Ish is getting real...

MikeD said:
Worst part is, if that jet was indeed shot down over Syrian airspace by Turkish forces, Putin has every legal right to retaliate and hand Turkey it's ass on a platter.

Unfortunately, we'd be forced to defend.

Now, the Pentagon has come out supporting the Turkish version of events, with the jet being deep inside Turkish airspace.

However, anymore, I believe Baghdad Bob for accurate news reporting far more than I believe the vast majority of Pentagon spokespersons.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you say it's an active war zone and it indeed was a threat and over Turkish airspace, or perhaps an accident if over Syrian airspace. But in that case, the Syrian Air Force (haha) would have had the legal right to shoot down the Russian jet.

Maybe this can turn out like the USS Liberty. Sorry we killed you, here's some blood money to hopefully make things ok.

War between Russia and Turkey is not an option over this one incident.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Wouldn't you say it's an active war zone and it indeed was a threat and over Turkish airspace, or perhaps an accident if over Syrian airspace. But in that case, the Syrian Air Force (haha) would have had the legal right to shoot down the Russian jet.
Click to expand...

Russia is there in support of Syria, so they are legally flying combat ops inside Syria. If the Turks shot down that jet outside their own borders, there is no right about it, and there could very well be hell to pay as an act of war. Turkey is not claiming "accident" at all.

War between Russia and Turkey is not an option over this one incident.
Click to expand...

Might not be able to be avoided, if Putin wants to answer a legal act of war with force.
 
When it comes to shoot downs, Russia still takes the medal with KAL 007 and MH 17. At least the Turkish hit a fighter jet and not an Aeroflot.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
When it comes to shoot downs, Russia still takes the medal with KAL 007 and MH 17. At least the Turkish hit a fighter jet and not an Aeroflot.
Click to expand...

MH17 can be argued an accident or misidentification. This one can't, in terms of political ramifications. And to whoever treated the bodies like they did, Turk or ISIS (same, really), Russia should come after them with vengeance and no mercy.
 
The Middle East has always been volatile. And to think there are still people out there that think we should be getting involved. What side should we pick?

Our only National Security policy in the Middle East should be keep peace at bay and reduce involvement to the max extent possible. There is no fixing that place. Slowly but surely Russia is slipping into a war that was suppose to be easy. It is a freaking quagmire.
 
MikeD said:
MH17 can be argued an accident or misidentification. This one can't, in terms of political ramifications. And to whoever treated the bodies like they did, Turk or ISIS (same, really), Russia should come after them with vengeance and no mercy.
Click to expand...

But by them you mean Turks and you've already stated the US is legally obligated to defend...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is not good at all. We do not need any other issues that tamper with an already touchy relationship with Russia and Putin. I really hope we can avoid being pulled into a conflict by supporting Turkish forces. It will be fun to see the far right reaction on this. I always enjoy reading about amazing Putin is, compared to our president. If we engage in a conflict with Russia, who are they gonna root for!? :stir:
 
Inverted said:
This is not good at all. We do not need any other issues that tamper with an already touchy relationship with Russia and Putin. I really hope we can avoid being pulled into a conflict by supporting Turkish forces. It will be fun to see the far right reaction on this. I always enjoy reading about amazing Putin is, compared to our president. If we engage in a conflict with Russia, who are they gonna root for!? :stir:
Click to expand...
They are all mostly idiots. Just give it time, Putin will have more on his hands than he knows what to do.
 
ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl_zps640a6e70.jpg
 
kryan11 said:
I think that we're starting to see a lot of the middle east's true colors when it comes to fighting extremists. No support in fighting ISIS, no support in taking in refugees, buying oil from ISIS etc. Yet we're standing by their side ready to defend them from Russia.
Click to expand...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's about all you need to know. And that BS gets real circular real quick.
And without the R for reciprocation, the friend turns into a fiend.
 
pete2800 said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this? What prevents the US or any other semi-involved nation from simply telling Turkey to pound sand?
Click to expand...

One of the "pro's" of being in NATO. Once you are in, you are protected. Though if they were to be attacked, then we could "provide assistance" and still withhold the NATO charter.


From NATO

Article 5
In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.

Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance.

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
 
Apparently a Russian rescue helo was also downed when they went in to make a pickup. 1 KIA, the rest of the crew plus a CSAR team onboard reportedly linked up with a Syrian Army SF team operating in the area and were able to evade to safety.
 
MikeD said:
Apparently a Russian rescue helo was also downed when they went in to make a pickup. 1 KIA, the rest of the crew plus a CSAR team onboard reportedly linked up with a Syrian Army SF team operating in the area and were able to evade to safety.
Click to expand...

It took a TOW, I watched a video that backs up that claim. Though it must be said the helo was shutdown which I did find odd.

Dont normally like to link to other blog sites, especially anything from GAWKER media. But their military blog I find is quite good, normally.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/turkey-shoots-down-russian-su-24-fencer-it-said-invaded-1744363719
 
I was also hearing that the power went out for hours this afternoon in the NATO HQ in Brussels, with emergency lighs only in the facility. Makes you wonder what the personnel there were thinking when it went dark there at the same time all this was occurring.
 
Airspace over the Latakia, Syria area reportedly shut down and both land based SAMs (SA-10s, I hear) as well as ship based SAMs to engage uncleared aircraft. Also, Russian strike and bomber aircraft to have escort fighters from now on.

Russia is essentially daring the Turks to take a gamble fly any of their jets into Syrian airspace, or mess with Russian aircraft.

There's alot of Russian demand for retaliation from the citizenry. Putin will likely have a good amount of pressure to do something, and not just something light. Turks have succeeded in unifying the Russians into a common support for this operation.
 


Interesting blend of stock footage and reporting, I think. Includes radio warnings on guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top