On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
They are not! I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
We both know the greeks would not do something like that.. there was enough warning from the turks and the russians should have been smarter.
On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
They are not! I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
We both know the greeks would not do something like that.. there was enough warning from the turks and the russians should have been smarter.
What is that supposed to mean? Either you think, the Turks had the right to shot down the plane or you think they had not. 'Enough warning' and 'the other side should have been smarter' does not change rules!
On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
They are not! I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
We both know the greeks would not do something like that.. there was enough warning from the turks and the russians should have been smarter.
What is that supposed to mean? Either you think, the Turks had the right to shot down the plane or you think they had not. 'Enough warning' and 'the other side should have been smarter' does not change rules!
The rules (NATO rules of engagement):
a) You must visually intercept the aircraft and have visual contact with the pilot
b) If the aircraft is on an exit course of an extremely narrow band of airspace, interception is uncalled for
c) At the halfway point, an aircraft encroaching upon airspace if on an exit course, has complied with warnings and orders and cannot be fired upon
d) The minute the aircraft is out of your airspace, it cannot be fired upon and you must turn around and go home
e) If you know the purpose of an aircraft operating close to the border, accidental encroachment is allowed and necessitates no scramble or interception, unless the aircraft is on a path into your country with no defined exit point. if the aircraft is military and clearly armed, an airborne sentry consisting of an interception squadron is encouraged to fly a holding pattern along the border for quick turnaround. (note, that doesnt have shootdown or even radar lock anywhere in the definition of turn around)
f) Do not fire upon an aircraft that is leaving or has left airspace. it is an act of war that bars you from inciting article 5, as nato is a defensive military organization and article 5 only covers a nation attacking a nato country without direct provocation of that country, or an objective act of war against your now present aggressor.
zeo: The thing you linked doesn't appear to match the things you're saying; or at least I'm not seeing what you said within it. Can you verify you have the proper link, including necessary additional links, and where in the document the things you say appear?
They were warned, not minutes or seconds before the shooting. But at least a month before the shooting. Scandinavia and the UK have to deal with this crap all the time. Russian planes acting like bad-children in their airspace.
I'm sorry, but imo, Russia seems to me to love two things more than anything else: 1) Bullshit. 2) Provocation.
It's amazing this incident didn't happen a lot sooner. This incident was inevitable. It was guaranteed to happen.
Countries don't have to tolerate Russia consistently violating others' airspaces just because shooting back "wouldn't be smart". After a while, it's not even a matter of smart, it's a matter of whether your words and your borders actually mean anything.
Turkey's handling of the Kurds, ISIS, etc.... I'm not saying anything about that. All that matters here is Russia was told, repeatedly, to not fly here, and like a bad-child, it reacted in the "you don't get to tell me what to do" manner. It really is that simple.
I find funny how much people moan about that Russian plane violated the air space of Turkey like its so big of a threat, having in mind how much times that happened by the turkish airplanes.
Its really funny, because if that happened, it was for less than 10 seconds with the speed of that plane.
Russia say there were no warnings from Turkey side why you ignore that completelly? The only warnings we heard was audio recording about the plane closing turkey airspace nothing more, is that really stands out? Confirmed the plane was downed on syrian territory. According to Turkey they gave ten warnings in 5 minutes. Do you really believe this? That bomber was EMPTY and it was returning from a mission, people at the turkish radar stations shouldve been well aware of whats happening in the region and what exactly this plain does there, arent they?
No matter what i dont think that downing a plane is a good decision in any case, this is playing with fire.
On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
They are not! I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
We both know the greeks would not do something like that.. there was enough warning from the turks and the russians should have been smarter.
What is that supposed to mean? Either you think, the Turks had the right to shot down the plane or you think they had not. 'Enough warning' and 'the other side should have been smarter' does not change rules!
The rules (NATO rules of engagement):
a) You must visually intercept the aircraft and have visual contact with the pilot
b) If the aircraft is on an exit course of an extremely narrow band of airspace, interception is uncalled for
c) At the halfway point, an aircraft encroaching upon airspace if on an exit course, has complied with warnings and orders and cannot be fired upon
d) The minute the aircraft is out of your airspace, it cannot be fired upon and you must turn around and go home
e) If you know the purpose of an aircraft operating close to the border, accidental encroachment is allowed and necessitates no scramble or interception, unless the aircraft is on a path into your country with no defined exit point. if the aircraft is military and clearly armed, an airborne sentry consisting of an interception squadron is encouraged to fly a holding pattern along the border for quick turnaround. (note, that doesnt have shootdown or even radar lock anywhere in the definition of turn around)
f) Do not fire upon an aircraft that is leaving or has left airspace. it is an act of war that bars you from inciting article 5, as nato is a defensive military organization and article 5 only covers a nation attacking a nato country without direct provocation of that country, or an objective act of war against your now present aggressor.
WTF this sort of misinformation should be bannable. NOTHING in the link says what has been written. The link is a suggestion on the defintion of hostile aircaft and how to deal with them. Nowhere is it implied that it is adopted by NATO countries. It is also being spammed across the internet right now with the exact same words, and the exact same link. Either Zeo has hundreds of accounts across the internet or Zeo is a stooge of kremlin. Next time Zeo, I suggest you actually read your own link before asking others to do so.
On November 27 2015 08:59 farvacola wrote: zeo has repeatedly shown himself unable or unwilling to deal in reality, so it's best to just ignore him.
...and he was one of the few people responsible for getting the Ukraine Thread locked due to derailing discussions, posting fake sources and the general behavior that you can witness in this thread as well.
Since the mods are, for whatever reason, unwilling to ban him, ignoring him is the best course of action.
Don't see any direct support for the "rules of engagement" as highlighted, but I did notice something else about the NATO document: its rules of engagements are primarily directed towards the threat of heavy bombardment or nuclear weapons, where a slip-up could lead to severe damage being inflicted upon the nation that is being trespassed upon. In that light, shooting down a spent bomber with a known purpose sent by a nation which, while not necessarily an ally, is hardly an enemy, is pretty poor judgment. This seems to be the conclusion of most people, even those who generally don't support Russia or its actions, with the exception of a minority for whom that anti-Russia sentiment is the primary concern.
All of this is, of course, assuming the Turkish version of the story.
They were warned, not minutes or seconds before the shooting. But at least a month before the shooting. Scandinavia and the UK have to deal with this crap all the time. Russian planes acting like bad-children in their airspace.
I'm sorry, but imo, Russia seems to me to love two things more than anything else: 1) Bullshit. 2) Provocation.
It's amazing this incident didn't happen a lot sooner. This incident was inevitable. It was guaranteed to happen.
Countries don't have to tolerate Russia consistently violating others' airspaces just because shooting back "wouldn't be smart". After a while, it's not even a matter of smart, it's a matter of whether your words and your borders actually mean anything.
Turkey's handling of the Kurds, ISIS, etc.... I'm not saying anything about that. All that matters here is Russia was told, repeatedly, to not fly here, and like a bad-child, it reacted in the "you don't get to tell me what to do" manner. It really is that simple.
Unfortunately (or perhaps very, very fortunately) gross oversimplifications like this isn't how the world works.
First, I'm not really all that sure that NATO actually supports what Turkey did here, although they would be stupid not to say they do because of the importance of officially supporting member nations. At most they will throw token sanctions towards Russia while acknowledging that they didn't do anything too unusual, though maybe not even that. Truth is that neither NATO nor Russia wants or benefits from conflict over what amounts to Turkey being petty and vindictive over Russian involvement in Syria. Because violation or not, that's really the only reason Turkey would shoot down that plane.
Second, all nations that aren't exactly on friendly terms use token provocation very frequently. That is nothing out of the ordinary. Shooting down planes for minor and non-aggressive violations is far from ordinary - in fact it has been 50 years since the last time a NATO country shot down a Russian plane that way. While I do think that a lot of the recent (past 2 years) Russian airspace violations were petty and pointless, being trigger-happy enough to shoot down a plane for what is clearly a non-aggressive violation does not paint Turkey in a favorable light.
On November 27 2015 03:47 zlefin wrote: zeo: The thing you linked doesn't appear to match the things you're saying; or at least I'm not seeing what you said within it. Can you verify you have the proper link, including necessary additional links, and where in the document the things you say appear?
Eh, my bad. Didn't read the source material, thought it was part of a larger document. Man, some of the posts under mine are just cringe worthy, get your priorities straight and stop derailing threads with backseat moderating and trolling. Just because you are unable to cope with different opinions doesn't mean everyone else can't. Take it to website feedback.
I guess rules of engagement being open source would be a bad idea now that I think about it. So take it with some reserve
Anyway: 'Israel won't down a Russian warplane if it enters its air space'
Israel will not take action against Russian fighter jets that encroach into its air space, a senior air force official said on Thursday.
The issue of Russian sorties in Syria was magnified in recent days after Turkey downed a Su-24 fighter jet that it claims entered its air space near the border.
According to Israeli military officials, such a scenario is not in danger of repeating itself in the skies over the Golan Heights.
"The Russian military is a new, key player which we are not ignoring," a senior military official told reporters on Thursday. "There is a clear boundary here, and they are busy with their matters, and we are busy with ours."
When asked if Israel would hypothetically intercept a Russian jet that crossed into its air space, the official said: "Our policy is that we do not attack or down anything that is Russian."
edit: Maybe relations between Israel and Russia will get better after this incident? I think everyone in the region is very nervous about the S-400 that just came in.
Russia and Israel have been pretty friendly for a while now. Not that Israel can afford to make enemies when it has a choice, seeing at how it has very strongly fallen from favor within the EU over the past decades.
The Turkish army has suspended flights over Syria as part of an ongoing joint military campaign with the United States against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) after it shot down a Russian jetfighter, sparking an unprecedented crisis between Ankara and Moscow.
The decision was taken following the eruption of the crisis with Russia in which a Turkish F-16 downed a Russian warplane early Nov. 24 after it allegedly violated Turkish airspace, according to diplomatic sources.
Sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that the suspension of the Turkish jetfighters’ participation in the U.S.-led military operations against ISIL was in fact a mutual decision taken with Russia, which also halted its aerial campaigns near the Turkish border. Both parties will continue to be as careful as possible in a bid to avoid a repetition of such incidents until they re-establish dialogue channels to reduce the tension.
On November 27 2015 16:47 LegalLord wrote: Russia and Israel have been pretty friendly for a while now. Not that Israel can afford to make enemies when it has a choice, seeing at how it has very strongly fallen from favor within the EU over the past decades.
Well they have been a bit frosty over Syria. Not just because of Golan, Israel has been pushing hard for Assad to go and even flew bombing missions into Syria. Also Russia and Iran becoming best buds should be making people in Tel Aviv nervous by default.
edit: Reading the Tukey not flying into Syria anymore article. Yeah, thats to be expected. Turkey effectively kicked itself out anything to do with post-war Syria anymore, they have given Russia the perfect opportunity to take control of the air. Deploying S-400 SAM's at the beginning would have caused a shitstorm because why would Russia need anti-air that could take out F-35's if only Assad has aircraft in the war.
Now there is no way Assad can be taken out of office in a 'democratic' air campaign some time in the future. Not that Russia would waste a s-400 missile on a Turkish F-16. The S-400 is there as a huge bargaining chip against NATO intervention.
Also a BBC video about the coalition air-strike frequency.
On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
They are not! I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
We both know the greeks would not do something like that.. there was enough warning from the turks and the russians should have been smarter.
What is that supposed to mean? Either you think, the Turks had the right to shot down the plane or you think they had not. 'Enough warning' and 'the other side should have been smarter' does not change rules!
The rules (NATO rules of engagement):
a) You must visually intercept the aircraft and have visual contact with the pilot
b) If the aircraft is on an exit course of an extremely narrow band of airspace, interception is uncalled for
c) At the halfway point, an aircraft encroaching upon airspace if on an exit course, has complied with warnings and orders and cannot be fired upon
d) The minute the aircraft is out of your airspace, it cannot be fired upon and you must turn around and go home
e) If you know the purpose of an aircraft operating close to the border, accidental encroachment is allowed and necessitates no scramble or interception, unless the aircraft is on a path into your country with no defined exit point. if the aircraft is military and clearly armed, an airborne sentry consisting of an interception squadron is encouraged to fly a holding pattern along the border for quick turnaround. (note, that doesnt have shootdown or even radar lock anywhere in the definition of turn around)
f) Do not fire upon an aircraft that is leaving or has left airspace. it is an act of war that bars you from inciting article 5, as nato is a defensive military organization and article 5 only covers a nation attacking a nato country without direct provocation of that country, or an objective act of war against your now present aggressor.
WTF this sort of misinformation should be bannable. NOTHING in the link says what has been written. The link is a suggestion on the defintion of hostile aircaft and how to deal with them. Nowhere is it implied that it is adopted by NATO countries. It is also being spammed across the internet right now with the exact same words, and the exact same link. Either Zeo has hundreds of accounts across the internet or Zeo is a stooge of kremlin. Next time Zeo, I suggest you actually read your own link before asking others to do so.
Read carefully indeed.
it's not misinformation, it's straight up disinformation, a long time tactic of kremlin trolls
On November 27 2015 03:47 zlefin wrote: zeo: The thing you linked doesn't appear to match the things you're saying; or at least I'm not seeing what you said within it. Can you verify you have the proper link, including necessary additional links, and where in the document the things you say appear?
Eh, my bad. Didn't read the source material, thought it was part of a larger document. Man, some of the posts under mine are just cringe worthy, get your priorities straight and stop derailing threads with backseat moderating and trolling. Just because you are unable to cope with different opinions doesn't mean everyone else can't. Take it to website feedback.
I guess rules of engagement being open source would be a bad idea now that I think about it. So take it with some reserve.
This is not a matter differing opinions. You pasted blatant Russian misinformation. This is not the first time you are doing this. Either you are incapable of critical thinking or you are just trolling here...
Yet I think Russia is overreacting now too with all the measures they take. Hope everybody takes a chill pill.
It's hard for both Russia and Turkey to take a chill pill because they're both very nationalistic and both Putin and Erdogan have been going for a more nationalistic course to get reelected/ gain popularity. Basically the reason why the plane was shot is also why it's hard to back down now. At least publicly. I doubt it'll escalate more than sanctions.
On November 27 2015 03:47 zlefin wrote: zeo: The thing you linked doesn't appear to match the things you're saying; or at least I'm not seeing what you said within it. Can you verify you have the proper link, including necessary additional links, and where in the document the things you say appear?
Eh, my bad. Didn't read the source material, thought it was part of a larger document. Man, some of the posts under mine are just cringe worthy, get your priorities straight and stop derailing threads with backseat moderating and trolling. Just because you are unable to cope with different opinions doesn't mean everyone else can't. Take it to website feedback.
I guess rules of engagement being open source would be a bad idea now that I think about it. So take it with some reserve.
This is not a matter differing opinions. You pasted blatant Russian misinformation. This is not the first time you are doing this. Either you are incapable of critical thinking or you are just trolling here...
He has shown in the past that he is willing to support Russia reagrdless of circumstances (was painfully obvious in Ukraine-War thread before it was closed). And yes, he often posts Kremlins propaganda.
EPT![[image loading]](http://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GreekAirspace-011-714x472.png)
