Breaking news on Sky.....
Overreaction? Really?
Ten warnings in five minutes?
Returned for a blatantly inflammatory (double-entendre intended) second pass through Turkish airspace.
What the heck would you expect the Turks to do? Just grumble about it like we lily livered Westerners and let the world know you're a toothless, gutless pussy? They're made of sterner stuff than that in Turkey and Russia has clearly been taking the p!ss unmercifully in Turkish airspace for weeks. About time they had their arse spanked and the thug in the kremlin reminded he isn't Lord of All. Russia has been blatantly been attacking Western supported factions since their arrival in theatre in a deliberate attempt to goad the West. Their behaviour in Syria has been well out of order.
Ten warnings in five minutes?
Returned for a blatantly inflammatory (double-entendre intended) second pass through Turkish airspace.
What the heck would you expect the Turks to do? Just grumble about it like we lily livered Westerners and let the world know you're a toothless, gutless pussy? They're made of sterner stuff than that in Turkey and Russia has clearly been taking the p!ss unmercifully in Turkish airspace for weeks. About time they had their arse spanked and the thug in the kremlin reminded he isn't Lord of All. Russia has been blatantly been attacking Western supported factions since their arrival in theatre in a deliberate attempt to goad the West. Their behaviour in Syria has been well out of order.
That will change now and turkish planes won't cross the border to strike Kurds in Syria anymore. And if I had to bet... Russians will make use of that S400 even if they come close to the border. They'll have an excuse now.
Originally Posted by Civil Civillian
I thought I was clear: dropping a bomb on a guy from 10,000 ft is on par with shooting a man strapped into a parachute.
Further, one of the reasons the Russians are operating the Su 24 at 20,000' is to keep out of the reach of the Rebels' MANPADS. They can and do fight back.
I suspect you are here to have a go at the use of air power, which seems an odd thing to try to do on a military aviation forum. You COULD have a reasonable conversation about that here, but you would have to start by not ignoring the bits in people's responses that don't suit your position and then by getting your facts right.
Or perhaps you are just trying to provoke a response.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding pilots being machine gunned after bailing out. It's a good job that wasn't the USUAL reaction during WW1 & WW2. These people burned one pilot alive I seem to remember. It is just further reason to see that the usual rules do not apply with these people.
Somewhere there is a video of Erdogan saying that a brief incursion of airspace is not reason to shoot an aircraft down. That basically destroys all the arguments from the Turks.
Russia will likely react and regarding IS the gloves are off, even more so than after the airliner incident. Why the US is taking Turkeys side I do not know, NATO and GC does not apply and the best thing we can do if we do not have the stomach for the fight is step aside and let Russia deal with them.
The best IS can hope for is a war between western powers sparked off by incidents such as this. It would pave the way for their caliphate in what is left of Europe.
Somewhere there is a video of Erdogan saying that a brief incursion of airspace is not reason to shoot an aircraft down. That basically destroys all the arguments from the Turks.
Russia will likely react and regarding IS the gloves are off, even more so than after the airliner incident. Why the US is taking Turkeys side I do not know, NATO and GC does not apply and the best thing we can do if we do not have the stomach for the fight is step aside and let Russia deal with them.
The best IS can hope for is a war between western powers sparked off by incidents such as this. It would pave the way for their caliphate in what is left of Europe.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan Whosearmy "What are you talking about?!"
The Russian aircraft went round twice and bombed before it flew over the Turkish area the second time:
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Mo...8796418685.svg
As you can see ffrom the graphic, that is the area of Syria that contains ethnic Turks AKA 'Turkmen':
http://www.turkomania.org/tr/wp-cont...-density22.jpg
The Russian aircraft went round twice and bombed before it flew over the Turkish area the second time:
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Mo...8796418685.svg
As you can see ffrom the graphic, that is the area of Syria that contains ethnic Turks AKA 'Turkmen':
http://www.turkomania.org/tr/wp-cont...-density22.jpg
I grant the Turks are far from averse to tickling the Greeks but this is a somewhat different scenario, and I have no doubt they'd desist if Greece made a robust enough response,as in, "do that again and I'll shoot".
Re Belgrano. Stick to facts please, UK and Argentina were never at war. The situation is not so very dissimilar excepting the international waters bit.
It's hard to believe that even on the internet there are people unprincipled enough to defend the murder of aircrew under parachutes but then we are dealing with levels of nastiness unheard of in the dim and distant days of the Geneva Convention. And if they defend that what can they have to say about the sanctity of a border? Presumably borders mean nothing id you're chucking all the other legal niceties out of the widow too.
American and French aircraft are in Syrian airspace on combat missions, the Russians are there trying to make matters worse and if anyone is setting out to start a war it is them Why is Turkey copping so much flak? What have they done that is so blameworthy compared to what else is going on there, when actually all they are doing is making a show of defending their borders? Admittedly being pretty punchy with it, but nonetheless merely defending their border?
Re Belgrano. Stick to facts please, UK and Argentina were never at war. The situation is not so very dissimilar excepting the international waters bit.
It's hard to believe that even on the internet there are people unprincipled enough to defend the murder of aircrew under parachutes but then we are dealing with levels of nastiness unheard of in the dim and distant days of the Geneva Convention. And if they defend that what can they have to say about the sanctity of a border? Presumably borders mean nothing id you're chucking all the other legal niceties out of the widow too.
American and French aircraft are in Syrian airspace on combat missions, the Russians are there trying to make matters worse and if anyone is setting out to start a war it is them Why is Turkey copping so much flak? What have they done that is so blameworthy compared to what else is going on there, when actually all they are doing is making a show of defending their borders? Admittedly being pretty punchy with it, but nonetheless merely defending their border?
Originally Posted by skeleton
I don't see where the problem is. They are bombing your house, your land etc and you shoot them down, but because they have ejected you are supposed to put down your arms, wait for them to land and treat them as POW's because the Geneva convention says so? Really?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: faifley
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkey sanctions.
Turkey is frequently cited as one of the primary destinations for ISIS' oil,so why no sanctions against the Turks.The house of Saud is also bank rolling ISIL.
Therefore the Americans are guilty by association.The Turks are also using this situation to bomb the Kurds.The Russians will be happy to hang onto Tartus and add to it if they can and probably will.The shoot down was a headline grabber by the stupid Turks,outcome being more bombs dropped on Turkmen,more Russian hardware introduced to theatre and onward and upward we jolly well go!
Therefore the Americans are guilty by association.The Turks are also using this situation to bomb the Kurds.The Russians will be happy to hang onto Tartus and add to it if they can and probably will.The shoot down was a headline grabber by the stupid Turks,outcome being more bombs dropped on Turkmen,more Russian hardware introduced to theatre and onward and upward we jolly well go!
Civil Civillian, if you mean,
then hardly a reply, simply restating your previous point after a few here have explained the difference.
To illustrate, take the same issue into a different context. US forces conducted air operations in SE Asia in the 60s. On many occasion they attacked Vietnam Kong personnel who had no means of directly firing back. When US Airmen were shot down they were subjected to grossly inhumane treatment and deadly reprisals. That is what international law is there to prevent.
I am not condoning or justifying Russia's operations in Syria; I oppose their actions. But the rebels are their fighting against Russia's allies and are doing so by choice against Syrian and Russian forces whose capabilities they well know, putting themselves at risk from those capabilities. Should they find themselves in a hopeless military situation, they have the option to surrender and abandon their fight; in that situation they should expect fair treatment. The same is true for their opposition who should also expect fair treatment.
The difference is those that are choosing to fight and those that are, for some reason, no longer doing so.
The difference is one is an operationally justified act of war, the other is murderous retribution.
The difference is one is legal and legitimate, the other is not.
Originally Posted by Civil Civillian
Both are helpless at defending themselves against their assailant.
To illustrate, take the same issue into a different context. US forces conducted air operations in SE Asia in the 60s. On many occasion they attacked Vietnam Kong personnel who had no means of directly firing back. When US Airmen were shot down they were subjected to grossly inhumane treatment and deadly reprisals. That is what international law is there to prevent.
I am not condoning or justifying Russia's operations in Syria; I oppose their actions. But the rebels are their fighting against Russia's allies and are doing so by choice against Syrian and Russian forces whose capabilities they well know, putting themselves at risk from those capabilities. Should they find themselves in a hopeless military situation, they have the option to surrender and abandon their fight; in that situation they should expect fair treatment. The same is true for their opposition who should also expect fair treatment.
The difference is those that are choosing to fight and those that are, for some reason, no longer doing so.
The difference is one is an operationally justified act of war, the other is murderous retribution.
The difference is one is legal and legitimate, the other is not.
Must admit my attitude to this is fairly uncompromising.
Would prefer that parachuting aircrew could be taken prisoner. Not particularly surprised they weren't.
Perhaps, during the Gulf War, when the enemy was clued-up and well-equipped to fight back, things were different. Now, dropping a bomb on someone you know lacks the technological means to respond and then running away at several hundred miles an hour is not bravery. It may be necessary, it may be a perfectly professional job of work, there may be nothing wrong with it, but if aircrew who have ejected wish to be treated gently they should probably not wear green, not carry weapons, and not train on how to run away.
P
Would prefer that parachuting aircrew could be taken prisoner. Not particularly surprised they weren't.
Perhaps, during the Gulf War, when the enemy was clued-up and well-equipped to fight back, things were different. Now, dropping a bomb on someone you know lacks the technological means to respond and then running away at several hundred miles an hour is not bravery. It may be necessary, it may be a perfectly professional job of work, there may be nothing wrong with it, but if aircrew who have ejected wish to be treated gently they should probably not wear green, not carry weapons, and not train on how to run away.
P
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney
I'm with Civil
I love the fact that there is a rule that is supposed to stop people killing me once I can't kill them anymore, but it makes no sense.
One minute I am sitting invulnerably above the enemy who is effectively unarmed whilst I drop things on him to kill him, and then by some twist of fate the next minute I am dangling under a parachute and I only have my pistol and he has a Kalashnikov.
Why the hell should he not shoot me?!
(the actual reason is because I am worth far more as a prize alive incidentally if any jihadis are listening)
The Geneva convention is total w@nk. It allows Nuclear weapons but bans landmines.
I will follow it to the letter because I must, not because I think it is right.
I'm with Civil
I love the fact that there is a rule that is supposed to stop people killing me once I can't kill them anymore, but it makes no sense.
One minute I am sitting invulnerably above the enemy who is effectively unarmed whilst I drop things on him to kill him, and then by some twist of fate the next minute I am dangling under a parachute and I only have my pistol and he has a Kalashnikov.
Why the hell should he not shoot me?!
(the actual reason is because I am worth far more as a prize alive incidentally if any jihadis are listening)
The Geneva convention is total w@nk. It allows Nuclear weapons but bans landmines.
I will follow it to the letter because I must, not because I think it is right.
Wageslave
"I grant the Turks are far from averse to tickling the Greeks but this is a somewhat different scenario, and I have no doubt they'd desist if Greece made a robust enough response,as in, "do that again and I'll shoot". " Wageslave
And there's the rub. The Greeks can see that there is no tactically hostile intent with the Turkish intrusions, so they do not respond tactically. Do the Turks seriously imagine that the Russians were about to attack them? I doubt it: so I'll stick to over-reaction.
Best
Batco
And there's the rub. The Greeks can see that there is no tactically hostile intent with the Turkish intrusions, so they do not respond tactically. Do the Turks seriously imagine that the Russians were about to attack them? I doubt it: so I'll stick to over-reaction.
Best
Batco
Tourist,
My expectations have always been the same as yours, sadly. My attitude toward the treatment of prisoners of war, however, is not affected by that. I understand the human will to take revenge on those that have sought to do you harm, but do not subscribe to acting on that will.
As hoodie, rightly says, "no longer a threat". One is a military objective, the other a barbaric act of revenge.
Now back to events at hand rather than the thread drift into the morality of war.
My expectations have always been the same as yours, sadly. My attitude toward the treatment of prisoners of war, however, is not affected by that. I understand the human will to take revenge on those that have sought to do you harm, but do not subscribe to acting on that will.
As hoodie, rightly says, "no longer a threat". One is a military objective, the other a barbaric act of revenge.
Now back to events at hand rather than the thread drift into the morality of war.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Mill "The difference is one is legal and legitimate, the other is not."
To who? In who's eyes is it legal, ethical or moral? I think that distinction would be lost to the guy at the wrong end.
To who? In who's eyes is it legal, ethical or moral? I think that distinction would be lost to the guy at the wrong end.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoodle: "Because you are no longer a threat"
Up until they capture you, you're a (valuable) enemy combatant capable of returning on missions swinging in your harness. One of the crew escaped so there's no guarantee that they were going to capture the Russians.It's war!
Up until they capture you, you're a (valuable) enemy combatant capable of returning on missions swinging in your harness. One of the crew escaped so there's no guarantee that they were going to capture the Russians.It's war!
Because you are no longer a threat.
Look, in all seriousness, I have no great interest in entering this debate. I don't think the facts are really in dispute. It's not legal, it is predictable and it is to some extent understandable.
I would say that if I were to tool up as a news cameraman, go to the middle east, get snatched by the wrong people, and get beheaded on YouTube, I doubt many people on this forum would be wringing their hands over it. But they would probably watch the news, nonetheless.
P