Turkey Shoots Down Jet Near Syria Border
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Didn't they vote for him? Genuine question, no idea what the choices are in Turkey.
He did win the election amongst widespread allegations of vote rigging not to mention he has an iron control over all media including the internet, he regularly shuts down twitter and facebook for example, which has allowed him to sell whatever message he likes to the largely uneducated population. It's interesting to note that if you look at a map of how the voting in the country faired, the more affluent and well educated regions on the west coast all voted against him but wer outweighed by the larger poor or uneducated part of the population.
FourWheelDrift said:
2014 Turkish Presidential Elections result map shows the clear areas of backwards thinking.
By province top and district bottom.
Perfectly illustrates my point, the red areas are where most of the affluent, modern educated population live. It's where most of the tourist spots are too so getting to meet with people from all over the world, using the internet to obtain other points of view, international travel etc all means they are able to think for themselves and better question the powers-that-be. By province top and district bottom.
Unfortunately the great swathes of yellow are largely rural areas populated by people who have received a secondary school education (at best), these people watch TV where any channels which dare oppose the government are closed down immediately so the only message they get is very pro Erdogan. IMO The whole country is sleep-walking into a situation which could ultimately prove disastrous.
It reminds me of Iran, believe it or not Iran used to be a very moderate and modern country about 30 years until it was lead down the same path to fundamentalism and look where they are now.
Guvernator said:
Perfectly illustrates my point, the red areas are where most of the affluent, modern educated population live. It's where most of the tourist spots are too so getting to meet with people from all over the world, using the internet to obtain other points of view, international travel etc all means they are able to think for themselves and better question the powers-that-be.
Unfortunately the great swathes of yellow are largely rural areas populated by people who have received a secondary school education (at best), these people watch TV where any channels which dare oppose the government are closed down immediately so the only message they get is very pro Erdogan. IMO The whole country is sleep-walking into a situation which could ultimately prove disastrous.
It reminds me of Iran, believe it or not Iran used to be a very moderate and modern country about 30 years until it was lead down the same path to fundamentalism and look where they are now.
Agree with all the above. When you are in contact with educated Iranians, especially those that got out of Iran when the Shah was deposed, its hard to understand how Iran is where it is today. Turkey may very well go the same route but I hope not, would not be a good outcome for the west as Turkey is/was/should be a good example of a modern Islamic country.Unfortunately the great swathes of yellow are largely rural areas populated by people who have received a secondary school education (at best), these people watch TV where any channels which dare oppose the government are closed down immediately so the only message they get is very pro Erdogan. IMO The whole country is sleep-walking into a situation which could ultimately prove disastrous.
It reminds me of Iran, believe it or not Iran used to be a very moderate and modern country about 30 years until it was lead down the same path to fundamentalism and look where they are now.
Ayahuasca said:
ant leigh said:
Turkey is/was/should be a good example of a modern Islamic country.
When Ataturk set up modern Turkey one of the first things he did was abolish the Caliphate and make it a secular country. 
Digga said:
Countdown said:
otolith said:
Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.
Ok - who do we need to bomb to stop the refugees? There are 3 bunches of nutters here and the success or defeat of any of the 3 will lead to mass reprisals and continuing refugees.We did a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, we are still getting refugees...
We did a bit of bombing in Iraq, we are still getting refugees....
We did a bit of bombing in Libya, we are still getting refugees....
The grand, publicised withdrawal of Allied troops Iraq and Afghanistan - a favourite election pledge of Obama (understandable, due to the casualties being incurred) - saw a decay in much of the progress made in these territories. Doing it right and well is a very long term and costly exercise that, it would seem, Western governments perhaps have neither the pockets nor the stomach for.
Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same s
t, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time... 
yellowjack said:
It's a fact, that has been learned, and re-learned the hard way many times.
Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same st, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time...
spot on!Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same s
t, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time... yellowjack said:
It's a fact, that has been learned, and re-learned the hard way many times.
Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same st, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time...
Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same s
t, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time... 
Tannedbaldhead said:
It goes like this. Unfriendly jet in your airspace? Don't want it there? You can shoot it? No ifs no buts no maybes. Consequences? Doesn't matter. Jet's there. By right you can shoot it. So why not?
because it was already out of your airspace when you hit it, you are allowed to shoot intruder when he comes in your backyard uninvited (well, in some countries), but you are not allowed to shoot him when he gets back in his friend's backyard (which is what happened here according to BBC/turkish gov't source itself, the missile hit the plane while it was in syrian airspace)AreOut said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
It goes like this. Unfriendly jet in your airspace? Don't want it there? You can shoot it? No ifs no buts no maybes. Consequences? Doesn't matter. Jet's there. By right you can shoot it. So why not?
because it was already out of your airspace when you hit it, you are allowed to shoot intruder when he comes in your backyard uninvited (well, in some countries), but you are not allowed to shoot him when he gets back in his friend's backyard (which is what happened here according to BBC/turkish gov't source itself, the missile hit the plane while it was in syrian airspace)cirian75 said:
well if a military plane on a combat mission did not have it, that is a major fk up by Russia.
they were complacent, they had all their defense systems turned off and no fighter escort at all as they believed turksk up by Russia.so I guess it's quite a possibility they didn't listen to the channel they apparently had to. Only a mad man would ignore ten warnings and continue in a plane totally inept for air-to-air fight or evading any missiles or other flying objects(SU24 is not really maneuverable at altitude). Two of such in the same plane is nigh on impossible.
allnighter said:
The postman often crosses my front garden to deliver mail to properties either side of me even though he has nothing for me. Can I shoot him for trespassing? it takes him about the same time the Russian bomber did to cross the foreskin of Turkey's ego on the map. Answers on a postcard!
I had this exact same thought, having spotted the Pizza Menu delivery chimp crossing my front lawn yet again.Only I wasn't thinking about shooting him. Just punching him in the face. And then only after warning him that if he didn't stop crossing my lawn, I'd punch him in the face. Do you think Hampshire Constabulary's finest would accept that it was my right, under international law, to punch him in the face to punish him for repeated incursions into my sovereign territory?
I asked my wife the same question. After looking at me blankly for a moment she said "shut up and stop being a tit". I think she may have a point...
yellowjack said:
Digga said:
Countdown said:
otolith said:
Getting out and staying out is only really an option if you are willing to also say that the humanitarian and refugee crisis is none of our business either.
Ok - who do we need to bomb to stop the refugees? There are 3 bunches of nutters here and the success or defeat of any of the 3 will lead to mass reprisals and continuing refugees.We did a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, we are still getting refugees...
We did a bit of bombing in Iraq, we are still getting refugees....
We did a bit of bombing in Libya, we are still getting refugees....
The grand, publicised withdrawal of Allied troops Iraq and Afghanistan - a favourite election pledge of Obama (understandable, due to the casualties being incurred) - saw a decay in much of the progress made in these territories. Doing it right and well is a very long term and costly exercise that, it would seem, Western governments perhaps have neither the pockets nor the stomach for.
Tanks and air power can win you ground, but if you wish to hold that ground you will have to depend upon the humble infantry soldier.
You only have to look at Vietnam to see what happens when you fail to hold vital areas of high ground. Put soldiers/marines onto a hill by helicopter, sweep the enemy down into the valleys, then airlift the troops right back out again. Then repeat, ad infinitum. The same hills fought over again and again and again.
Bombing the rebels/ISIS/Assad won't destroy them completely. Yes, it'll drive them out of their current strongholds, but they'll move elsewhere and regroup. Domination of the ground is required, and infantry units are your best hope of doing that. Sadly, we (Western armies) go into operations like that with a strict set of 'Rules of Engagement', whereas our enemies simply do as they please. Sending troops into the region would be like sending a one-legged man to an arse kicking contest, and tying his arms behind his back for good measure.
FWIW I think we should put our 20p down on the corner of the pool table, and wait it out, to fight whoever wins. Trying to take sides right now will end badly. For one thing, you can't tell by looking which side any of them belong to. For another, if you ally yourself with one group, and then manage to defeat their enemies, your erstwhile allies will turn on you as soon as look at you. The sooner we accept that we have no real allies, nor friends in that region, the better. Politicians make arses of themselves, sucking up to first one group, then another, then ending up having to fight the very group to whom they sold our weapons in the first place.
Getting involved again out there? Bonkers. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. When will we learn that we simply don't know how to make things better in the Middle East? Our answer this time? Drones, combat aircraft, bombs and missiles. Same s
t, different grid square. It didn't work before, why convince ourselves that it'll work this time... IMO the price of 'getting involved' in Syria is that we swallow our pride, accept that we were not smart to try to accelerate the fall of the Assad regime - and do the best we can to act as additional air support for the Syrian army.
We should make clear to our 'friends' among the, er, 'conventional' Syrian revolutionaries that they need to commit to an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated future - or we will no longer consider them as friends and lump them in with Daesh as targets.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff