Breaking news on Sky.....
To who? In who's eyes is it legal, ethical or moral?
It allows Nuclear weapons but bans landmines.
Then why is the pilot armed?
I was called away before I could finish my previous post. I had intended to write:
It is clearly lost on you, but fortunately is not forgotten by vast majority of British (and other Western) soldiers who have been routinely faced with handling captured enemy combatants. On the rare occasion when they have not abided by this code of conduct, it is civilians like you that are very quick to cry foul and start demanding that heads roll.
It is clearly lost on you, but fortunately is not forgotten by vast majority of British (and other Western) soldiers who have been routinely faced with handling captured enemy combatants. On the rare occasion when they have not abided by this code of conduct, it is civilians like you that are very quick to cry foul and start demanding that heads roll.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not an argument of "reason" but agenda.
Shooting a pilot descending in a parachute has long been contrary to international law and conventions. The pistol carried by the descending pilot is insufficient to "wage war" with, but is a reasonable means of immediate self-defense from those who may first encounter the pilot on the ground with hostile intent - until lawful authorities arrive and capture the pilot in accordance with law and conventions.
By the way, many western air forces equip pilots with survival gear with which to cope with whatever conditions they find themselves in after a premature "landing". The pistol can be used and one of the tools for living off the land and protection until SAR or the local authorities arrive.
Now, as far as international law is concerned - where does Syria fit in? The Syrian government itself is guilty of numerous atrocities which would earn it a front row seat as the accused in an international court. ISIL has not exactly been a model of compliance with any law.
The Turkish act against the Russian airplane was probably not wise, but it was reasoned. This and other Russian airplanes have both been violating Turkish airspace in spite of adequate warnings and bombing Turkish allies, rather than ISIL, on the ground in Syria near the Turkish border. Remember that Turkey is adjacent to all this violence and would naturally wish to influence events in favor of their own security. It doesn't really matter where the SU-24 was when hit by the missile. The airplane had already crossed Turkish airspace more than once and can be classified as "unfriendly". The airspace was not exactly under Syria control at the time either, so claims of violating Syrian airspace sounds a bit strange considering all the US, French and other air activity over the country.
Shooting a pilot descending in a parachute has long been contrary to international law and conventions. The pistol carried by the descending pilot is insufficient to "wage war" with, but is a reasonable means of immediate self-defense from those who may first encounter the pilot on the ground with hostile intent - until lawful authorities arrive and capture the pilot in accordance with law and conventions.
By the way, many western air forces equip pilots with survival gear with which to cope with whatever conditions they find themselves in after a premature "landing". The pistol can be used and one of the tools for living off the land and protection until SAR or the local authorities arrive.
Now, as far as international law is concerned - where does Syria fit in? The Syrian government itself is guilty of numerous atrocities which would earn it a front row seat as the accused in an international court. ISIL has not exactly been a model of compliance with any law.
The Turkish act against the Russian airplane was probably not wise, but it was reasoned. This and other Russian airplanes have both been violating Turkish airspace in spite of adequate warnings and bombing Turkish allies, rather than ISIL, on the ground in Syria near the Turkish border. Remember that Turkey is adjacent to all this violence and would naturally wish to influence events in favor of their own security. It doesn't really matter where the SU-24 was when hit by the missile. The airplane had already crossed Turkish airspace more than once and can be classified as "unfriendly". The airspace was not exactly under Syria control at the time either, so claims of violating Syrian airspace sounds a bit strange considering all the US, French and other air activity over the country.
Courtney, everything you have said is blindingly obvious to all right thinking people. PPRUNE is a broad church though, and not all the congregation is right thinking unfortunately. Far from it in some cases.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airspace was not exactly under Syria control at the time either, so claims of violating Syrian airspace sounds a bit strange considering all the US, French and other air activity over the country.
Like it or not but Syria has a sovereign government, Russia is there at their invite and it looks like Turkey launched a missile into Syrian airspace to destroy an aircraft that they knew was of no danger to Turkey itself. This was a political move to prevent Russia taking on Turkey's proxy fighters in Syria, and to prevent any knock on help being given to the Kurds. Turkey is certainly no paragon of virtue.
On a side note, Turkey is also probably miffed with Russia for pointing out and destroying the 1,000s of the Daesh oil tankers that were supplying Turkey with cheap oil.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the Agenda?
Picking up on the agenda point above.
There has been a lot of comment that the Russian air effort was not initially focussed on the elimination of IS.
There are reports that the Turks had made comments to the Russians about not breaching the territorial integrity of Turkey after some previous incursions or very close calls.
So the Russian targeting strategy was alleged to have changed and they were focussing on IS. One could then ask why were they bombing Turkman "rebel forces", next to the Turkish Border, as I understand it the Turkmen are staunch foes of Bashar al-Assad, having not really been recognised as an ethnic group by the Syrian Government, according to the BBC web site the Turks have trained and I assume equipped the Turkmen.
I have never heard of the Turkmen being allied to IS, indeed there are reports of the Turkmen and Kurdish forces fighting IS. Implicitly attacking the well equipped Turkmen is contrary to the stated Russian aim of destroying IS/ISIL etc.
So was Russia attacking Turkmen near the Turkish border in the hope of getting Turkey to respond as it did? And of course why? To split NATO and Turkey?
Remembering that the Syrians shot down a Turkish F4 for a not dissimilar incursion a few years ago, was the Su 24 obviously a Russian one in any case as the Syrian Air Force has them I understand.
There has been a lot of comment that the Russian air effort was not initially focussed on the elimination of IS.
There are reports that the Turks had made comments to the Russians about not breaching the territorial integrity of Turkey after some previous incursions or very close calls.
So the Russian targeting strategy was alleged to have changed and they were focussing on IS. One could then ask why were they bombing Turkman "rebel forces", next to the Turkish Border, as I understand it the Turkmen are staunch foes of Bashar al-Assad, having not really been recognised as an ethnic group by the Syrian Government, according to the BBC web site the Turks have trained and I assume equipped the Turkmen.
I have never heard of the Turkmen being allied to IS, indeed there are reports of the Turkmen and Kurdish forces fighting IS. Implicitly attacking the well equipped Turkmen is contrary to the stated Russian aim of destroying IS/ISIL etc.
So was Russia attacking Turkmen near the Turkish border in the hope of getting Turkey to respond as it did? And of course why? To split NATO and Turkey?
Remembering that the Syrians shot down a Turkish F4 for a not dissimilar incursion a few years ago, was the Su 24 obviously a Russian one in any case as the Syrian Air Force has them I understand.
Last edited by PhilipG; 25th Nov 2015 at 15:14. Reason: Added last sentence about F4 being shot down
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated in 2012 that a “short-term border violation can never be a pretext for attack” after a Turkish jet was shot down over Syrian territory
Russia accuses Turkey of 'hypocrisy' after Erdogan admits airspace violation 'does not justify attack' | Europe | News | The Independent
I agree with your point, SkyHawk. Interesting to note that Russia has said it will not cut off gas supplies to Turkey over this. This leads me back to your earlier question, which got slightly lost in the morality of bombing thread drift. A Russian news presenter interviewed on BBC's Newsnight last night appeared to know that Russia now intends to add fighter escort to its aircraft in that area (although she mistakenly said bombers). I doubt it currently suits their agenda to escalate this too much.
Now that is an interesting point. I'm sure they will argue that it does in that they pose a clear threat to their operational objectives. And, as you say, they have some legal right to be operating in Syria at the invitation of the national leadership - like it or not. So I would think that Turkey's little game play here may well have handed Russia the trump card they needed to fend off any international pressure to focus on ISIS instead of the rebels.
Originally Posted by SkyHawk
A question I haven't seen asked yet. As the Russians were shot at by 'moderate forces', killing one of their pilots and a naval infantryman, and destroying a Mi-8 helicopter being used in the rescue, does that now make them a legitimate Russian target?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland Pulfrew
Quote:
To who? In who's eyes is it legal, ethical or moral?
The International Criminal Court for one???
Well I'm sure that's a comfort to any bomber pilot that hits the silk over enemy territory! I wonder why the Rules of War, the Treaties and Conventions didn't save this Russian pilot or his poor Jordanain opponent burnt alive in a cage?
Why is it that organised regular forces pay heed to conventions & treaties but irregular forces not seem keen?
What's the link?
Quote:
To who? In who's eyes is it legal, ethical or moral?
The International Criminal Court for one???
Well I'm sure that's a comfort to any bomber pilot that hits the silk over enemy territory! I wonder why the Rules of War, the Treaties and Conventions didn't save this Russian pilot or his poor Jordanain opponent burnt alive in a cage?
Why is it that organised regular forces pay heed to conventions & treaties but irregular forces not seem keen?
What's the link?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil: It is clearly lost on you.
Sheesh.. it's like arguing with a female complete with pithy comments, erronious alegations & personal accusations. You even accusing me of having certain thoughts and I havn't had that since the dark ages ended before a judge!
Courtney? That the female spelling?
Sheesh.. it's like arguing with a female complete with pithy comments, erronious alegations & personal accusations. You even accusing me of having certain thoughts and I havn't had that since the dark ages ended before a judge!
Courtney? That the female spelling?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very bad news from Syria
Irrespective of who violated who's air space, in view of the situation in that area, I woul have thouight a very stiff note to the Russians would have been a better response.
There is no good outcome.
Some of the people fighting Assad are worse than Assad.
There is no good outcome.
Some of the people fighting Assad are worse than Assad.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip G,
Your conclusions are correct. But not only are the northern rebels Turkish trained and supported, they also have a good deal of US equipment.
CM and SkyHawkN,
I have heard similar thoughts here too. It may be a day or two before we hear much more, but Putin is never going to miss an opportunity like this. He will certainly be back with greater self-protection and he certainly won't shift his objectives.
The Civil Civillian,
I recommend dropping that line of argument - probably worth a different thread if you wish to discuss morality legality and International Law. Apart from anything else you've just descended into personal abuse and a rather childish tone. Not welcome here.
I've done some fag-packet maths too and although I can find a couple of ways to make the time of flight 40 seconds (roughly the time between Su 24 leaving Turkish airspace and missile impact) they don't easily work with the alleged positions on any of the published plots.
M2
Your conclusions are correct. But not only are the northern rebels Turkish trained and supported, they also have a good deal of US equipment.
CM and SkyHawkN,
I have heard similar thoughts here too. It may be a day or two before we hear much more, but Putin is never going to miss an opportunity like this. He will certainly be back with greater self-protection and he certainly won't shift his objectives.
The Civil Civillian,
I recommend dropping that line of argument - probably worth a different thread if you wish to discuss morality legality and International Law. Apart from anything else you've just descended into personal abuse and a rather childish tone. Not welcome here.
I've done some fag-packet maths too and although I can find a couple of ways to make the time of flight 40 seconds (roughly the time between Su 24 leaving Turkish airspace and missile impact) they don't easily work with the alleged positions on any of the published plots.
M2
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
\Well well well, Courtney accused of being a woman. Seen everything now.