bomb they did:
https://grasswire.com/story/822/Turkish-Trucks
An other option is to copy Turkey, so to extend protection of border inside the neighboring countries, allowing Russian Airplanes to pursuit aggressors into Iraq, then to protect the ant--ISIL forces against aggression, providing air superiority on Kurdish controlled area, making very difficult for Turkish Air Forces to bomb them, as Turkey violated Iraq's air space in doing so.
... which will mean more likelihood that more Russian planes will be shot down. A very wise move. Another one - no more Turkish chicken for Russians:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-trade-idUSL8N13K3XC20151125
And Turkish stream is put on pause - one wise decision follows another.
However Putin has proved with Ukraine he is fast to take advantage of an initially bad situation.
... and eventually turn this advantage into even a worse situation than it initially was.
I heard that Erdogan claimed that they first shot down the plane and only then learned it was Russian.
So maybe they were hoping it was a US plane because the US don't bomb the evil Kurds?
Or were they hoping for a civilian plane? Does ISIS have an air force now?
What kind of evil were they expecting? UFOs?
Sarmatian
11-26-2015, 17:24
Even if they couldn't say it was Russian with certainty, it must have been clear that it was a modern jet not available to any of the local armed groups. Therefore, it could have been only Russian, American or French. I'm pretty sure they knew it wasn't French or American.
Anyway, with S-400 deployed now, Russia checked Turkey. 400km range, with a few of those, they could easily enforce a no fly zone over Syria.
Fisherking
11-26-2015, 18:29
Gilrandir, That is a ball face lie. They knew full well it was Russian. That is saying that the rest of NATO never shared IFF technology with them.
It was a prepositioned ambush, pure and simple. The aid convoy is the same propaganda used by the Russians in your country.
A few people have told me that it is Turkish petulance over the Russian bombing of ISIS oil tanker trucks headed for Turkey. Yes, where else do you think they go to sell it?
I guess that meant more to them than the Russian Tourist trade. I may have the figures wrong but I heard last year there were like 4 million Russians who visited Turkey. That seems high to me but even if it were 400,000, I figure it might put a dent in the economy.
"How does France need Russia to bomb ISIS?" I have the feeling that France wants more than bombing...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2015, 19:32
Even if they couldn't say it was Russian with certainty, it must have been clear that it was a modern jet not available to any of the local armed groups. Therefore, it could have been only Russian, American or French. I'm pretty sure they knew it wasn't French or American.
Anyway, with S-400 deployed now, Russia checked Turkey. 400km range, with a few of those, they could easily enforce a no fly zone over Syria.
The jet in question was a Su-24, the same used by the Syrian Air Force. .
@Gilrandir (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=59831), That is a ball face lie. They knew full well it was Russian. That is saying that the rest of NATO never shared IFF technology with them.
Russians have been known to routinely fly with their IFF switched off when "buzzing" NATO countries.
Overall I think they probably did no it was Russian and I wouldn't trust Turkey's president half the distance I could throw him, I'm not even sure he's sane, but let's not pretend that it was certain the plane was Russian before it was shot down.
The IFF could have been off, the pilot apparently had the radio off according to the navigator - given that he didn't hear the repeated warnings to turn back.
It was a prepositioned ambush, pure and simple.
There's no reason to suspect this, really. It's possible the Turks took a pot shot at them out of pique but the Americans are backing the Turkish version viz the warnings to it seems unlikely this was a set up. If it was a set up then it was one daring the Russians to be as stupid as possible.
Kralizec
11-26-2015, 19:40
I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.
Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.
Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.
Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.
EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.
Fisherking
11-26-2015, 19:53
There's no reason to suspect this, really. It's possible the Turks took a pot shot at them out of pique but the Americans are backing the Turkish version viz the warnings to it seems unlikely this was a set up. If it was a set up then it was one daring the Russians to be as stupid as possible.
The interchange took 17 seconds. The plane was in Turkish airspace for 6 or 7 seconds. The Turkish pilot would not have fired without high level clearance. He had to just be loitering at the right place at the right time to get a lock on his target, or he shot it down after it left... 10 warnings a lock and a shoot down in less than 20 seconds, with coordination between ground, air, and political contacts. Would you believe it had it been a British Aircraft shot down...or anyone else for that matter?
I don't know that you can say "You are approaching Turkish air space" intelligibly 10 times in 10 seconds.
I of the Storm
11-26-2015, 20:06
...
Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.
...
I'm not so sure about that. I think it's within the realm of possibilities that the western allies and Russia come to an understanding about a limited cooperation in the middle east regardless of Turkey's attitude. Not very probable atm, but possible.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2015, 20:11
The interchange took 17 seconds. The plane was in Turkish airspace for 6 or 7 seconds. The Turkish pilot would not have fired without high level clearance. He had to just be loitering at the right place at the right time to get a lock on his target, or he shot it down after it left... 10 warnings a lock and a shoot down in less than 20 seconds, with coordination between ground, air, and political contacts. Would you believe it had it been a British Aircraft shot down...or anyone else for that matter?
I don't know that you can say "You are approaching Turkish air space" intelligibly 10 times in 10 seconds.
Erm, they were warned repeatedly over a period of five minutes. Then they entered Turkish Airspace for seven seconds and a missile was fired.
Sarmatian
11-26-2015, 20:23
The jet in question was a Su-24, the same used by the Syrian Air Force. .
Didn't know that. It appears Syria has around 20 of them. Still, the odds are they knew it was Russian.
[QUOTE=Kralizec;2053672376]I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.
Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.
Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.
Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.
EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.
All Turkish actions so far have shown that they actually help ISIS. They bombed Kurds who are actively fighting IS. Masses of trucks from IS controlled territory go into Turkey and back with little to no control. They help Turkmens who are allied to Al Nusra...
IS actually helps Turkey achieve all its goals - kill as many Kurds as possible, defeat the Shiites in Syria, break it up and incorporate Turkmen territory into Turkey.
What is interesting is the total lack of outrage over the fate of the Russian pilot. No one from the west dared to criticize Turkmens or Turkey. If that was a French, British or American pilot gunned down by, let's say, pro Russian rebels in Ukraine, there would all kinds of hell breaking loose.
I'm getting sick and tired of the double standards. Charlie Hebdo can easily pull off a page like this after the airliner was shot down in Egypt
17007
Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks, maybe with the caption "Re-modelling of Paris landmarks". If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist.
Montmorency
11-26-2015, 21:19
What is interesting is the total lack of outrage over the fate of the Russian pilot. No one from the west dared to criticize Turkmens or Turkey. If that was a French, British or American pilot gunned down by, let's say, pro Russian rebels in Ukraine, there would all kinds of hell breaking loose.
I'm getting sick and tired of the double standards.
That's not a double standard.
Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks, maybe with the caption "Re-modelling of Paris landmarks". If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist.
Oh, please. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/charlie-hebdo-defiant-over-paris-attacks-we-have-champagne)
Sarmatian
11-26-2015, 22:33
That's not a double standard.
No? Okay.
Oh, please. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/charlie-hebdo-defiant-over-paris-attacks-we-have-champagne)
And that is supposedly similar? One is mocking dead people falling from the sky, and the other is having champagne defiantly? Try harder.
Montmorency
11-26-2015, 22:44
Try harder to do what, exactly? You yourself don't seem to be clear on what you are talking about, besides of course the predetermined conclusion that there is some double standard.
"Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks," They did.
17008
17009
Please, do not mix all terrorists. There are terrorists and terrorists.
17010
I always wanted to see Paris...
About Champagne:
17011
Do you read the title of the magazine?
One more for the road:
17012
Hard enough?
"If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist." Cheap shot, as show with cartoons above.
17013
I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.
Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.
Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.
Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.
EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.
Complitated, what is claimed to be Turkish air-territory isn't recognised by the Nato at all. Turkey isn't making friends.
Sarmatian
11-27-2015, 00:38
Try harder to do what, exactly? You yourself don't seem to be clear on what you are talking about, besides of course the predetermined conclusion that there is some double standard.
Hard enough?
Cheap shot.
I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash.
All those caricatures have a very clear satirical message. The champagne one says terrorists can't frighten us. That was their objective and they failed. Terrorists and terrorist is a clear allusion to situation in Syria. I always wanted to see Paris one is self explanatory.
That in itself is not much of a problem. There will always be insensitive idiots. What is concerning is the lack of reaction. Just like there wasn't for the gunning down of a pilot. During the first gulf war, two Italian pilots were caught by the Iraqis. They appeared on Iraqi tv, slightly swollen up, and apologized to Iraqi people. There was massive outrage about the inhuman treatment. They were released later, shaken and with a few bruises, but no serious harm.
You may feel it is a cheap shot, but I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then.
I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash.
All those caricatures have a very clear satirical message. The champagne one says terrorists can't frighten us. That was their objective and they failed. Terrorists and terrorist is a clear allusion to situation in Syria. I always wanted to see Paris one is self explanatory.
That in itself is not much of a problem. There will always be insensitive idiots. What is concerning is the lack of reaction. Just like there wasn't for the gunning down of a pilot. During the first gulf war, two Italian pilots were caught by the Iraqis. They appeared on Iraqi tv, slightly swollen up, and apologized to Iraqi people. There was massive outrage about the inhuman treatment. They were released later, shaken and with a few bruises, but no serious harm.
You may feel it is a cheap shot, but I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then.
I don't really like them either but you have the right to find it offensive. I don't mind it all that much when satire is pretty brutal.
"If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist." Cheap shot, as show with cartoons above.
Not that I can read French very well, but they all make fun of the terrorists it seems, the one Sarmatian linked made fun of the Russians, who were the victims in that case...
Not comparable at all, comparable would be someone making a joke with the people who jumped out of the burning twin towers...
Oh, also:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11224518_10153777359178896_4591442340812202815_n.jpg?oh=7f24c7f3aa27368716e4460f96e9a994&oe=56DFA561&__gda__=1457224311_13e51b03fb776ea1b4c6b9935eca5560
"I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash." Because there is none, but nor in the caricature you linked. The text says "Daesh, the Russian air force intensified their bombing", with a terrorist under the fall of plane's parts and one passenger (still alive).
So, the bombing of the Russian airliner was a "answer" to the Russian bombing. Nobody can deny this, as no one can deny that the Paris' slaughter is an answer to France foreign policy.
But, this said, where the caricature is making fun of people who die? I think the one with the champagne going out by the bullet holes much more "offensive" to potential victims than parts of plane falling on the head of a terrorist (which can as well be seen as a warning, see Putin's speech).
And it was, or it was as I read it, a kind of warning. Asymmetric war is not fun, so, really, do we think they will stay under bombing without reacting where and when they can? And actually, it is a question that the French are asking their several leaders who started bombing other countries thinking, perhaps, it was not war...
In order to "read" this kind of cartoon, you first have to stop to think it is to be for fun. It is for politic. You are not supposed to laugh, but to think.
As I explained before, we, French, grow-up with this kind of caricatures. We grow-up with comics which we call "bandes dessinées" and some are all but comic. Do you really think that Asterix is really about the roman conquest of Gaul?
This is what is translated as "comic" in English
17014
1st World war
17015
This one is about the Triangle Trade, Slavery
So, when you see a french caricature, you have first to remember it is not for comic effect, and for French.
"I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then." They are dead, so... The killers had a point? (I know, that is a cheap shot as well):shame:.
"I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash." Because there is none, but nor in the caricature you linked. The text says "Daesh, the Russian air force intensified their bombing", with a terrorist under the fall of plane's parts and one passenger (still alive).
So, the bombing of the Russian airliner was a "answer" to the Russian bombing. Nobody can deny this, as no one can deny that the Paris' slaughter is an answer to France foreign policy.
But, this said, where the caricature is making fun of people who die? I think the one with the champagne going out by the bullet holes much more "offensive" to potential victims than parts of plane falling on the head of a terrorist (which can as well be seen as a warning, see Putin's speech).
And it was, or it was as I read it, a kind of warning. Asymmetric war is not fun, so, really, do we think they will stay under bombing without reacting where and when they can? And actually, it is a question that the French are asking their several leaders who started bombing other countries thinking, perhaps, it was not war...
In order to "read" this kind of cartoon, you first have to stop to think it is to be for fun. It is for politic. You are not supposed to laugh, but to think.
As I explained before, we, French, grow-up with this kind of caricatures. We grow-up with comics which we call "bandes dessinées" and some are all but comic. Do you really think that Asterix is really about the roman conquest of Gaul?
This is what is translated as "comic" in English
17014
1st World war
17015
This one is about the Triangle Trade, Slavery
So, when you see a french caricature, you have first to remember it is not for comic effect, and for French.
"I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then." They are dead, so... The killers had a point? (I know, that is a cheap shot as well):shame:.
Wait, Asterix is politicized? I only watched it as a kid. Now if you tell me that Pif et Hercule is not about a dog and a cat i'd be really flabberghasted.
In other news, Erdogan stated that if a Turkish jet was shot down by Russian SAM sites when flying over Syria it would be considered an act of aggression and that there would be "appropriate responce" that would "not be negotiated".
This guy really wants a KGB assassin to send him to Allah and his 72 virgins.
Fisherking
11-27-2015, 12:19
In other news, Erdogan stated that if a Turkish jet was shot down by Russian SAM sites when flying over Syria it would be considered an act of aggression and that there would be "appropriate responce" that would "not be negotiated".
This guy really wants a KGB assassin to send him to Allah and his 72 virgins.
We can always hope. ;)
Anyway,
From what I see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34941093 it tells me Turkey shot down the plane after it left Turkish air space, if it fired 17 seconds after it entered it.
Turkey isn’t exactly a poster child for protecting sovereign territory either; http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/11/26/turkish-jets-violated-greek-airspace-over-2000-times-last-year-infographic/
and
http://massispost.com/2015/10/turkish-military-helicopters-violate-armenias-airspace/
Pot, kettle, black. The whole incident reeks.
Deliberate provocation of Russia by Turkey, to involve NATO?
A plan by Turkey and US to hamper cooperation between Russia and other NATO allies?
Your call.
I just wonder what the Greeks can take form this.
Shaka_Khan
11-27-2015, 13:51
I read that the Russians are deploying more SAM sites to use against Turkish jets. The Russians already bombed Turkish convoys in retaliation to Russia's losses. From the looks of it, Turkish jets will continue to fly over Syria. This will lead to one inevitable result. How will the rest of NATO respond?
"Syria is Turkey's Ukraine" (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-27/memo-to-putin-syria-is-turkey-s-ukraine)
Now consider how Putin would react if the U.S. or North Atlantic Treaty Alliance decided to get involved militarily in eastern Ukraine, placing an airbase and Patriot missile batteries 50 miles from the Russian border. Picture NATO aircraft providing airpower for an all-out Ukrainian ground assault against the Russian-backed rebels, aided by troops from Poland and Chechnya (in Syria's case, that's Iran and Hezbollah). Imagine Turkish and American jets flying into Russian airspace as they try to optimize their bombing runs.
Funny comparison.
There are Russian military bases "all around" Turkey. Russia is expanding the EEU to countries right next to Turkey's borders. Russia is supporting a "fascist regime" in Damascus that is cracking down on ethnic Turk(men)s. Of course we should expect Erdogan to act, of course we should..
I read that the Russians are deploying more SAM sites to use against Turkish jets. The Russians already bombed Turkish convoys in retaliation to Russia's losses. From the looks of it, Turkish jets will continue to fly over Syria. This will lead to one inevitable result. How will the rest of NATO respond?
Not, Turkey is in serious isolation right now, and it isn't Turkish territory.
Fisherking
11-27-2015, 15:09
"Syria is Turkey's Ukraine" (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-27/memo-to-putin-syria-is-turkey-s-ukraine)
Funny comparison.
There are Russian military bases "all around" Turkey. Russia is expanding the EEU to countries right next to Turkey's borders. Russia is supporting a "fascist regime" in Damascus that is cracking down on ethnic Turk(men)s. Of course we should expect Erdogan to act, of course we should..
Satirical Parallels of Russia in Ukraine.
The Syrian Government I would guess is hardly worse, and perhaps better, than what the west (US) would replace it with. The current Turkish government is hardly any better.
As for fascists, that could be applied to most governments in varying degrees, post WWII.
The Syrian civil war is just a poor example of attempted regime change. None have worked out well. They are all in worse shape than before, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, but still corrupt and still at war.
All the rebel groups are the same. There are no moderates. You see examples of the FSA cooperating with ISIL or ISIS and even providing most of its fighters. The closest to moderate are the Kurds, whom the Turks are actively fighting and supporting ISIS attacks on them. The US bombing campaign has been a sham. We know who provided the funding and material support.
The whole was is a western covert op to make the Saudis and others happy by getting rid of a (sectarian) Shia regime.
It is a nasty war that doesn’t need fighting, fought by bad guys on all sides and it is pointless to pretend otherwise.
Ukraine was the Western diversion and revenge for Russian involvement in Syria. Neither is working out the way it was planned. What ever Putin’s faults, he is not as stupid as his Western Opposition. They just find themselves out manoeuvred again.
There is a real problem with never learning from mistakes.
Gilrandir
11-27-2015, 16:19
So maybe they were hoping it was a US plane because the US don't bomb the evil Kurds?
Or were they hoping for a civilian plane? Does ISIS have an air force now?
What kind of evil were they expecting? UFOs?
Gilrandir, That is a ball face lie. They knew full well it was Russian. That is saying that the rest of NATO never shared IFF technology with them.
It was a prepositioned ambush, pure and simple. The aid convoy is the same propaganda used by the Russians in your country.
A few people have told me that it is Turkish petulance over the Russian bombing of ISIS oil tanker trucks headed for Turkey. Yes, where else do you think they go to sell it?
I'm well aware of all this and don't buy what Erdogan is selling to the world. I'm sure Turkish pilots have an explicit (though secret) order to shoot down any Russian plane which will enter the Turkish airspace for as much as 2 meters.
But: we can't deny the fact that Russians have become notorious for their "unidentified and without any insignia" tactics, so Erdogan did what Ukrainians in the Crimea might have done with the same attempts at justification. Formally, if the Russian plane was flying with its identification system off, it was just an alien plane in the Turkish sovereign airspace. Fair game (ostensibly). Worth burning Erdogan (or his effigy) on a Simferopol square:
17018
I'm getting sick and tired of the double standards. Charlie Hebdo can easily pull off a page like this after the airliner was shot down in Egypt
You may feel it is a cheap shot, but I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then.
Like I said: ethically and morally doubtful sarcasm/mockery likely to produce a backlash from less tolerant communities.
That in itself is not much of a problem. There will always be insensitive idiots. What is concerning is the lack of reaction. Just like there wasn't for the gunning down of a pilot. During the first gulf war, two Italian pilots were caught by the Iraqis. They appeared on Iraqi tv, slightly swollen up, and apologized to Iraqi people. There was massive outrage about the inhuman treatment. They were released later, shaken and with a few bruises, but no serious harm.
Since then the world has been overexposed to scenes of violence, so its reaction to any more of those has grown numb. Moreover, according to Husar, any ten years that elapse since some gruesome and palpitating event reduce emotional empathy to similar events (may we call it the Husar Law? Only he will have to gave it some numerical dimension and offer a formula, something like this:)
17017
Syria is Turkey's Ukraine"
Funny comparison.
There are Russian military bases "all around" Turkey. Russia is expanding the EEU to countries right next to Turkey's borders. Russia is supporting a "fascist regime" in Damascus that is cracking down on ethnic Turk(men)s. Of course we should expect Erdogan to act, of course we should..
So now we are in for Turkey's annexation of Latakia with its naval base?
Because there is none, but nor in the caricature you linked. The text says "Daesh, the Russian air force intensified their bombing", with a terrorist under the fall of plane's parts and one passenger (still alive).
So, the bombing of the Russian airliner was a "answer" to the Russian bombing. Nobody can deny this, as no one can deny that the Paris' slaughter is an answer to France foreign policy.
But, this said, where the caricature is making fun of people who die? I think the one with the champagne going out by the bullet holes much more "offensive" to potential victims than parts of plane falling on the head of a terrorist (which can as well be seen as a warning, see Putin's speech).
And it was, or it was as I read it, a kind of warning. Asymmetric war is not fun, so, really, do we think they will stay under bombing without reacting where and when they can? And actually, it is a question that the French are asking their several leaders who started bombing other countries thinking, perhaps, it was not war...
Eh, maybe French comics are entirely different from comics in the rest of the world, but to me it showed a plane falling out of the sky and sarcastically called the falling parts and people "intensified bombing" as though the Russians blew up their own plane over terrorist territory in order to hit the terrorists with the debris. That seems lime a cheap shot at the stereotype that Russians don't care about the lives of their own people and so on and it diminishes the tragedy of the event.
The Paris cartoons in comparison glorify the French while the plane-cartoon looks very anti-Russian with the whole stereotype thing.
Or in other words, the plane cartoon makes fun of the Russians (victims) while the Paris cartoons make fun of the terrorists (perpetrators).
Your whole interpretation seems more like you are looking for excuses, or have they made one yet where the French bomb ISIS with the dead bodies of the Paris attacks?
"Or in other words, the plane cartoon makes fun of the Russians (victims) while the Paris cartoons make fun of the terrorists (perpetrators)." Where do you take that the cartoon make fun of the Russians victims? Where? I don't get it! You even don't see one Russian victims in the cartoon, as the falling passenger isn't even dead!!!
It is clear as crystal that they refer to the terrorist bomb, so how it can even suggest to you the Russians blow-up their own plane!!! That is insane!!!
Yes or no, the falling parts of the Russian plane is due to a sabotage due to the Russian bombing campaign? Or is it anti-Russian and racist to write it?
What is anti-Russian in this drawing? Because I can show you anti-Russian drawings from Charlie about Ukraine if you want... And they are not racist, but clearly anti-Russian...
YOU look for interpretation to find racism where there is none, but only politic. You might disagree with the politic, but I find strange that you use the same point of view than fanatical murderers...
"That seems lime a cheap shot at the stereotype that Russians don't care about the lives of their own people and so on and it diminishes the tragedy of the event." That is your stereotype, and the one of the extreme right in France. For various historical reasons the French prefer to see the extraordinary courage and sacrifice spirit shown by the Russian during the WW2.
http://acesofww2.com/nn/
17019
17020
"the plane cartoon makes fun of the Russians (victims)" How? Where the element that can make fun? Tell me, because I don't see it.
Where do you take that the cartoon make fun of the Russians victims? Where? I don't get it! You even don't see one Russian victims in the cartoon, as the falling passenger isn't even dead!!!
What? There is an engine dropping onto a terrorist's head, other parts including a passenger are also falling down everywhere.
The headline reads "Russian aviation (or air force?) intensifies bombings", clearly bombings refers to the parts and passengers falling down from the sky and to intensify bombings clearly states an intent by the Russians to have these things and people falling out of the sky. This means that the cartoon is basically jokingly saying the Russians use their passenger planes including the passengers as bombs. That the passenger shown is not dead doesn't mean anything, he will be on impact and he clearly is meant to depict one of the passengers of the Russian plane that fell out of the sky, and therefore a victim. You're grasping at straws here at best!
If this is not meant to show the Russians using passengers and debris as bombs against terrorists, why is there a terrorist underneath the dropping engine?
And that some French praise Russian WW2 heroes does not relate in any way to Charlie Hedo, unless their staffers wrote these books.
And they are not racist, but clearly anti-Russian...
Who said racist? Is being anti-Russian not bad enough?
You can be anti-Putin if you want, I'm not a huge fan either, but when Russian tourists get bombed it's still a tragedy, no?
Sarmatian
11-27-2015, 21:27
"Or in other words, the plane cartoon makes fun of the Russians (victims) while the Paris cartoons make fun of the terrorists (perpetrators)." Where do you take that the cartoon make fun of the Russians victims? Where? I don't get it! You even don't see one Russian victims in the cartoon, as the falling passenger isn't even dead!!!
It is clear as crystal that they refer to the terrorist bomb, so how it can even suggest to you the Russians blow-up their own plane!!! That is insane!!!
Every single passenger died, so drawing one still alive doesn't improve the overall situation.
I can't get really get any single meaningful message from that drawing. The rest you posted are pretty self explanatory - they either joke about superiority of French culture or make fun of the terrorists.
It gets even weirder as, if I recall correctly, at the time of the drawing the prevailing theory was that the plane crashed due to a malfunction, hence the other drawing.
17021
So, it is most probably correct that they were making fun of the stereotype that Russian leadership doesn't care about the people.
"So, it is most probably correct that they were making fun of the stereotype that Russian leadership doesn't care about the people." Wrong again, sorry for the inconvenience. You were not correct in your assumption. !) Low cost air lines are not the responsibility of State. 2 The second cartoon is about a political affair in France:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-air-cocaine-pilots-daring-escape-dominican-republic-1525966
"I can't get really get any single meaningful message from that drawing." Ok; I will do simple: Russia bombed terrorists. Terrorists destroyed Russian plane. Russia intensifies (or will) bombing. That is called asymmetric war. And countries, including France, can't carry on thinking that bombing is not war... So, the attack on the plane is not due to chance but the result of a war.
"they either joke about superiority of French culture" Where did you find any of this in the cartoons I put here? You start to feel your initial proposal is not as strong as you though, so you try a smoke screen "a la Gilrandir". Comm'on, you can do better. Give me real facts, based on the cartoon, analyse it and show me the mocking of the Russian victims.
"make fun of the terrorists." Yeap. Fair game, don't you think so? We bombed them (not too much, it cost money, but we have to follow USA), they killed us, we make jokes (and bomb them).
It is funny as Russia doesn't really feel so attacked by the French cartoons.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/frances-hollande-russias-putin-agree-closer-anti-isis-collaboration-n470116
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34931378
"Every single passenger died, so drawing one still alive doesn't improve the overall situation." Sorry? What overall situation? The none-existence of making fun of Russian victims? You not able to point out from where you making this point, as the only really thing in the drawing is parts of a plane we know to be Russian and one victim (symbolising the victims) falling on the head on a terrorist... So tell me, what is offensive? Where is the mocking of the Russian Victims (that is a repeat, I know)?
"When Russian tourists get bombed it's still a tragedy, no?" Yes, who deny this? That is why they don't make fun of them. They exposed a field reality of war. They were tragically right as shown by the attack on Paris, for the exact same reasons...
"clearly bombings refers to the parts and passengers falling down from the sky and to intensify bombings clearly states an intent by the Russians to have these things and people falling out of the sky." I answer to this before. You are clearly missing of the point.
If they wanted to draw a bombing they will draw a cartoon
Like this
17022 or 17023 (We offer your a Metal Rock Concert)
They exposed a field reality of war. They were tragically right as shown by the attack on Paris, for the exact same reasons...
Only according to your incredibly desperate and convoluted interpretation that noone else seems to see so far in that comic...
"Only according to your incredibly desperate and convoluted interpretation that noone else seems to see so far in that comic..." :laugh4: You still failed to give a real explanation on what push you to believed in yours!!!
Gilrandir
11-28-2015, 15:06
Where did you find any of this in the cartoons I put here? You start to feel your initial proposal is not as strong as you though, so you try a smoke screen "a la Gilrandir". Comm'on, you can do better. Give me real facts, based on the cartoon, analyse it and show me the mocking of the Russian victims.
Who said racist? Is being anti-Russian not bad enough?
You can be anti-Putin if you want, I'm not a huge fan either, but when Russian tourists get bombed it's still a tragedy, no?
Only according to your incredibly desperate and convoluted interpretation that noone else seems to see so far in that comic...
Welcome to my world. No you see what I saw a couple years ago. Stubborn denial of the facts that are obvious for everyone else, blunt refusal to accept an alternative perspective and lots of name-calling if someone doesn't agree to what His Majesty preaches. But now there's one more thing that comes into spotlight: the French are reported to have their own value system (different from the rest of Europe to say nothing of the rest of the world) which is why it is the best nation on the planet.
Strike For The South
11-28-2015, 16:01
I think the French comics are funny.
Greyblades
11-28-2015, 16:16
I dont find it funny, because I dont get the joke.
I think people who bitch/kill over being offended by a political cartoon should be ridiculed/shot, as applicable.
Gilrandir
11-28-2015, 16:19
I dont find it funny, because I dont get the joke.
I think people who bitch/kill over being offended by a political cartoon should be ridiculed/shot, as applicable.
What if a political cartoon ridicules victims who have already suffered?
Greyblades
11-28-2015, 17:35
Being offended isnt suffering and feelings arent worth supressing free speech.
"What if a political cartoon ridicules victims who have already suffered?" You go to Court. Try to find something convincing i.e. "hurt my feelings".
Will be of course rejected, by at least you try...
Do you notice that jokes are in fact making fun of people who suffered? When someone fall on banana's skin, it hurts, or on ice, or fall from a tree, we laugh. Are you not ashamed to laugh?
The fact is of course in the actual discussing nobody poked fun at the victims, but there...
"But now there's one more thing that comes into spotlight: the French are reported to have their own value system (different from the rest of Europe to say nothing of the rest of the world) which is why it is the best nation on the planet." :laugh4::laugh4: You have a lot of imagination, I grant you this:yes:. Well, it was obvious during several of your past interventions, but you are reaching new levels... Please do explain our you reach this conclusion? I am curious...
If by values you mean something different than comics, of course.:laugh4:
"I dont find it funny, because I dont get the joke." The one shown by Sarmatian is not meant to be funny.
The fact that a simple description is enough: Parts of Russian plane falling from the sky on the head of a terrorist. You don't have to be specialist in symbolism to understand this???!!!! A Russian plane is sabotage as a consequence of Russia bombs terrorist (in the text)... No need to go to Sandhurst or West Point to get the message???!!! No? So where the h***k did they find this cartoon offensive for the victims?
Are all cartoons in political newspapers are funny in all others countries but France?
Greyblades
11-28-2015, 19:30
No. Not all political cartoons outside france are funny. Though for a lot of them it isnt intentional.
Welcome to my world. No you see what I saw a couple years ago. Stubborn denial of the facts that are obvious for everyone else, blunt refusal to accept an alternative perspective and lots of name-calling if someone doesn't agree to what His Majesty preaches. But now there's one more thing that comes into spotlight: the French are reported to have their own value system (different from the rest of Europe to say nothing of the rest of the world) which is why it is the best nation on the planet.
I end up on your side in some and on his side in other discussions, it reassures me that I always represent the sensible side of an argument. ~;)
I think you two should just respect eachother a bit more, I think you're both not stupid but maybe a bit nationalistic when the relevant topics come up. Everybody knows Germany is the best country and I don't get why others can't see that!
I think the French comics are funny.
I'd be surprised if a proud Texan were not anti-Russian, I forgive you.
I dont find it funny, because I dont get the joke.
I think people who bitch/kill over being offended by a political cartoon should be ridiculed/shot, as applicable.
I think shot is a bit much (unless you meant terrorists and the like, I was thinking of normal people who just complain), but what is your opinion on pro-Western bias in the West?
Sarmatian
11-28-2015, 22:08
The fact that a simple description is enough: Parts of Russian plane falling from the sky on the head of a terrorist. You don't have to be specialist in symbolism to understand this???!!!! A Russian plane is sabotage as a consequence of Russia bombs terrorist (in the text)... No need to go to Sandhurst or West Point to get the message???!!! No? So where the h***k did they find this cartoon offensive for the victims?
Are all cartoons in political newspapers are funny in all others countries but France?
I don't think their intention was to insult the victims. Some message is obviously there. It's just that they didn't care about the victims or a nation in mourning. Empathy -> 0. I'm not sure what the message is, the only meaningful interpretation is Russia doesn't care about lost lives. I find your explanation possible, but unlikely and somewhat illogical.
Greyblades
11-28-2015, 22:28
I think shot is a bit much (unless you meant terrorists and the like, I was thinking of normal people who just complain), but what is your opinion on pro-Western bias in the West?
As i said: If aplicable. If you are willing to kill because you are offended by a cartoon you should be shot. Obviously a little verbal venting doesnt deserve death but if someones gonna chimp out over a political cartoon they deserve a little trolling.
I dont get what you mean by pro western bias.
I dont get what you mean by pro western bias.
That no christians have sent death threats to CH over the russian plane cartoon of course.
Or maybe just that making fun with russian victims seems acceptable here while most people would have called similar jokes tasteless shortly after the Paris attacks.
Please note that I am not advocating censorship, I just don't think the cartoon is perfectly fine or unbiased as our resident Frenchman argued.
"That no christians have sent death threats to CH over the russian plane cartoon of course." Nope. They through Molotov cocktails for the cartoons about the Pope...
Didn't see other religions doing this for Pope's cartoons, mind you... Hmmm, is it a biais?
"I just don't think the cartoon is perfectly fine or unbiased as our resident Frenchman argued." Of course it is biased!!! It's politic...
The thing you don't get, even I said it quite often, I NEVER bought Charlie. It is (was) an anarcho-trees hungers publication, save the baby seals and others whales. They were part of a anti-militarist movement which depicted me and others professional soldiers as babies-killers, at best.
I did appreciate their anti-clerical/religion position but never like their cartoons, as really badly drawn and some comments quite really near the border...
I really surprise to have been put in position to defend the d**n publication, but it was something I was prepared to do when I joined the army, protected our democracy (@Gilrandir: France is not the only democracy) and freedom (@Gilrandir: Not the only one to have it).
Again, they didn't make fun of the victim, Russian or not.
I could put one of their drawing after the MH370, but you would probably say it was bad taste (and it was) and making fun of the victims, when in fact, it is a cartoon against the media time of a human tragedy... Still "bad" taste, but it is true that we don't like to be reminded of uncomfortable truth, as children drawn in a sea, the flooding of refugees, and terrorism... That is too much bad taste...
Better not to be reminded...
Greyblades
11-29-2015, 03:54
That no christians have sent death threats to CH over the russian plane cartoon of course.
Or maybe just that making fun with russian victims seems acceptable here while most people would have called similar jokes tasteless shortly after the Paris attacks.
Have CH recieved death threats from christians? For that matter I still dont understand why you think CH is making fun of the victims.
Please note that I am not advocating censorship, I just don't think the cartoon is perfectly fine or unbiased as our resident Frenchman argued.
If you aren't advocating censorship what are you advocating? Or are you merely stating an observation or opinion?
If so it doesnt really matter to me in the grand scheme of things what your opinion is, all I will say is I disagree; while it is certainly biased as all political cartoons are, legally speaking the cartoon is indeed perfectly fine for a person or publication to make.
On a more personal note I dont see what the problem is, in the airlines comic the victims arent the butt of the joke nor are they portrayed as... well anything; the only one depicted isnt shown as a hero or villian, or anything really save another plummeting object.
As far as i can tell samaritan is bitching that CH is even toutching the airliner incident, as if he was muslim and the pic was of muhammad.
Or are you merely stating an observation or opinion?
This.
If so it doesnt really matter to me in the grand scheme of things what your opinion is
That does not really matter to me.
On a more personal note I dont see what the problem is, in the airlines comic the victims arent the butt of the joke nor are they portrayed as... well anything; the only one depicted isnt shown as a hero or villian, or anything really save another plummeting object.
As far as i can tell samaritan is bitching that CH is even toutching the airliner incident, as if he was muslim and the pic was of muhammad.
No, the thing that makes it seem wrong is that Russians were the victims and Russians are also made fun of. It is this connection that seems bothersome/biased. Yes, maybe poltical cartoons are biased but I think that one stinks and it is interesting (and wrong!!!111) that noone takes issue with it and Brenus has a completely different interpretation. That is all.
You are allowed to take offence, I don't but you can should you want to. I like a sharp pencil even if it stings
"No, the thing that makes it seem wrong is that Russians were the victims and Russians are also made fun of" You still failed to show how the Russian are made fun of. What in the drawing is making fun of Russians. or the victims? I did a small summary of the drawing supporting my explanation, please do the same. And not an allegory or an alleged appeal to stereotype, but an actual part of the drawing that can lead to this conclusion.
"that noone takes issue with it" Gilrandir did.
The french comics show that the cartoonists are so uninspired that they resort to purely provocative and shocking content, devoid of any ironic, sarcastic or even slightly humorous characteristic for everyone whose puberty is over. Nothing more, nothing less.
More to the topic, Turks and Russians (but mostly Turks) are owned by physics. (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/belgian-physicists-calculate-that-everyone-is-lying-about-the-downed-russian-jet)
Shaka_Khan
11-29-2015, 13:52
Speaking of comics:
http://i0.wp.com/genevalunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Islamic-state-of-Iraq-and-Syria-Chappatte_140614.jpeg?resize=550%2C470
http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/p9-Champion-a-20151012-870x634.jpg
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/66f39a6880.jpg
"The french comics show that the cartoonists are so uninspired" :laugh4:
You are obviously an authority in that matter...
Err, so why are you linking a Belgium thing, if I might ask?
"The french comics show that the cartoonists are so uninspired" :laugh4:
You are obviously an authority in that matter...
Err, so why are you linking a Belgium thing, if I might ask?
Disclaimer:
My posts, unless stated otherwise, express my own opinion, not facts.
The linked Belgian article concerns the Turkish and Russian versions of the affair.
Greyblades
11-29-2015, 14:45
The french comics show that the cartoonists are so uninspired that they resort to purely provocative and shocking content, devoid of any ironic, sarcastic or even slightly humorous characteristic for everyone whose puberty is over.
Welcome to the wonderful world of political cartoons. Feel free to leave your wits with the drooling doorman, you wont be needing them here.
No, the thing that makes it seem wrong is that Russians were the victims and Russians are also made fun of. It is this connection that seems bothersome/biased. Yes, maybe poltical cartoons are biased but I think that one stinks and it is interesting (and wrong!!!111) that noone takes issue with it and Brenus has a completely different interpretation. That is all.
We dont take issue with it because it doesnt portray the victims badly. In fact the only one that might be considered as being disparaged here are the russian air force.
Gilrandir
11-29-2015, 15:42
I end up on your side in some and on his side in other discussions, it reassures me that I always represent the sensible side of an argument. ~;)
I wonder if you got some foul mouth (aka label sticking) from me when we didn't agree on some point.
I think you two should just respect eachother a bit more, I think you're both not stupid but maybe a bit nationalistic when the relevant topics come up.
Brenus wants me to feel both and denies himself being either.
Everybody knows Germany is the best country and I don't get why others can't see that!
Now there's three of us hard core nationalists. Only I had thought that nationalists are those who hate other nations, not those who love their own country.
I don't think their intention was to insult the victims. Some message is obviously there. It's just that they didn't care about the victims or a nation in mourning. Empathy -> 0.
This about sums up my stance on the cartoons. Intentionally or not CH ended up being callous meannies.
Again, they didn't make fun of the victim, Russian or not.
Everybody saw the cartoon and interpreted it the way he thought right. Yet you again are trying to deny them their own eyesight and ability to make conlusions. :no: Let them have their own opinion for God's sake, the Defender of Democracy.
As far as i can tell samaritan is bitching that CH is even toutching the airliner incident, as if he was muslim and the pic was of muhammad.
Because he is a good SAMARITAN.
"that noone takes issue with it" Gilrandir did.
As our argument shows, there are other parties to it, no need to single me out.
Nobody asks from you to like the cartoons. I think they are tasteless but I don't mind that. People shouldn't be so easily offended. You just cannot not offend if you make satirical cartoons about certain issues.
"Everybody saw the cartoon and interpreted it the way he thought right" Nope, only two (plus you=3). So, you are not in the majority...
"Let them have their own opinion for God's sake, the Defender of Democracy." They have to full right to be wrong... I like when defender of democracy becomes an insult...:2thumbsup:
You still failed to show how the Russian are made fun of. What in the drawing is making fun of Russians. or the victims?
I explained that already, twice, a third time will be no different so I'm done here because we are only going to have a pointless circular argument from here on.
You explained nothing. You vaguely describe your thought based on alleged stereotypes, which are in fact not share by the lefties in France. You gave no concrete base for your claim, nor Sarmartian or Gilrandir... I think both of you had a very fast reading of the cartoon, and you react as you said, because it was a Russian Plane, so it had to be offensive.
However, as you will not admit it, I agree to let it goes.
The last I had this kind of discussion, my interlocutor just left the org... Well, not entirely my fault, I grant you this.:sweatdrop:
Fisherking
11-29-2015, 19:24
Sorry to interrupt the discussion of comics.
I had a friend send me a link I thought I would share.
http://yournewswire.com/russia-says-it-was-the-cia-not-turkey-that-downed-russian-jet/
I have no idea if it is information or disinformation, to be honest. But my guess he means it as information and is in a position to know.
It just put an interesting spin on events, don’t you think?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2015, 19:27
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34957224
So, the Turks are handing back the pilot's body.
Sarmatian
11-29-2015, 21:51
A report in Serbian newspapers cites a Greek diplomat who said that Turkish airplanes stopped violating Greek airspace a few days ago. He said violations of Greek airspace by Turkish pilots were common, up to a 1000 a year, but there hasn't been a single one in the last few days.
Haven't been able to find an English source but there's a blog post about that. http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2015/11/25/russian-su-24-airspace-violations-why-greece-and-turkey-do-not-shoot-down-each-others-fighter-jets/
It appears Turkey violates Greek airspace on a daily basis.
A report in Serbian newspapers cites a Greek diplomat who said that Turkish airplanes stopped violating Greek airspace a few days ago. He said violations of Greek airspace by Turkish pilots were common, up to a 1000 a year, but there hasn't been a single one in the last few days.
Haven't been able to find an English source but there's a blog post about that. http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2015/11/25/russian-su-24-airspace-violations-why-greece-and-turkey-do-not-shoot-down-each-others-fighter-jets/
It appears Turkey violates Greek airspace on a daily basis.
Yeah, we also violate theirs, but not sure if it happens on a daily basis. Actually, both sides had casualties and we almost went to war in 1996, thanks to nationalist journalists from both sides.
Given the regular violations, our love for the blonde orthodox brother-nation of the north and the fact that we hate Turks and Muslims so much that we had a couple of volunteers in Srebrenica, you can imagine the public opinion's stance about the affair.
Almost hysterical, people cry that Saint Paisios' prophecies that we will get Istanbul back are about to be confirmed and many people can't wait to be recruited, in order to strike the NATO forces from the back.
"in order to strike the NATO forces from the back." It is what I was ready to say in the other thread: Some one can imagine the Greeks engaging Russian Tanks to protect Turkey with a straight face? When we are still unable to resolve Cyprus?
I for one, would like to see Istanbul once more be called Constantinople and for the Hagia Sofia to lose its minarets. Greece has the navy and airforce to do it, but they lack the ground forces and the logistical capability to go toe to toe with the ottomans. Now, Greece leaving NATO and joining hands with Russia is another story.
I for one, would like to see Istanbul once more be called Constantinople and for the Hagia Sofia to lose its minarets. Greece has the navy and airforce to do it, but they lack the ground forces and the logistical capability to go toe to toe with the ottomans. Now, Greece leaving NATO and joining hands with Russia is another story.
Why? We have no right to the city, which has a larger population than Greece herself. Better avoid ethnic cleansing of several millions.
Actually, it's the Turks that would like to incorporate Western Thrace, due to the large percentage of Muslim inhabitants that mostly identify themselves as Turks.
I for one, would like to see Istanbul once more be called Constantinople and for the Hagia Sofia to lose its minarets. Greece has the navy and airforce to do it, but they lack the ground forces and the logistical capability to go toe to toe with the ottomans. Now, Greece leaving NATO and joining hands with Russia is another story.
What good would that do, things just are what they are right now.
Gilrandir
11-30-2015, 13:01
"Everybody saw the cartoon and interpreted it the way he thought right" Nope, only two (plus you=3). So, you are not in the majority...
If others didn't express either admiration or disgust at the cartoons it doesn't mean they are of the like mind with you. So it could be that you aren't in the majority either.
I think both of you had a very fast reading of the cartoon, and you react as you said, because it was a Russian Plane, so it had to be offensive.
National affiliation of the plane doesn't matter. Making fun of ANY victims is ethically inapropriate.
Some one can imagine the Greeks engaging Russian Tanks to protect Turkey with a straight face?
Here we go again about Russian tanks. :no: RUSSIAN TANKS WOULD NEVER REACH GREECE. Or do you think Greeks will march either through Bulgaria-Romania-Moldova-Ukraine or Turkey-Georgia to reach the steppes were Russian tanks have their habitat? All the hostilities Russia will have with Turks are bound to be war in the air. That is if the parties will ever move further than the initial blow (downing the Russian plane). Putin has some other worries on his hands to boot:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34922789
https://therussianreader.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/russian-truckers-strike-dagestan/
Sarmatian
11-30-2015, 13:42
Why? We have no right to the city, which has a larger population than Greece herself.
Indeed. Ancient symbolism that doesn't need reviving. Nothing good would come of it.
Even Hagia Sophia is better off as a museum than remaking it a church.
I just can't get over the ottoman invasion. I know it's ludacrious and it won't happen, but I'm salty over it.
Anyway, in regards to the comics: i find the picture of the russian plane and the text as insulting as this picture:
https://s21.postimg.org/l101gg2br/1448890670570.jpg
If you can laugh about the former, you can laugh about the latter.
Greyblades
11-30-2015, 17:15
I dont remmeber anyone claiming that the cartoon was funny.
Sure I've implied that if you find such a benign cartoon insulting you are a thin skinned limp wristed little pussy who is so weak and oversensitive that it's a wonder you can function in society, but I've never said the comic was funny.
CrossLOPER
11-30-2015, 19:43
I just can't get over the ottoman invasion.
30,000 years ago, a very distant relative of mine called the plot of land you live on home, vacate yourself from it immediately.
Sarmatian
11-30-2015, 21:43
30,000 years ago, a very distant relative of mine called the plot of land you live on home, vacate yourself from it immediately.
That could be your new sig.
"If you can laugh about the former, you can laugh about the latter." As noted before, no one claimed it was funny. Some claimed without any real ground it was offensive towards the victims.
Your comment has no connection at all with the 2 cartoons, however the cartoons are describing a reality: 3 men with automatic weapons can slaughter more than hundred un-armed French.
So what is either funny or insulting in these 2 cartoons? A side the terrorists I mean? And even to them, it is not an insult but the description of a pure reality of their lack of courage...
So who is insulted in your sample?
Every murderer know this: To attack un-armed crown is absolutely a winner game, see Anders Behring Breivik, or your average Einsatzgruppen...
Ohhh, I get it.... You didn't find the the picture of the russian plane and the text insulting!!!!
"So it could be that you aren't in the majority either" Yeah, but I never claimed it. You did: "Everybody saw the cartoon and interpreted it the way he thought right"
"RUSSIAN TANKS WOULD NEVER REACH GREECE" Your lack of military experience is showing, as the one for parabola... In case of NATO attacking or defending Turkey (reason why Greece would have to engage Russian tanks), the Greek Army, depending situation, could: Push to the front line through the Balkanic countries until reaching the Danube basin (look at a map), or to cross Mediterranean sea to meet the Russian tanks on Turkey's soil. But my words were not to be taken literally.
I was simply questioning the reality of Greece defending Turkey...
however the cartoons are describing a reality
I didn't know the Sinai was ISIS territory, but thanks for the reality lesson.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2015, 00:52
Why? We have no right to the city, which has a larger population than Greece herself. Better avoid ethnic cleansing of several millions.
Actually, it's the Turks that would like to incorporate Western Thrace, due to the large percentage of Muslim inhabitants that mostly identify themselves as Turks.
This is a rather complex question, actually, because the Turks are currently converting many of the Byzantine churches - which have been museums - back into Mosques. This is the policy of the current Turkish government, to distance itself from secularism and to embrace a more Islamic political and civic life.
Personally, I cannot help but feel that despite breaking Constantinople's walls, killing the Emperor and building minarets around Hagia Sophia Justinian's Church is still the proper seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. It also seems to me that the Greeks would be a happier people if they held Constantinople.
Also, not Postal Act can make it into Istanbul, though the Turkish policy of discrimination has basically driven out the Greeks.
I mean, it's up to the Greeks whether or not they want to go to war over it, I agree it's not worth it right now but it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sèvres was intended to provide for Constantinople's ultimate handover to Greece along with the rest of Thrace and Ionia.
Remember that the Western European view of Greece vacillates between a yearning for what Greece was and disdain for what it is, neither of which is accurate of fair as an assessment.
"I didn't know the Sinai was ISIS territory, but thanks for the reality lesson." Oh, please... Read the text: "however the cartoons are describing a reality: 3 men with automatic weapons can slaughter more than hundred un-armed French."
I start to understand how you reach the conclusion the Plane cartoon was offensive for the victims...:inquisitive:
Sarmatian
12-01-2015, 08:20
Your comment has no connection at all with the 2 cartoons, however the cartoons are describing a reality: 3 men with automatic weapons can slaughter more than hundred un-armed French.
I believe it is supposed to prove (or mock) the "attack the terrorists" theory a la Ben Carson - if people try to jump the attackers all at once, they would defeat them. It is bollocks either way. Since those terrorist carry guns that can fire 130 bullet in 5 seconds or so, my money is really not on the unarmed civilians.
But, that is an internet meme, unlike a cartoon by a (now famous) political satire magazine. It doesn't carry nearly the same weight.
This is a rather complex question, actually, because the Turks are currently converting many of the Byzantine churches - which have been museums - back into Mosques. This is the policy of the current Turkish government, to distance itself from secularism and to embrace a more Islamic political and civic life.
That is a separate issue and, while true, shouldn't be mixed with who owns the right to the city.
Personally, I cannot help but feel that despite breaking Constantinople's walls, killing the Emperor and building minarets around Hagia Sophia Justinian's Church is still the proper seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. It also seems to me that the Greeks would be a happier people if they held Constantinople.
Bah, silly. Why would they be happier? The city is Turkish, true and through. Before the conquest it was really a Roman city.
Hagia Sophia is better off as a museum. The only valid reason for Christian nations to demand the return of it would be if it were to be converted into a mosque again, but I don't think even Erdogan is that much of a fanatic.
Look, without Constantinople the Greeks can't recruit cathaprhacts. That's reason enough.
This is a rather complex question, actually, because the Turks are currently converting many of the Byzantine churches - which have been museums - back into Mosques. This is the policy of the current Turkish government, to distance itself from secularism and to embrace a more Islamic political and civic life.
Personally, I cannot help but feel that despite breaking Constantinople's walls, killing the Emperor and building minarets around Hagia Sophia Justinian's Church is still the proper seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch. It also seems to me that the Greeks would be a happier people if they held Constantinople.
Also, not Postal Act can make it into Istanbul, though the Turkish policy of discrimination has basically driven out the Greeks.
I mean, it's up to the Greeks whether or not they want to go to war over it, I agree it's not worth it right now but it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sèvres was intended to provide for Constantinople's ultimate handover to Greece along with the rest of Thrace and Ionia.
Remember that the Western European view of Greece vacillates between a yearning for what Greece was and disdain for what it is, neither of which is accurate of fair as an assessment.
Greeks would also be very happy, if they ruled the world, but I doubt that the world is very excited about that, just like the 14 millions of Istanbul wouldn't be very happy about the conquest of their city by the Greeks.
We have no right to the city, we can hardly claim that we have more Byzantine blood than the modern Turks and anyway, Mohammad II captured a ruined town and transformed her into a majestic metropolis. I think they're more entitled than us.
Concerning Hagia Sophia, I hope that she will remain a museum, better avoid making a random, semi-literate, religious leader responsible for the preservation of one of the most magnificent historical monuments of humanity.
And it is called Istanbul, not Constantinople, guys, only the fascists of Golden Dawn keep calling it that way in international, political discussions.
Gilrandir
12-01-2015, 11:34
"So it could be that you aren't in the majority either" Yeah, but I never claimed it. You did: "Everybody saw the cartoon and interpreted it the way he thought right"
I did neither. My phrase shows that EVERYBODY has his OWN interpretation of the cartoon, and it doesn't neccessarily coincide with mine or yours. I never counted votes. Neither did you.
"RUSSIAN TANKS WOULD NEVER REACH GREECE" Your lack of military experience is showing, as the one for parabola... In case of NATO attacking or defending Turkey (reason why Greece would have to engage Russian tanks), the Greek Army, depending situation, could: Push to the front line through the Balkanic countries until reaching the Danube basin (look at a map), or to cross Mediterranean sea to meet the Russian tanks on Turkey's soil. But my words were not to be taken literally.
I was simply questioning the reality of Greece defending Turkey...
I really lack military experience, but having one (say of fighting as rank and file) doesn't make one a strategist. The reverse is also true.
I spoke of slim chance of GREECE fighting Russia on the ground, you speak of NATO fighting Russia. As a part of NATO forces Greeks ostensibly have the same chance of facing Russian tanks as, say, Lithuanians. But one-on-one war between Greece and Russia is out of question.
It also seems to me that the Greeks would be a happier people if they held Constantinople.
They would be able to give it to Germans as a debt payment and have done with it. Since it is populated by Turks, Germany wouldn't see much difference between it and Hannover, for example.
But just one city changing hands is not the scale of our times. I suggest resurrecting the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I even have a king to offer: Vladimir I.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2015, 15:42
That is a separate issue and, while true, shouldn't be mixed with who owns the right to the city.
Well, there is a relation.
Bah, silly. Why would they be happier? The city is Turkish, true and through. Before the conquest it was really a Roman city.
It makes about as much sense as the Argentines wanting the Falklands or the desire for Irish re-unification. Still, I detect in Greece that particular malaise which comes from a perception of, waht? "Territorial discontinuity".
Eh - like I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense but that is my perception.
Hagia Sophia is better off as a museum. The only valid reason for Christian nations to demand the return of it would be if it were to be converted into a mosque again, but I don't think even Erdogan is that much of a fanatic.
Again, this is a feeling. I'm not actually demanding the return of Hagia Sophia, though I think it looks ugly with the minarets and the buttresses on the side. The latter could be removed with judicious use of concrete reinforcement - which is more authentic.
As a Christian Romanist I want to see Hagia Sophia as it was in the 10th century, not an amalgam of Mosque and Church. I realise it's not that simple with the 450 year- history of it as a Mosque as well. I hear rumblings of the Turks wanting to worship there again, though, which to me smacks of triumphalism.
Greeks would also be very happy, if they ruled the world, but I doubt that the world is very excited about that, just like the 14 millions of Istanbul wouldn't be very happy about the conquest of their city by the Greeks.
Point.
We have no right to the city, we can hardly claim that we have more Byzantine blood than the modern Turks and anyway, Mohammad II captured a ruined town and transformed her into a majestic metropolis. I think they're more entitled than us.
Also a fair point - but the Turks don't look after the historic city, the walls, restoring the Churches and turning them into Mosques... I worry for the future of the historic city. It's also worth pointing out that the ruin of the Empire and thence the city is largely the responsibility of the Turks, notwithsanding the 4th Crusade.
Concerning Hagia Sophia, I hope that she will remain a museum, better avoid making a random, semi-literate, religious leader responsible for the preservation of one of the most magnificent historical monuments of humanity.
A rather unfair characterisation of his All-Holiness, given the very narrow field of eligible candidates under Turkish Law.
And it is called Istanbul, not Constantinople, guys, only the fascists of Golden Dawn keep calling it that way in international, political discussions.
Istanbul is just the Turkish corruption of the original Greek. As you know, after the creation of the Turkish Republic the Turks enforced names changes. If anything these enforced changes "Istanbul" or "Mumbai" have become less accepted in Europe and the Americas over the last decade or so.
I'm not saying we should be annexing the city for Greece now, I'm suggesting maybe it should have been annexed for Greece after World War I.
Sarmatian
12-01-2015, 16:01
I'm not saying we should be annexing the city for Greece now, I'm suggesting maybe it should have been annexed for Greece after World War I.
And the reason it wasn't is the very thing being discussed now - would Greeks rather defend Turkey from Russia or join Russia to fight the Turks.
Constantinople (not implying anything, that was how the city was called at the time) back in Greek hands would make control of the straits too susceptible to Russian influence.
Well, if I judge the Patriarchate by the Arch-bishopric of Greece, then Hagia Sophia's future would be really dark. Numerous byzantine churches have been destroyed by tasteless priests, who prefer modern icons to obsolete byzantine ones, or oversensitive priests, that love to install air-conditioners and gas heaters.
http://www.protothema.gr/files/1/2014/08/14/kosmosotira.jpg
And they are definitely illiterate, Sweden might have a lesbian bishop, but two months ago, a Holy Synod was held, with the task of deciding whether yoga practitioners should be excommunicated or not.
I have a feeling that the Patriarchate is not much more knowledgeable. Their last contact with science is dated in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when they published a leaflet that smashed Newton's gravity theory.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-01-2015, 17:07
And the reason it wasn't is the very thing being discussed now - would Greeks rather defend Turkey from Russia or join Russia to fight the Turks.
Constantinople (not implying anything, that was how the city was called at the time) back in Greek hands would make control of the straits too susceptible to Russian influence.
You're inferring something about the political reality a hundred years ago from the political reality today. Now Greece is a republic, then it was a monarchy.
I think that at the time the Allies were keeping the option open of transferring Constantinople to Greece. There are several political and cultural reasons to suppose this, chiefly among them a desire to shore up the Greek monarchy and further embed it in Greek culture and the desire to see the original Christian capital of Rome back in Christian hands.
That's not to say it was a certainty, but I think the option was open then and Constantinople was much less a specifically Turkish city than Istanbul is today.
Sarmatian
12-01-2015, 17:16
You're inferring something about the political reality a hundred years ago from the political reality today. Now Greece is a republic, then it was a monarchy.
I think that at the time the Allies were keeping the option open of transferring Constantinople to Greece. There are several political and cultural reasons to suppose this, chiefly among them a desire to shore up the Greek monarchy and further embed it in Greek culture and the desire to see the original Christian capital of Rome back in Christian hands.
That's not to say it was a certainty, but I think the option was open then and Constantinople was much less a specifically Turkish city than Istanbul is today.
I'd argue it was even more important at the beginning of the 20th century than it is now. Didn't Britain and Russia spend much of the 19th century checking each other? Didn't they some half a century before wage a war because of that?
Christian nations of Europe would certainly prefer Russian influence over the Holy Land and other Christian monuments to Muslim control, if we're looking at it purely from religious point of view, but realpolitik dictated otherwise. I'd say it was a fairly strong reason back then.
Fisherking
12-01-2015, 19:52
Something I was saying the day of the incident and my information came from US governmental sources.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/russian-media-turkey-shot-down-warplane-protect-its-isis-oil?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=n-isis-russia
Oh, please... Read the text: "however the cartoons are describing a reality: 3 men with automatic weapons can slaughter more than hundred un-armed French."
Indeed, you say cartoons, that is plural, how terrible of me to think you were not only referring to the collage of two pictures that isn't even a cartoon. I'm sorry.
Something I was saying the day of the incident and my information came from US governmental sources.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/russian-media-turkey-shot-down-warplane-protect-its-isis-oil?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=n-isis-russia
That looks like a trustworthy website.
Indeed, you say cartoons, that is plural, how terrible of me to think you were not only referring to the collage of two pictures that isn't even a cartoon. I'm sorry.
Matter of taste (not mine)
Fisherking
12-02-2015, 10:34
That looks like a trustworthy website.
LOL! I could have given you links to ABC news or the Atlantic stories or RT, Al Jazeera, or many others. Likely BBC has it today. It is just that the other Mainstream Western Outlets omitted telling that Erdogan’s son was a direct beneficiary of the incoming oil from ISIS.
Truthfully, what site or news outlet do you know of that doesn’t place some spin or lie by omission from time to time. Political leanings is a ridiculous method of determining the facts in any particular event. They all must be weighed and judged on each and every story.
Gilrandir
12-02-2015, 14:19
I think that at the time the Allies were keeping the option open of transferring Constantinople to Greece. There are several political and cultural reasons to suppose this, chiefly among them a desire to shore up the Greek monarchy and further embed it in Greek culture and the desire to see the original Christian capital of Rome back in Christian hands.
That's not to say it was a certainty, but I think the option was open then and Constantinople was much less a specifically Turkish city than Istanbul is today.
Here's the solution: let's give the European part of Istanbul to Europeans (Greeks) and the Asian one to nomads (Turks). Everyone will be happy.
rory_20_uk
12-02-2015, 14:35
And it it wasn't for the Second Balkan War we'd have that nice neat solution.
~:smoking:
There's somoe territories we'd like back too. We'd aslo like to get our 30 tonnes of gold back from Russia. They've been "keeping them safe" for us since 1945.
LOL! I could have given you links to ABC news or the Atlantic stories or RT, Al Jazeera, or many others. Likely BBC has it today. It is just that the other Mainstream Western Outlets omitted telling that Erdogan’s son was a direct beneficiary of the incoming oil from ISIS.
It says President and Family on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34982951).
Fisherking
12-02-2015, 19:36
It says President and Family on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34982951).
I am glad BBC reported it, even leaving out some details. It seem to me that Erdogan arrested two journalists last week for releasing military documents reporting on this, only to be arrested for treason and supporting a terror group (a political opposition group based in the US opposing his rule).
Sarmatian
12-02-2015, 21:35
And it it wasn't for the Second Balkan War we'd have that nice neat solution.
~:smoking:
What did 2nd Balkan War had to do with that?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-02-2015, 21:45
And it it wasn't for the Second Balkan War we'd have that nice neat solution.
~:smoking:
I'm sure we can all agree that everything would have turned out better if the Germans had never crossed the Rhine.
I'm sure we can all agree that everything would have turned out better if the Germans had never crossed the Rhine.
I just don't get it, what was so great about Nero for example? Would you want him to be emperor over half of Europe (including Britain) and the Mediterranean regions today?
Rome would have imploded regardless of the Germanic tribes. She did not possess a sustainable economic model and would have ran out of places to conquer and peoples to enslave eventually. The latifunda system robbed the rural plebs of any decent means of providing for their families, so it was inevitable. Now, imagine a Roman Republic that stopped conquering after Gaul, Carthage, Iberia, Egypt and Seleucia and just focused on development. We would have reached FTL travel by now probably.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-03-2015, 02:36
I just don't get it, what was so great about Nero for example? Would you want him to be emperor over half of Europe (including Britain) and the Mediterranean regions today?
You need to recalibrate your irony detector.
Fact is, you can keep going back to a "better" or "more stable" period in history until you hit Augustus. The current situation in the Balkans has its roots in a series of invasions and migrations that started after the fall of the WRE.
Rome would have imploded regardless of the Germanic tribes. She did not possess a sustainable economic model and would have ran out of places to conquer and peoples to enslave eventually. The latifunda system robbed the rural plebs of any decent means of providing for their families, so it was inevitable. Now, imagine a Roman Republic that stopped conquering after Gaul, Carthage, Iberia, Egypt and Seleucia and just focused on development. We would have reached FTL travel by now probably.
The miracle of Rome is not that it fell, but that it lasted so long.
One might reasonably argue that without the external pressure of the Germanic tribes and the Sassanids that the Principate would not have collapsed and become the Dominate.
The economy during the Principate up until the 3rd Century was highly developed, Plebs didn't NEED to farm for themselves - they could make helmets, or pots, or spades, and go and buy bread with their wages which was made with grain from Latifunda.
If there was a problem with the early Principate it was the tendency for the title to be inherrited by an idiot, not the economic system.
It says President and Family on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34982951).
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/russia-turkish-president-benefits-isil-oil-deals-151202144412848.html
Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov went further, implicating President Erdogan's family in ISIL's oil supply chain.
"Turkey is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq. According to information we've received, the senior political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - are involved in this criminal business," he said.
"Maybe I'm being too blunt, but one can only entrust control over this thieving business to one's closest associates."
"In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvellous family business!"
The other question is, if it's not Turkey, who then is selling all the oil ISIS apparently does actually sell? The Iraqis or the Syrians? Iran? Obama? Or maybe the Saudis or the Jordanians?
Apparently the CIA saw oil trucks as well but I can't find them mentioning where those trucks go anywhere. Surely they would be able to track them, especially if there are a whole lot of them? It would make sense for them not to say where they are going if e.g. an "ally" were involved. How can you trade hundreds of trucks of oil every month on the black market if everybody around you closed the border? I doubt you can easily smuggle it in your stomach or in car tyres. :inquisitive:
The funny thing is they all now recognise that ISIL sells oil. The mystery is how Isil teleports it to tankers and mysterious lands and who buy it and pay for it. Bitcoins?
Fisherking
12-03-2015, 08:17
The oil sales began almost as soon as ISIL moved into Iraq. The US bombing campaign has had a hands off policy toward it. The most recent ROI when oil convoys are found is to send a flight over them to drop leaflets telling them to abandon their trucks. Then 45 min to an hour later a 3rd flight is dispatched to attack them, maybe, if permission is granted. But it usually isn't. The excuse being that it would cause environmental damage.
The oil sales began almost as soon as ISIL moved into Iraq. The US bombing campaign has had a hands off policy toward it. The most recent ROI when oil convoys are found is to send a flight over them to drop leaflets telling them to abandon their trucks. Then 45 min to an hour later a 3rd flight is dispatched to attack them, maybe, if permission is granted. But it usually isn't. The excuse being that it would cause environmental damage.
Well, a consistent policy as long as the leaflets are biodegradable.
The oil sales began almost as soon as ISIL moved into Iraq. The US bombing campaign has had a hands off policy toward it. The most recent ROI when oil convoys are found is to send a flight over them to drop leaflets telling them to abandon their trucks. Then 45 min to an hour later a 3rd flight is dispatched to attack them, maybe, if permission is granted. But it usually isn't. The excuse being that it would cause environmental damage.
Now that's being more civil than I would've expected....
Edit:
Who is buying the oil? Saudi's seem to hate them too much, Syria seems no more likely. Iran? Turkey? Us? Pakistan? China?
Isn't this a proper whodunit....
Edit2:
Nevermind, it might be a lot of people. (https://www.quora.com/How-does-ISIS-sell-oil-on-the-black-market)
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 20:05
What they should do is send in a couple of helicopters to air lift out the oil while the drivers are running for cover. Sure they could only keep doing that a few times before IS gets wise and uses them as bait for ambushes but it would be both effective, profitable and funny for the couple of times it works.
What they should do is send in a couple of helicopters to air lift out the oil while the drivers are running for cover. Sure they could only keep doing that a few times before IS gets wise and uses them as bait for ambushes but it would be both effective, profitable and funny for the couple of times it works.
While that sounds like a funky idea, I'm not sure it would work in practice. Even if you find a helicopter that can lift a full fuel truck (maybe the Mi-26 it's 20 tons max, I could see some trucks being heavier than that), it sounds like a huge safety hazard for the helicopter crew.
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/oel-is-101.html
Just saw this, it's in German, but the general idea is that most of the oil goes to Turkey, and some say even Assad. They also described that the smuggling has long existed in the region and there are middle men who conduct it, in some cases there are even supposedly pipelines between houses on either side of the border...
They also show one of the leaflets the US throw before they bomb the convoys, it tells the drivers to run away before the bombs drop. In the end they say that the Russians have also started to bomb these oil convoys.
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 10:56
Husar
Don't you mean Erdogan, not Assad?
Sarmatian
12-05-2015, 11:05
Well, it is unlikely that Assad would be buying oil from IS, but then again, not impossible.
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 11:12
It doesn’t make sense that Assad, who actually is fighting the rebels, to include ISIS would be financing them by buying their oil.
Gilrandir
12-05-2015, 14:47
It doesn’t make sense that Assad, who actually is fighting the rebels, to include ISIS would be financing them by buying their oil.
:laugh4: Ukraine has officially announced Russia the aggressor country, yet it buys (or has bought until recently, not sure whether the trade has been at a hiatus after the Crimea blackout) electricity, gas and coal from it. Nothing is impossible in this quirky world.
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 15:11
:laugh4: Ukraine has officially announced Russia the aggressor country, yet it buys (or has bought until recently, not sure whether the trade has been at a hiatus after the Crimea blackout) electricity, gas and coal from it. Nothing is impossible in this quirky world.
This is a little different. You have to assume that Assad sees some benefit in financing those who seek to overthrow him.
Gilrandir
12-05-2015, 15:21
This is a little different. You have to assume that Assad sees some benefit in financing those who seek to overthrow him.
Assad needs money badly. Besides he thinks (I believe) that there is some kind of equilibrium in the status quo: ISIS can't move on much further. These factors may be determining his policy.
Sarmatian
12-05-2015, 16:44
This is a little different. You have to assume that Assad sees some benefit in financing those who seek to overthrow him.
Well, it doesn't make sense for Assad to finance his strongest opponents, that is true, but there are several other factors to consider.
1) the state probably needs the money hard. Reselling that oil provides much needed funds since the government can't levy taxes.
2) if he doesn't someone else will buy that oil. The IS still gets the money either way, and he losses access to cheap oil/additional funds
3) IS is Assad's strongest opponent, but they also fight other rebel groups.
4) if the Syrian government and IS ultimately end up the only two serious powers in the country (and it appears to be moving in that direction), the entire world would support Assad against IS.
I don't think it's likely, but it is definitely possible. If it happens, it's probably small scale, plugging a hole here and there...
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 17:58
I agree with your analysis but, IS is a US creation in much more than one regard. US actions against IS have been shown to be less than half hearted.
We know from US DOD documents that they knew that replacing the secular Assad regime would result in a radical Sunni regime. You have to assume the US went to war with its self…
They said Assad indeed, and also that it is strange.
As for me, nothing really surprises me in the context of that war...
Fisherking
12-05-2015, 18:15
They said Assad indeed, and also that it is strange.
As for me, nothing really surprises me in the context of that war...
Right!
I guess we are to assume that insanity has become a governmental competition sport.
Sarmatian
12-09-2015, 15:43
The black box from the SU-24 has been recovered, and Putin wants it opened in the presence of international experts. That means he is pretty sure what's gonna be in there.
And what if? What if it shows that the SU never cross for 12 seconds the Turkish Borders? Will US withdraw their support to Turkey and NATO support? If Turkey becomes the aggressor, NATO pact can't apply and it is a act of war.
However, Russia can't afford to go to war, but what can be done? Or perhaps, USA and EU will start a economical sanctions against a country they just agree to pay (the EU) to keep migrants away (no questions asked how) and to keep airbases and Nukes on its territory (USA)...
We will just to wait for Russia to reciprocate, kind of Kosovo/Ukraine things. But of course all Western Media will puzzled in horror when it will happen, such is this world...
Sarmatian
12-09-2015, 23:09
The amount of political capital would certainly help Russia, most notably in Syria.
I am not sure that the West is ready to pay the price of recognising that the strong ally in Russian's (URSS) flank is a crook, a danger and a pimp. I of course speak of the "moderate" President of the country, not the country itself.
And some of them are probably buying ISIL's oil (ooohhh, look at the City, London... but not only)...
Pannonian
12-10-2015, 23:46
I am not sure that the West is ready to pay the price of recognising that the strong ally in Russian's (URSS) flank is a crook, a danger and a pimp. I of course speak of the "moderate" President of the country, not the country itself.
And some of them are probably buying ISIL's oil (ooohhh, look at the City, London... but not only)...
Are you talking about Turkey or Saudi Arabia here? Because the House of Saud, whom we are great allies and friends with, are utter scum. I wouldn't be surprised if others among our allies aren't particularly great either.
Oh... Point taken. Both, plus Qatar, and others related...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2015, 23:13
All our Allies in the region are bastards.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.
This is the real reason IS exists - we support jerks.
Greyblades
12-12-2015, 23:16
You talk as if there are factions in the region who arent jerks.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2015, 23:28
The black box from the SU-24 has been recovered, and Putin wants it opened in the presence of international experts. That means he is pretty sure what's gonna be in there.
That rather depeneds on who recovered it.
If it was recovered by Russia is might have been doctored - same true if recovered by the uS tbf - although possibly less likely.
Pannonian
12-12-2015, 23:38
You talk as if there are factions in the region who arent jerks.
We back both by far the best in the region (Israel) and by far the worst (Saudi Arabia). While I don't care greatly for our backing of Israel (while they're by far the best in the region, the bar isn't exactly high), I wish we'd minimise our relationship with the Saudis, According to Brenus the Qataris are pretty bad too, although I'm not too knowledgable about the smaller states. Iran actually comes across as one of the less unpleasant Muslim states.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-13-2015, 05:14
We back both by far the best in the region (Israel) and by far the worst (Saudi Arabia). While I don't care greatly for our backing of Israel (while they're by far the best in the region, the bar isn't exactly high), I wish we'd minimise our relationship with the Saudis, According to Brenus the Qataris are pretty bad too, although I'm not too knowledgable about the smaller states. Iran actually comes across as one of the less unpleasant Muslim states.
Israel is only the best regime in the region if you're a Jew.
If you're a Muslim or a Christian it's one of the worst.
Shaka_Khan
12-13-2015, 05:26
:laugh4: Ukraine has officially announced Russia the aggressor country, yet it buys (or has bought until recently, not sure whether the trade has been at a hiatus after the Crimea blackout) electricity, gas and coal from it. Nothing is impossible in this quirky world.
I'm pretty sure that Assad wouldn't buy oil from ISIS now. Maybe he did in the past.
Hooahguy
12-13-2015, 07:32
Israel is only the best regime in the region if you're a Jew.
True.
If you're a Muslim [it's one of the worst]
Also true.
or a Christian it's one of the worst.
Ehhh Im not so sure. They certainly arent perfect but in the Middle East where are they treated better?
Gilrandir
12-13-2015, 13:06
I'm pretty sure that Assad wouldn't buy oil from ISIS now.
Do you think Assad has suddenly sruck a gold lode under his palace? He needs money, so he may be doing it still.
Edit: this is not about the jet but I don't think we'll need another thread for it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TW0EU20151213
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-13-2015, 19:55
True.
Also true.
Ehhh Im not so sure. They certainly arent perfect but in the Middle East where are they treated better?
Jordan - or Lebanon.
Hooahguy
12-13-2015, 20:29
Jordan - or Lebanon.
Fair enough, didnt think of those. If anything though I would think that they were on par with Christians in Israel.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-13-2015, 21:11
Fair enough, didnt think of those. If anything though I would think that they were on par with Christians in Israel.
Not really, in Israel Christians are Arabs and mostly non-citizens (we're including the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza here) whilst in Jordan, and particularly Lebanon ther'yre citizens with the same basic rights as Muslims Druze etc.
In point of fact, Christians also do better in Egypt than in Israel, on the whole.
Gilrandir
12-17-2015, 12:30
The exchange of blows continues:
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/rkey-detains-27-russian-ships-in-retaliation-for-russias-detaining-8-turkish-vessels/2015/12/16/
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-18-2015, 13:14
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35130953
according to the Russians the flight data is missing from the Black Box.
Fisherking
12-18-2015, 14:30
Hay! Great! Everyone gets to believe what ever they want to believe. Russia can say it is gone or NATO could have tampered the box and the West can say Russia is withholding the data. Except was 7 seconds in Turkey enough to shoot it down anyway?
Gilrandir
12-20-2015, 10:07
On Russia's policy in general:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/10/russias-19th-century-approach-in-syria/
Fisherking
12-20-2015, 10:36
Except that American Foreign Policy is based upon Corporate interests and economic dominance as well as military dominance. Nationalism is just a fuel.
Syria needed to be taken out because they allowed Russian Bases and were friendly with Iran, which was also friendly to the Russians. A new cold war being the economic driving force.
The US frustrations in a direct assault on Syria in 2013 meant they had to move the point of major conflict to Ukraine while employing covert actions in Syria. Their Salafist proxies could develop the situation for a later confrontation.
Putin keeps frustrating them, however. Cooperation between Russia and NATO is not in the corporate interest. Defeating ISIS is not in the corporate interest. Turkey’s shoot down of the Russian plane was supposed to get it back on track. An East West standoff supports the agenda.
Gilrandir
12-22-2015, 17:16
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=44906&no_cache=1#.Vnl3yPmLRMx
Gilrandir
01-02-2016, 16:43
Some conclusions on
Putin vs Turkey
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/21/vladimir-putin-picks-turkey-over-u-s-as-the-enemy-in-annual-qa/
Putin vs Ukraine
http://www.interpretermag.com/red-cross-official-says-moscow-used-humanitarian-convoys-to-ship-arms-to-militants-in-ukraine/
and Putin vs the US
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/29/russia-can-only-use-the-united-states-as-an-excuse-for-so-long/
One day... So, Radio Free Europe and Reuter (love their picture of Putin, not at all buyer) have opinions and these made conclusions... A part cliches and errr... cliches, what were the conclusions?
OK, who was the wise guy who added the "s" to my title?
Sarmatian
01-05-2016, 16:25
There should've been an apostrophe between the y and the s, I presume.
OK, who was the wise guy who added the "s" to my title?
Wasn't me, but it amused me for a few weeks already. ~D
There should've been an apostrophe between the y and the s, I presume.
I wrote it without the "s" orignially as you can see in the replies further back. I meant Turkey as the country, not something belonging to it.
Gilrandir
01-07-2016, 14:15
On the US and Russia's (possible) cooperation in Syria:
http://eurasiangeopolitics.com/2015/12/18/us-options-in-responding-to-russias-military-intervention-in-syria/
Gilrandir
01-14-2016, 15:42
Misconceptions of Russia in the West:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/13/what-do-the-normativists-stand-for/
I wrote it without the "s" orignially as you can see in the replies further back. I meant Turkey as the country, not something belonging to it.
I only notice the 's' when you replied with it in the sub-title of your post (thus, corrupting the replies).
Papewaio
01-15-2016, 00:18
I wrote it without the "s" orignially as you can see in the replies further back. I meant Turkey as the country, not something belonging to it.
With the s may be more accurate as in Turkeys = idiots
Gilrandir
01-15-2016, 09:34
With the s may be more accurate as in Turkeys = idiots
Or as in Turkeys = birds?
Papewaio
01-15-2016, 12:05
From Urban Dictionary;
turkey
(n) a loser; an uncoordinated, inept, clumsy fool
OR
a tool; a person who is not in with current culture and slang or is just generally uncool.
These slang usages of the word "turkey" were mostly used during the late 60's and 70's by urban-dwelling blacks.
See jive turkey
So, when is it the Russian Thanksgiving?
Since they didn't slaughter the indeginous people and take their land by force, they don't have Thanksgiving.
Gilrandir
01-15-2016, 13:39
Since they didn't slaughter the indeginous people and take their land by force, they don't have Thanksgiving.
Evidently, you don't know much of Russia's history. Since at least XVIth century it has been an expansion involving the said processes.
I love this topic as a Turkish person. It's literally the only issue that Turkey is %100 right, and all the others are wrong and even idiots, only by criticizing Turkey :)
Thank God for creating Russia, ruled by even dumber and clumsier semi/dictator than Turkey's president.
Gilrandir
01-17-2016, 07:21
I love this topic as a Turkish person. It's literally the only issue that Turkey is %100 right, and all the others are wrong and even idiots, only by criticizing Turkey :)
Thank God for creating Russia, ruled by even dumber and clumsier semi/dictator than Turkey's president.
In just one post you managed to praise and snub Erdogan. :2thumbsup:
In just one post you managed to praise and snub Erdogan. :2thumbsup:
:laugh4: No sir, no praise for Erdogan. He didn't acted on more serious cases just to humiliate Turkish Army. yes Yes, shooting that plane was something had to be done a month earlier than that, point, but he only did that for his selfish reasons.
Gilrandir
01-18-2016, 10:59
:laugh4: No sir, no praise for Erdogan. He didn't acted on more serious cases just to humiliate Turkish Army. yes Yes, shooting that plane was something had to be done a month earlier than that, point, but he only did that for his selfish reasons.
But you speak as if the Turkish army acted on its own when downing the plane. I believe that this issue had been agreed upon beforehand. The pilots just didn't have enough time to get a report through to the higher authorities. And such important a decision can't have been taken without the president, especially such an autoctrat as you pronounce him to be. So, eventually, whether you like him or not, Erdogan can claim credit for downing the plane.
Sarmatian
01-18-2016, 17:22
:laugh4: No sir, no praise for Erdogan. He didn't acted on more serious cases just to humiliate Turkish Army. yes Yes, shooting that plane was something had to be done a month earlier than that, point, but he only did that for his selfish reasons.
Why did it have to be done?
Violations of airspace are much more common than one would think. Turkish airplanes constantly violate Greek airspace, several times a week, sometimes even several times in a single day. It is even more pronounced in combat zone, as planes have to navigate to avoid AA or conserve fuel to return to base.
It was pretty clear from the route that the plane was not moving into Turkey proper. It was a dumb decision, whatever the reasons.
It was pretty clear from the route that the plane was not moving into Turkey proper. It was a dumb decision, whatever the reasons.
Clearly Russia would send a single plane deep into Turkey with no provocation at all and attack.
But you speak as if the Turkish army acted on its own when downing the plane. I believe that this issue had been agreed upon beforehand. The pilots just didn't have enough time to get a report through to the higher authorities. And such important a decision can't have been taken without the president, especially such an autoctrat as you pronounce him to be. So, eventually, whether you like him or not, Erdogan can claim credit for downing the plane.
You are %100 right, I didn't mean that the pilots are acted on their own.
What I mean is, Erdogan didn't made this decision for the sake of the country. He didn't give the same order on more serious cases, just to humiliate Turkish army. One of the best cases is the time U.S. soldiers arrested our commandos several years ago, while we have the right to resist the enemy.
Why did it have to be done?
Violations of airspace are much more common than one would think. Turkish airplanes constantly violate Greek airspace, several times a week, sometimes even several times in a single day. It is even more pronounced in combat zone, as planes have to navigate to avoid AA or conserve fuel to return to base.
It was pretty clear from the route that the plane was not moving into Turkey proper. It was a dumb decision, whatever the reasons.
To be honest, you are right: Greece-Turkey case is just the same with Russia-Turkey. You are wrong on the seriousness level though: You mean "Russia-Turkey incident is not a big deal just like between Greece-Turkey". Actually it's the opposite: "Both cases are just as critical and deadly, we hold ourselves only because of the other reasons. In this case, we both claim that the zone is ours, (Or we claim its international, I am not sure) and since there is not any important base or anything in the area." We still have the right to shoot each other, but we hold ourselves.
In Russia case, we couldn't. Russia is not bombing ISIS, They bombing other groups, only for the sake of their selfish reasons, and Turkey warned them for a month to not to do that. (Because we have our selfish reasons too) And possibly they were collecting info about the Turkish army positions as well, it's very hot zone. We old them not to, we diplomatically warned them for a month.
Sarmatian
01-18-2016, 18:42
Clearly Russia would send a single plane deep into Turkey with no provocation at all and attack.
Well, hypothetically, they couldn't have been certain whose plane is it. In theory, it could have been a terrorist plane flown from Syria, although the odds of that happening are almost null.
To be honest, you are right: Greece-Turkey case is just the same with Russia-Turkey. You are wrong on the seriousness level though: You mean "Russia-Turkey incident is not a big deal just like between Greece-Turkey". Actually it's the opposite: "Both cases are just as critical and deadly, we hold ourselves only because of the other reasons. In this case, we both claim that the zone is ours, (Or we claim its international, I am not sure) and since there is not any important base or anything in the area." We still have the right to shoot each other, but we hold ourselves.
In Russia case, we couldn't. Russia is not bombing ISIS, They bombing other groups, only for the sake of their selfish reasons, and Turkey warned them for a month to not to do that. (Because we have our selfish reasons too) And possibly they were collecting info about the Turkish army positions as well, it's very hot zone. We old them not to, we diplomatically warned them for a month.
Oh, then it is completely cool.
The epilogue - Kurds get cool new weapons and more Turks die.
You don't raise the stakes when the opponent has a stronger hand.
Well, hypothetically, they couldn't have been certain whose plane is it. In theory, it could have been a terrorist plane flown from Syria, although the odds of that happening are almost null.
Oh, then it is completely cool.
The epilogue - Kurds get cool new weapons and more Turks die.
You don't raise the stakes when the opponent has a stronger hand.
Very good argument, but as I said: It was inevitable.
It's normal to ignore if the bully of the school insults you, because you will end up beaten anyway.
It's ok if he spits you few times, you may choose being patient.
But the second he touches you, you you must push him back. I think you get the point.
And Kurds are crying for months, because we dealing well with them. (Not sure for future though, but it's because of another mistake, not Russia-related.)
Sarmatian
01-18-2016, 23:07
Very good argument, but as I said: It was inevitable.
It's normal to ignore if the bully of the school insults you, because you will end up beaten anyway.
It's ok if he spits you few times, you may choose being patient.
But the second he touches you, you you must push him back. I think you get the point.
So Russia is the bully and Turkey is a good boy who gets bullied?
And Kurds are crying for months, because we dealing well with them. (Not sure for future though, but it's because of another mistake, not Russia-related.)
No, you really aren't, but that's completely different issue.
So Russia is the bully and Turkey is a good boy who gets bullied?
No, you really aren't, but that's completely different issue.
Using the emotional words like "good" or "bad" in a political conversation means you are acting with your feelings. My country is just as evil/good guy as the other countries.
We handled with Kurds astonishingly well, to be honest even I was shocked to see that.. But you have a point: We are winning only because Kurds are extremely low-level opponents, and Turkey uses the credit comes from being an extremely powerful country in the past. And that credit has a limit.
And Kurds are crying for months, because we dealing well with them. (Not sure for future though, but it's because of another mistake, not Russia-related.)
Which Kurds are you talking about? Because Turkey hasn't done much to stop the YPG from advancing.
Which Kurds are you talking about? Because Turkey hasn't done much to stop the YPG from advancing.
I mean the Turkish citizen ones. They declared independence and rebelled in several towns, and started an international propaganda claiming "Turkish army shoots civilians, kills babies" etc. It was extremely well organized. I am so surprised it didn't work. And turned out we were much better prepared.
I mean the Turkish citizen ones. They declared independence and rebelled in several towns, and started an international propaganda claiming "Turkish army shoots civilians, kills babies" etc. It was extremely well organized. I am so surprised it didn't work. And turned out we were much better prepared.
Oh ok I see. I've read a little bit about those accusations against the Turkish government (http://www.blackrosefed.org/kurdish-resistance-against-the-curfews-in-bakur-an-overview-and-an-anarchist-message/), so I'm curious, what's the Turkish side of the story?
Oh ok I see. I've read a little bit about those accusations against the Turkish government (http://www.blackrosefed.org/kurdish-resistance-against-the-curfews-in-bakur-an-overview-and-an-anarchist-message/), so I'm curious, what's the Turkish side of the story?
Yes, the link you sent me is exactly what I was talking about: They are extremely well prepared lies, the best propaganda they can do, to create an Arab Spring style revolution. Whole world already sees Turkey as an evil country which supports Isis and they are the good secular guys.. There are actually some children getting killed there, and they play their cards perfectly.. But they lost. They also lost all the sympathy and support they gained comes from Turkish people, and some Kurdish people as well. (Many Turkish people supported them because in here we ask all Kurdish citizens to "be a Turkish first", which is weird and also the part of the problem.)
I am extremely surprised of that result, because I was thinking that Erdogan screwed everything up, including the police and military forces. He probably called the professional people he fired before back to their duties.
It's long story of course, the more you write to explain things, the more you need to write about what happened in past too.
Sarmatian
01-19-2016, 11:54
Using the emotional words like "good" or "bad" in a political conversation means you are acting with your feelings. My country is just as evil/good guy as the other countries.
You mentioned bullying - you said Turkey was bullied by Russia and was forced to respond. I asked for additional clarification.
Russia has its own interests in Syria, Turkey has its own, so it is definitely not the case of "Russia bullying Turkey and forcing Turkey's hand" as you tried to portray it.
We handled with Kurds astonishingly well, to be honest even I was shocked to see that.. But you have a point: We are winning only because Kurds are extremely low-level opponents, and Turkey uses the credit comes from being an extremely powerful country in the past. And that credit has a limit.
That was not my point. My point was that Kurds are not treated well in Turkey, not even remotely.
You mentioned bullying - you said Turkey was bullied by Russia and was forced to respond. I asked for additional clarification.
Russia has its own interests in Syria, Turkey has its own, so it is definitely not the case of "Russia bullying Turkey and forcing Turkey's hand" as you tried to portray it.
That was not my point. My point was that Kurds are not treated well in Turkey, not even remotely.
I am not sure the word "bullying" implies the victim is a good guy. I just wanted to state the fact that Russia acts like a dumb bully, unlike United States, which threatens other countries in very gently and a respectful way, so nobody has hard feelings to them.
Kurds are treated extremely well in Turkey. In exchange of calling themselves "Turkish with Kurdish origin", of course. Of course it's weird thing, of course it causes problems, but they are in so much better shape than most of the other countries.
Gilrandir
01-20-2016, 07:08
The epilogue - Kurds get cool new weapons and more Turks die.
You don't raise the stakes when the opponent has a stronger hand.
As the events of the past severl months in Syria have shown, you are wrong. The stronger hand can't fight Turkey in an open war, it achieved nothing of the goals it had set (or claimed to have set) and is bogged down.
As the events of the past severl months in Syria have shown, you are wrong. The stronger hand can't fight Turkey in an open war, it achieved nothing of the goals it had set (or claimed to have set) and is bogged down.
:yes: In Russia's defense, they were not intend to bomb Isis anyway. They just bombed their fuel depots just to help their own economy. And they hit other rebel groups fighting against both Asad and Isis. So I believe Russia was pretty successful. Wish Turkey was just like it.
Gilrandir
01-28-2016, 07:43
:yes: In Russia's defense, they were not intend to bomb Isis anyway. They just bombed their fuel depots just to help their own economy. And they hit other rebel groups fighting against both Asad and Isis. So I believe Russia was pretty successful. Wish Turkey was just like it.
Russia's ultimate goal is to prop up Assad. That is to overthrow ALL his enemies. And Russia failed in doing this: http://syria.liveuamap.com/
Has Assad taken (all of) Aleppo? Has he been able to secure Damascus or Homs (I mean there are still rebel-controlled swathes just east of Damascus or north of Homs)? The villages that Assad's army captures are a poor prize to show as a claim to success.
Russia's ultimate goal is to prop up Assad. That is to overthrow ALL his enemies. And Russia failed in doing this: http://syria.liveuamap.com/
Has Assad taken (all of) Aleppo? Has he been able to secure Damascus or Homs (I mean there are still rebel-controlled swathes just east of Damascus or north of Homs)? The villages that Assad's army captures are a poor prize to show as a claim to success.
That's good news you are telling me mate. In Turkey many Kurdish and Turkish people willing to be recruited for Russians, telling us that Mighty Russia bombed rebel camps and crushed all opposition, and the victory of Asad is near.
I hope those Islamic terrorists are still very very powerful, we need them intact to kill each other with Isis :2thumbsup:
"Kurds are treated extremely well in Turkey":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I am dying... Stop it!!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.