Turkey's hypocrisy about the shoot down

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by AntiPimpage, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. #1 AntiPimpage, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    So as many of you know, Turkey shot down a Russian bomber...

    Turkey says Russia crossed into their air space for 17 seconds.

    Russia says they got close but they did not cross into Turkish airspace and flew around it despite being close (1 kilometer).

    So they shot it down... however there is a big problem. Back in 2012 a Turkish fighter violated Syrian airspace and was shot down. And at the time, the Turkish president said 'momentary violations of airspace is not cause to shoot a plane down'. Hypocritical much?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft
     
  2. #2 AntiPimpage, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Also former US General Wesley Clark:

    Turkey is supporting ISIS:

     
  3. They shot it down because russia is fighting IS now. And IS is fighting the kurds. Erdogan wants the kurds gone, so he'll do anything to keep IS safe. Plus the fact turkey gets cheap oil from IS and with russia bombing oil trucks and depots, erdogan is not happy
     
  4. That was expectable from the Turks
     
  5. yep

    Turkey dun goofed
     
  6. Even if that SU24 was a breach of airspace territory, there's absolutely nothing that can justify shooting parachutists and the #$%#ing rescue chopper on foreign territory. So sick and tired of erdogan's antikurd policies (like wute said earlier, getting rid of Kurds justifies (to him) collaborating with IS, rather than fighting against them). This can be classified under war crimes (Geneva convention) right?

    Can NATO drop its solidarity with a NATO member after such incident? That's the question I really wonder about now. Because imho they lost all rights to this after this.
     
  7. I still want to know what comes of Turkey's claim that they tried to contact the plane like 10 times and it ignored them all 10 times. That's kinda a no-no in aviation, even military operations, espectially when you know you're that close to the border. I agree that momentary border crossings are not a reason for shooting down planes, but border crossings where you ignore the opponents communications look very suspect.
     
  8. the shooting of the helicopter is probably a hoax. I've seen the footage and the helicopter engine was shut down. that doesn't happen during an search and rescue mission, so its probably another helicopter, probably syrian or something
     
  9. I'm guessing this incident will be dismissed as a misunderstanding, forgiven and forgotten. Any monetary damage is easy to fix.
     
  10. And the chute?

    Thanks for clearing up the chopper story though
     
  11. It is absolutely a no-no to shoot at a parachuting pilot, just as it would be to shoot an unarmed soldier. They have no means by which to defend themselves.

    However, those that shot the pilots (Turkmen rebels) have at best an unofficial relationship with Turkey - they are undisputedly in Syria and responsible to the Syrian government. Although, obviously, the Syrian government is not in any position to enforce its own law.

    That said, the Turkmen have a level of organization (ie: the existence of officers, and divisions into discrete combat elements) that they could be considered a 'combatant' on their own, and therefore held accountable for war crimes independent of any formal state.
     
  12. Maybe it's a conspiracy.

    Accidentally start a war -> lose -> millions of Turkish refugees flee to Europe -> Islam takes control over Europe -> profit.
     
  13. The most surprising thing out of all this to me has been that Turkey is a NATO member
     
  14.  

    Attached Files:

  15. Putin is not going to let anything be forgiven or forgotten.
     
  16. The latter part worries me, because that'd imply that any proxy subculture has carte blanche (think Kurds or rebels in Ukraine, who have backing from bigger military powers too, but then not the responsibility?)
     
  17. Well Turkey's claim can't be legitimate. First they said they warned the plane AFTER it allegedly entered their airspace. Then when the press started asking, how do you warn a plane 10 times in under 17 seconds? Then they changed it to 10 times in 5 minutes when it was 'close'.

    Furthermore if the plane was traveling at or about 767 mph, that is .21313 miles per second. The alleged breach was over a border area of 2 miles in width. So that means it would take 9.3839 seconds to go 2 miles. How does that equate to a 17 second breach? That doesn't make much sense in my opinion.
     
  18. He won't go to war.

    Right now, they said something about not importing food products from Turkey for a while. Boo hoo.
     
  19. What else can you do, if you want treaties that can be enforced uniformly? You cannot hold state responsible for the fact that terrorists exist in their borders or hold their passports - it would be ridiculous for Canada to blame India for the Air India Bombing, and it'd be ridiculous for France to blame Belgium for the recent attacks, for example. The best we can do is state that if a group has some sense of organization (has an identifiable leadership, for example), that it qualifies as a state for the purposes of the laws of war - this was the entire justification for the war in Afghanistan.
     
  20. Well, the least I'd expect (from a humane point of view, not realistic expectation) is an Erdogan that regrets what happened, who distances himself from these actions and at least makes a statement that they will be dealt with, in this case? From what I gather Turkey doesn't seem to have much of a problem with what happened. Maybe it's a shade of grey here, but if you're not against such things happening, you're very much for it, imho.

    But, I must also say, that this has become one of the more interesting battles, because what makes it different compared to previous wars is that it isn't territory versus territory, but that "the enemy" is already within the borders. It's like trying to cure cancer while doing as little damage to good cells as possible and I think that's globally an awesome challenge. The only type of warfare that comes to mind in history that could be kind of similar, would be the guerilla type.
     
  21. I think there might have been a few guerrilla wars before...
     
  22. There have, but the sheer scale of this and the vast variety of environment of this particular situation, stretching over at least 3 continents, it's massive
     
  23. True. I see a lot of similarities to the larger European wars fought before the Congress of Vienna.

    -A large number of belligerents, switching sides was common

    -Religion was sometimes the casus belli and nearly always a factor

    -The concept of "total war" didn't really exist and complete mobilization of a society for war did not take place. The accounts of Dutch civilians selling cannon balls fired by the Spanish Navy back to them during the 80 Years' War somehow reminds me of the way weapons and oil switch hands in the today's Middle-Eastern conflict

    -A relatively low-intensity conflict could go on for extended periods of time with no decisive outcome, belligerents coming and going


     
  24. I think that's very accurate

    and damn, I thought I was the only one here who knew about that cannonball selling thing back then <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/grin.gif"></A>
     

Share This Page