Forums → WEPR → Russian Jet shot down - Syrian Crisis General Discussion

One pilot survived.
One was killed by turkish neonazists, advertised as syrian rebels.

One man from rescue team was killed too.

it was cold blooded murder.
Turkey knew route, it was told to NATO.
Turkish F-16 are based on airfield which is in 40mins of flying from the place where shooting happened. They waited for Russian jet.
There were killers on the ground. There were TV cameras and reporters from big agencies (Reuters and CNN), notice how good footage was made.

Why they did it?

500 trucks with ISIS oil destroyed by Russian bombs.
This oil goes to Turkey, to oil company, which belong to Bilal Erdogan. Yes, son of Turkish president.
Their family business dies, they are pissed and in anger did this error, intending to stop Russia from destroying their PERSONAL income, they don't give a single ***** about damage they do to poor turks which survive from exporting goods to Russia or serving to Russian tourists.

Sorry, forum broke link to video in previous post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDSs0ZIgHI4

Hmm, it may be that he was indeed killed by a Turkman fascist (who is also a Turkish citizen). I don't know about that. At any rate, I'd say that, especially if the motive you've presented is correct, killing the pilot seems like an overkill and unnecessary. If what you are saying is true then Turkey's primary objective was to stop the Jet from bombing the ISIS oil trucks. By shooting it down they did it. Mission accomplished for them. Killing the pilot afterwards only serves to damage the relations of Russia and Turkey further.

So I'd say that being a Turkish citizen or not (I am talking about the man who killed the pilot) probably did not play any part in his decision. He killed the pilot as a Turkman rebel, not as a Turkish soldier (most likely)

This oil goes to Turkey, to oil company, which belong to Bilal Erdogan. Yes, son of Turkish president.
Their family business dies, they are pissed and in anger did this error, intending to stop Russia from destroying their PERSONAL income, they don't give a single ***** about damage they do to poor turks which survive from exporting goods to Russia or serving to Russian tourists.

But, given that Russian bombings take place frequently, this seems like only a temporary act of defense, even if someone was dumb enough to think that shooting down the jet would not have a detrimental effect on his country's relations with the other country.

All I am saying is that while it is a possible motive (one we cannot ignore in the whole surrounding mystery), it seems like a very bold move. And to stop ONE plane from bombing the oil trucks that give Erdogan profit, he inevitably damaged his economy more as well as harmed the 2 countries' relations. So even Erdogan, for all the shady politics and the controversial stance towards ISIS must have weighted the pros and cons of this move.

Their intention wasn't to stop one specific jet from bombing, Erdogan wants from Russia to stop bombing of ISIS whatsoever, so he tried to escalate this situation to conflict between NATO and Russia.
Notice, to whom Erdogan called after jet was destroyed - he called to Obama.

It's naive to think that Erdogan cares about future of the Turkey after he leaves post. His money are in western banks, he definitely has property in EU and/or US, he would retire and leave Turkey.
Same about economy of the Turkey - yes, it's damaged. Does it damage Erdogan's businness? No. Likewise he can, and, probably, will send millions of turks to die for his business. It would be bad for turks and his country, but good for Erdogan.

I don't exclude that turkish opposition would try to overthrow him to prevent it, though.

It's naive to think that Erdogan cares about future of the Turkey after he leaves post.

Nor did I say so. But right now he still holds office. Turkey's economy being harmed means he suffers as well, at least to an extent.

Notice, to whom Erdogan called after jet was destroyed - he called to Obama.

Specifically he called NATO yes...but what else could he do? Call Russia? and say what? "Sorry we screwed up a bit"?

Calling NATO after the incident is the natural thing to do anyway. It doesn't explain the motive that much. I mean, whether he did or didn't plan it, whether it was or not an accident, he would've called NATO as would any nation-member probably.

Their intention wasn't to stop one specific jet from bombing, Erdogan wants from Russia to stop bombing of ISIS whatsoever, so he tried to escalate this situation to conflict between NATO and Russia.

So basically, just to stop Russia from bombing the oil trucks, they would risk World War 3? Even Erdogan can see the potential risks of this move, regardless of whether he cares about his country's future or not...

Not to mention that he probably knew nothing was going to stop. If Russia wants to bomb the oil trucks, it is easy for them. Sending Jets further away from the Syrian border with Turkey, is just one way to circumvent it. This act did nothing in the end but stop just one plane from bombing.

It's naive to think that Erdogan cares about future of the Turkey after he leaves post. His money are in western banks, he definitely has property in EU and/or US, he would retire and leave Turkey.
Same about economy of the Turkey - yes, it's damaged. Does it damage Erdogan's businness? No. Likewise he can, and, probably, will send millions of turks to die for his business. It would be bad for turks and his country, but good for Erdogan.

So basically, just to stop Russia from bombing the oil trucks, they would risk World War 3? Even Erdogan can see the potential risks of this move, regardless of whether he cares about his country's future or not...

Sending Jets further away from the Syrian border with Turkey, is just one way to circumvent it. This act did nothing in the end but stop just one plane from bombing.

Let's not forget that this would not be the first time Russian aircraft fly close to, or almost within, the air territory of a NATO member; there have been numerous incidents before in Europe. It is finally well known that Putin does not like the NATO, so I would not be surprised if this would be just one more provocation. The pilots could easily have been told what to say, which is why I don't consider their reports as 100% trustworthy either.

Sorry for emotions, I'm Ukrainian, lost a cousin in this conflict and the faster this Ukraine dies as independent state the better it is for my motherland.

So you agree that there are tensions between Russia and NATO. I never claimed the latter was altogether innocent, and I'd rather not delve too deep into this topic. My point was that the recent incident with Turkey falls into a familiar pattern that implies Russia is not as innocent as it tries to appear.

NB. I do not claim that Turkey is completely innocent either; both sides try to save their face but both are certainly guilty to some point. Your argument has the merit of proposing an actual motive, even though the reasoning behind it is faulty (Erdogan not caring about Turkey and doing it solely for the money, I mean).

So you agree that there are tensions between Russia and NATO.

-mod edit: vulgar picture removed-

,would NATO forces kill protesters when things get hot?
Right now US enjoys fining german banks and holding German gold, and I'm not even talking how badly US damaged French weapon producers when they blocked deal with Mistrals. France lost contract on 130 rafals.
3. Market for US weapon tech. "This is our standard, use it. I SAID USE IT". EU can't have own radioelectronics to be compatible with Silicon valley produced ones.
4. Mutual protection in NATO... Remember how NATO member invaded NATO member and annexed part of its territory, without any sanctions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

My point was that the recent incident with Turkey falls into a familiar pattern

Does the fact that http://www.theweek.co.uk/67305/turkey-violated-greek-airspace-more-than-2000-times-last-year bother you?

that implies Russia is not as innocent as it tries to appear

As for did violation of the border happened or not - that's dubious, it's safe to assume that airstrikes ARE being coordinated between Russia and NATO to some extent (to save spies, for example), fly routes also being discussed (like, "we know that this group has AA missilies, don't fly there)
Was downing justified even if it happened?
When Turkish jet was shot down over Syria in 2012, Erdogan said that "short violation shouldn't be the reason for shooting"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18598529
Hypocrisy much?

Does the fact that http://www.theweek.co.uk/67305/turkey-violated-greek-airspace-more-than-2000-times-last-year bother you?

I was about to bring that up to be honest. It is true. Happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Also true...plus another area being labeled grey zone (between Turkey and Greece) because of aggressive Turkish policy. Now I do agree Russia is being portrayed as far more evil in the West than it should be, given that the portrayers themselves have an equally controversial past. But all these, do not give Russia an excuse to act any way it wishes.

Also, I think the rest is somewhat emotionally loaded, which may be the reason your judgement is somewhat clouded. Not saying you are wrong altogether, but maybe you should reconsider some points. Both sides have done some really shady deeds. Like this:

Assad, legitimately elected leader, officially asked for help. Russia has all rights for being in Syria.

Which is still a subject of some controversy

I disagree.

Assad, legitimately elected leader,

Unlike "coalition to fight ISIS", whose actions resulted in ISIS gaining territory.

As for did violation of the border happened or not - that's dubious, it's safe to assume that airstrikes ARE being coordinated between Russia and NATO to some extent (to save spies, for example), fly routes also being discussed (like, "we know that this group has AA missilies, don't fly there)
Was downing justified even if it happened?

But all these, do not give Russia an excuse to act any way it wishes.

Which is still a subject of some controversy

Although as a greek you would feel it yourself soon

Νο need, we've already felt it thank you (we weren't exactly at our best after WW2 and the civil war.)

You know Russia was like that under Yeltsin. Resulted in default in 1998, and starvation in 1999. Can you imagine feelings when all you can afford 2*2g galina blanka cubs as daily ration for family of four?

While Yeltsin was indeed fascinated by his unofficial visit in the US, the real reason this happened was because at first (when he first assumed the role of the leader in the Russian Federation) he was overly liberal. That's what's lead to the anarchy that followed.

But anyway, you asked what's my opinion on how Russia should act. Like I said, there is some justification and I wasn't talking about the incident at hand in particular, only generally.

My opinion is that there are too many shady politics in the way for any opinion to be entirely accurate. There are so many things we don't know. All media are impartial, so don't assume that every fact has been laid on the table.

As evidenced by my previous post, I am not entirely disagreeing with you, only being a bit more skeptical.

It's pretty clear that people are eager to stand under his flag. Even as last stand. Two years long last stand. Aren't forced by him, they simply don't see better leader for their motherland right now.

Your link only states that "according to the regime itself" (which is highly impartial source of information obviously) and some independent sources that Bashar al Assad and his allies have broken the Islamic State's siege of Kweiris air base. I on the other hand challenged the legitimacy of his rule.

Sorry, I'm sarcastic person.

Your &quotersonal" opinion of the NATO has nothing to do with whether there are tensions or not, but your rant is evidence enough.

If anything it is a tad hypocritical, knowing that Russian media are not impartial either.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/427206/Putin-controlled-by-reptile-aliens-over-Ukraine-claims-Labour-councillor

Thing with media, it's how you put facts into perspective,

And talking with people is very annoying, when you get links to articles like
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/29/russia-gulag-camps-putin-nationalism-soviet-history
Which thoroughly written to cause emotions without any facts in them whatsoever. You know, "Said by anonymous source" ones.

I have serious doubts about his legitimacy considering there is a civil war going on in Syria.

Yes, the US helps the opposition, but ultimately they did not provoke it.

Don't forget that Assad is at the head of a regime that began with his father

and has always oppressed the opposition.

The effectiveness of the coalition is matter of debate, but it is actually targeting Daesh, unlike Putin who uses the fight against extremism as a pretense to fly to the help of his ally Assad. And unlike Erdogan who uses the same pretense to strike at the Kurds.

Another moment is that ISIS did start to lose territories after Russian strikes, plus now there are news about terrorists fleeing FROM ISIS in women clothes instead of inflow of people for mass jihad safari.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3279094/A-close-shave-Terrified-jihadists-leave-BEARDS-battlefield-shave-faces-dress-women-flee-Syria.html

But unless the evidence at hand has been investigated, you cannot discard the fact that there are audio recordings of Turkish officials warning Russian pilots not to enter Turkish territory.

I also don't think that NATO would confirm the 17 second border violation (oddly specific, isn't it) if there had not been any. Even they would have been aware of the situation it would create, and I don't see how they could profit from it.

In Canada was elected as premier-minister (highest post in Canada as far as I know) son of former premier-minister.

I have audio recordings of Armin van Buuren in my apartments, does it mean that he visited me yesterday?
You can't neither time stamp them nor link to coordinates.

He was talking about the article he linked, which is relevant, specifically mentions the time and day the Russian jet was shot down.

That is still "ellected". It means chosen through a democratic procedure. Assad's regime began with his father but he wasn't elected.

Also, sorry but countryballs are not evidence of anything. While a very funny comic indeed, it is full of stereotypes, practically shaped of them