There is some controversy about this . As you are probably well aware right now, Turkish F-16s shot down a rusian military Jet over the Syrian border. Out of the 2 pilots, one may have survived while the other has most likely been killed by Syrian rebels. The rescue chopper was also hit by the rebels and forced to make emergency landing in a friendlier zone nearby.
Whether there was a warning, or not was also a subject of much discussion. Turkish authorities reportedly claim that their pilots warned the Russian Jet at least once before locking on and shooting it down.
Here is where it gets complicated. Normally, during a violation of airspace and if the plane violating said airspace does not heed to the instructions it is given via radio, fighters are scrambled for interception. Standard procedure. However it seems highly unlikely that the Russian Jet did not respond to being intercepted like that. It is very unclear what happened but any 'sane' pilot would probably heed the warning of a fighter that is right behind and locked onto him, even if no airspace violation took place.
Russia is already hitting back hard in terms of economy. Some sources claim that all the benefits Turkey reaped from the Russian embargo are now gone and that move will inevitably harm the Turkish economy.
What are your thoughts on this? What do you think on the surrounding mystery? Did Turkey actually harm itself as some analysts claim?
That is still "ellected". It means chosen through a democratic procedure. Assad's regime began with his father but he wasn't elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014
Though surprisingly US sponsored non-government organizations didn't call them legitimate.
Though surprisingly US sponsored non-government organizations didn't call them legitimate.
The Ba'ath party still came to power in a coup. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were excluded from the voting procedure. If you exclude those that left, who do you think the people that remained will vote for? You think they really were legitimate?
The Ba'ath party still came to power in a coup. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were excluded from the voting procedure. If you exclude those that left, who do you think the people that remained will vote for? You think they really were legitimate?
Let's put cubes into holes:
1. Wikipedia article states that millions of people, which leaved Syria due to war, were able to vote in the embassies.
2. I don't recall multimillion protests with "we voted against Assad, but voting count says we vote for him".
3. US didn't let people to vote in Syrian embassy. Why? If US would've believed that people DON'T support Assad, they would've aired it in prime time, right?
Wikipedia article states that millions of people, which leaved Syria due to war, were able to vote in the embassies.
Exactly the opposite. The article you've linked states that millions of Syrian refugees were NOT allowed to vote in the embassies because they didn't leave the country through official borders.
Υou do realize these elections had no kind of election monitoring whatsoever. right? You do realize that they were held in the middle of a civil war, with million(s) of refugees not being able to vote? You also do realize that not many people would dare take their chances with an authoritarian regime anyway out of fear?
And after all these you still think the elections were legitimate? There is much controversy over this. Syrian refugees not being able to vote was just one of the issues.
Υou do realize these elections had no kind of election monitoring whatsoever. right?
Wrong
Granted, US and its bit...khm,es allies and paid by US NGOs ignored them.
US usually does it when elected leader doesn't crawl on the knees before almighty US. They always can say "we ignored your elections, you are illegitimate". and bomb them.
You do realize that they were held in the middle of a civil war, with million(s) of refugees not being able to vote?
Didn't stop US from claiming Ukrainian elections as legitimate,
Was this million important? Let's assume that every one of them would've voted against Assad.
So, 10M for Assad, 1,8 against? Still Assad wins.
Let's take 8 millions, somehow Syrians breed by division.
10M and 8,8 against. Still Assad wins.
We are talking about "last straw" being put on the back of already dead camel.
You also do realize that not many people would dare take their chances with an authoritarian regime anyway out of fear?
Even people which fled to US? Why US didn't allow syrians vote in embassy? It would've shown their real votes, living on the other side of planet far from "evil tyrannical regime". Occam's razor tells that, their real votes would've been pro-Assad, whom US doesn't like.
And after all these you still think the elections were legitimate?
Let's assume that "good democratic moderate syrians" build democratic Syria and Evil tyrannical Assad build evil tyrannical Syria.
Does it sound familiar? For me - yes, North Korea and South Korea.
But I don't see such division in Syria with people fleeing from evil Assad to "moderate rebels controlled territories".
If such territory existed, it would've been advertised by US as "real centre of Syrian democracy".
Actually right, your link states that a delegation from 30 different countries, which are all Assad's allies concluded that the election process was free, fair and transparent. I am talking about an election process being monitored fron non government/other independent organizations to make sure it is a fair, thorough process that meets the international standards. That didn't happen in Syria.
Didn't stop US from claiming Ukrainian elections as legitimate,
Which is wholly irrelevant, since I didn't say anything about that and it is beside the point anyway.
We are talking about "last straw" being put on the back of already dead camel.
You seem to be missing my point. What you are saying is that Assad would have won anyway. What I am saying is that the elections were not democratic at all if millions of people couldn't vote, even if Assad would have won.
Even people which fled to US? Why US didn't allow syrians vote in embassy? It would've shown their real votes, living on the other side of planet far from "evil tyrannical regime". Occam's razor tells that, their real votes would've been pro-Assad, whom US doesn't like.
The US not allowing people to vote in the embassy could be a foul too(I don't know the real reason this happened). But that's totally irrelevant.
Let's assume that "good democratic moderate syrians" build democratic Syria and Evil tyrannical Assad build evil tyrannical Syria.
Does it sound familiar? For me - yes, North Korea and South Korea.
But I don't see such division in Syria with people fleeing from evil Assad to "moderate rebels controlled territories".
People don't just flee from the civil war, they flee because of the greater military powers' part in this war. With Russia bombing the rebels and NATO bombing ISIS, it is only natural that the Entire Syria is not a place to live in right now. Of course they wouldn't go to the 'rebel controlled territories', these are being bombed by Russia! What did you expect?
If such territory existed, it would've been advertised by US as "real centre of Syrian democracy".
That's just an assumption, which is also irrelevant to the point.
Actually right, your link states that a delegation from 30 different countries, which are all Assad's allies concluded that the election process was free, fair and transparent. I am talking about an election process being monitored fron non government/other independent organizations to make sure it is a fair, thorough process that meets the international standards. That didn't happen in Syria.
This is medieval level ****. "Until Pope does whatever-that-ritual-was-called, king isn't legible to rule"..."Until US/their pocket organization says that election process was democratic, leader isn't legible to rule"
So, if US doesn't send representatives to elections, they never would be legitimate? Sober up, please.
You seem to be missing my point. What I am saying is that the elections were not democratic at all if millions of people couldn't vote, even if Assad would have won.
People don't just flee from the civil war, they flee because of the greater military powers' part in this war. With Russia bombing the rebels and NATO bombing ISIS, it is only natural that the Entire Syria is not a place to live in right now. Of course they wouldn't go to the 'rebel controlled territories', these are being bombed by Russia! What did you expect?
For two years Russia didn't participate there at all. In these two years "moderate rebels" couldn't form "government in exile", couldn't find any leader to counterweight Assad, didn't create state structures (like ministry of education), don't have capital... And all this with billion dollar sending on them, which resulted in ISIS getting new Toyotas.
So, why I should think that they aren't gangs of bandits?
Because US calls them "good guys"?
I don't see any point there at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule is absolutely normal democratic process.
The point is that an election cannot be accepted as fair and democratic if parts of the population are prevented from voting and a climate of repression against opponents influences the results. Especially not when opponents are being arbitrarily arrested, detained and tortured [link]. If you don't see a problem with this, you don't really understand what democracy is about...
But, to get back to the argument that originally started this:
Innocent as in? Assad, legitimately elected leader, officially asked for help. Russia has all rights for being in Syria.
I never objected to the presence of Russian planes in Syria; besides, this is wholly irrelevant to the point I made. All I said is that given the previous incidents of airspace violation between Russia and other countries, it seems probable that this one falls into the same pattern. In retrospect, it appears a bit silly, considering that previous incidents were more 'reconnaissance' flights, while the recent incident happened in a completely different kind of situation.
Either way, there was clearly a lack of communication somewhere, When I say that Russia wasn't innocent, I don't necessarily mean they were knowingly planning something shady; I am just wondering why Russian pilots would not respond when addressed by officials of a country when nearing its territory. The same thing occurred in the previous cases I mentioned, which is why I first made the connection.
Well, the Greek PM just did a fiasco on Twitter regarding the Russian plane downing.
