A few comments:
Harry:
The Syrian reaction also sends a short message to people in the West who are thinking of a no-fly zone -i.e this ain't Libya, we are ready ...
but generally speaking pissing off the Turks has never been a wise move
According to Turkish Deputy PM, "plane was hit by a heat-seeking l@ser-guided missile" Heat seeking or l@ser guided? Syria has l@ser-guided SAMs? (like Bofors RBS-70?)
What, they used a Hellfire?
Technically, I think you could argue that Hellfire, with it's semi active laser homing, is looking for a "hot spot" and thus is "heat seeking" though technically "laser guided" as a method of heat seeking. I'd never heard of it being used for AD roles. Could work, I suppose, if you had a good desig team and shot at helicopters ... I suspect someone has tried that out on a test range somewhere ... Off Topic, never mind.
ARXW: A bit less hyperbole, if you please, though you make some fair points.
1. You send out an RF-4 inside another country's national airspace, which is the most hostile action there is, bar a full blown bombing sortie with live ordnance against a country engaged in (civil) war and who is already fairly hostile to you anyway.
I think you overstate the case. Flying a warplane into another's airspace is a serious matter, if done without permission. But it isn't the most hostile by a long shot.
As to "most hostile," the US did a lot of overflights of the USSR with intel birds in the 40s and 50s, up until about the time Powers got shot down in his U2. These were not "the most hostile action there is," but they were certainly violations of USSR airspace, and thus fouls worthy of serious response ... which the occasional shoot down of US Recon planes is evidence of. Powers wasn't the first.
2. Said RF-4 is is flying in at 100 ft, high rate of knots well within national airspace (even the Turks own account suggests a tiny nav error resulting in...5 mins within Syrian airspace...5 mins?? This is no error! Not to mention other reports suggesting the kill occuring a mile or so off the beach).
The facts on this seem to still be up in the air. You seem to be operating under confirmation bias, in wanting to fully believe one side. That said, I agree with you that if the jet strayed into Syrian airspace, or if it went in on purpose, the Syrian's could not know INTENTION. They also could not know that it was unarmed, could they?
So, they classified by fire. Their airspace, a fair cop, sez I.
But ask yourself: Why is RF-4 flying at 100 ft on an INTEL collection mission? (Maybe to test the limits of Syrian AD? Doubt that, but possible).
I'd like a few more facts regarding what actually happened before I come to a conclusion. The Turks may be holding back some facts on purpose to obfuscate the mission ... for their own reasons.
3. It was obviously on a mission to assist rebel forces with phot recon ...
AT 100 FEET? No, I don't think so. Photo Recon mission profiles I am familiar with aren't done that way. They may, however, have had as part of their mission intel collection that would be passed to the rebels later on.
I'd bet with you on that one.
Also agree with you on the Turkish pilots perhaps being annoyed with their higher command.