Turkey shoots down Russian jet

a reply to: stumason

Irrelevant - for starters, the PM does not even need Parliament's permission for military action, it was a courtesy that vote.

Irrelevant or not. I am just tating what have been the issue in the UK when it comes to UK jets bombing in Syriaa. The other issue that was broght up was; what IF one got shot Down over Syria. What kind of repsonds is agreed upon? And there is no agreement. And that is quite relevant dont you think?

UK jets have been doing bombing rund in Syria whitout premission. The UK military is saying it can do so according to the coallition. But they dont get to Call the shots when it comes to where Uk jets are to do missions.

Syrian Army Liberates 5 Towns in Hama With Support of Russian Aviation

sputniknews.com...

"The advance of the Syrian troops began after Russian airstrikes. As a result, dozens of terrorists were killed, others chose to flee," Colonel Ibrahim S. told RIA Novosti.

originally posted by: spy66

UK jets have been doing bombing rund in Syria whitout premission.

This is incorrect as the west has permission to attack ISIS in Syria.

Syria welcomes U.S. strikes against ISIS there, with conditions

"Syria is ready to cooperate and coordinate with regional and international efforts to combat terror in accordance with U.N. resolutions and respect of Syrian sovereignty," Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a press conference in Damascus.

"Everyone is welcome, including Britain and the United States, to take action against ISIS and Nusra with a prior full coordination with the Syrian government," al-Moallem continued.

The foreign minister warned that any action taken without direct agreement from Damascus would be an "aggression" against Syrian territory and that Syria would not stay idle.

Syria says U.S. informed it of planned attack on Islamists hours before air strikes

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria said on Tuesday that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had told the Damascus government in a letter delivered by Iraq that the United States and its allies were going to attack Islamic State in Syria, hours before the air strikes took place.

Damascus, which had said any air strikes on Syria must have its approval, did not condemn the attacks launched by the United States with the help of Gulf states and Jordan against Islamic State and al Qaeda-affiliated militants.

A Syrian analyst interviewed on tightly-controlled Syrian state TV said the air strikes did not amount to an act of aggression because the government had been notified in advance.

originally posted by: spy66
Irrelevant or not. I am just tating what have been the issue in the UK when it comes to UK jets bombing in Syriaa.

UK jets aren't bombing Syria...

originally posted by: spy66
The other issue that was broght up was; what IF one got shot Down over Syria. What kind of repsonds is agreed upon? And there is no agreement. And that is quite relevant dont you think?

The SAS (or other SF) would go and rescue him, the same as what would happen anywhere else.

originally posted by: spy66
UK jets have been doing bombing rund in Syria whitout premission.

No, they haven't. No UK jets have attacked anything in Syria.

originally posted by: spy66
The UK military is saying it can do so according to the coallition. But they dont get to Call the shots when it comes to where Uk jets are to do missions.

No, that is solely down to the PM, acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. No one else, not even Parliament, can tell the UK military what to do - they don't answer to Parliament.

a reply to: victor7

sputniknews.com...

So says the most recent mouthpiece for the Kremlin.

Was this an oops?

HUGH HEWITT:

Turkey, a NATO ally shot down a Russian jet this morning. We have no idea what this world's going to be like in a year.

NBC

a reply to: JonStone

This is not confirmation but repeating of a rumor that's never been confirmed by anyone. Mr. Hewitt offered nothing to substantiate the claim.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was in the course of a conversation, I doubt he would have said it if he couldn't back it up. He's not just some blogger with a Website. Eitherway, he believes it to be true.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is incorrect as the west has permission to attack ISIS in Syria.

No it is not incorrect. No permission was given or even asked.

www.washingtonpost.com /world/national-security/around-world-mixed-reaction-to-us-led-airstrikes-in-syria/ 2014/09/23/16985bb6-4352-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html

The reaction from Damascus was somewhat opaque. The Syrian Foreign Ministry simply noted that before the bombing started, Washington had notified Damascus through its envoy to the United Nations. U.S. officials countered that they had provided only a general warning about the possibility of military action and had not coordinated with Assad’s government.

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. did not request permission from the Syrian government, nor did it coordinate its actions with the Syrian government, provide direct notification to the Syrian military or give indication of timing on specific targets, but it did notify the Syrian U.N. representative, which the Syrian government confirmed.[119] Before the airstrikes began, the United States also informed Iran, the Assad government's largest regional ally, of their intention to launch airstrikes. It did not share specific timing or targets of strikes with the Iranian government but reportedly assured it that the US would not strike any Syrian government targets.[120

Syria had no real choice in the matter, this doesn't mean they gave permission. The fact that they didn't declare war on the US, doesn't mean they gave permission. Just because an analist says something on Syrian tv, doesn't mean they gave permission.

There is no legal basis for this.

The US and other countries are just ignoring international law.

a reply to: RogueWave

You've tried the same failed argument in other threads with regards to bombing in Syria and Syria being ok with it. It sounds like your issue should be taken up with the Syrian government since the strikes are authorized.

That's confirmed by the Syrian governments position on the matter, as has been pointed out in the article linked.

Got something that says otherwise other than your interpretation? Something from Syria?

a reply to: RogueWave

No legal basis? There is, actually...

As I said before, the US has a perfectly legal justification for strikes against IS in Syria. They were requested to help fight IS by Iraq, seeing as IS is a cross border threat it is legally justifiable to strike them wherever they are. This same argument has been used by many nations the world over.

The US/coalition action is perfectly legal.

originally posted by: JonStone
a reply to: Xcathdra

It was in the course of a conversation, I doubt he would have said it if he couldn't back it up. He's not just some blogger with a Website. Eitherway, he believes it to be true.

and yet he offers nothing to back it up...

Until official confirmation comes it never occurred.

a reply to: stumason

UK jets aren't bombing Syria...

Yes they are. www.theguardian.com...

David Cameron knew UK pilots were bombing Isis in Syria

David Cameron knew UK pilots were involved in US-led bombing missions of Isis targets in Syria, even though parliament had expressly rejected British military involvement in the country in 2013.


Prime minister’s spokeswoman says he knew that up to a dozen pilots had been involved in US air strikes since September.

The prime minister’s spokeswoman said on Friday that up to a dozen pilots had been involved since September, but they were not operating under a British chain of command. “The PM was aware that UK personnel were involved in US operations and what they were doing.”

Details of British personnel’s involvement in strikes by allied nations’ forces were revealed by a freedom of information request by the pressure group Reprieve.

If things keep escalating, America needs to invade Russia.

originally posted by: Blissful
If things keep escalating, America needs to invade Russia.

How is that going to end for us you think?

originally posted by: spy66
Yes they are.

No, they're not. Read your own damned source.

EDIT: It's a damning indictment of the level of intelligence around here people star your rubbish.

a reply to: Xcathdra

At what point did they ask permission then? And what point did they get it? Did you not read what I just posted. Are you saying that it isn't true or are you just ignoring it?

a reply to: spy66

If China doesn't get involved, poorly for Russia. I don't want a war to happen, but Russia's been encroaching upon the U.S.'s geographical and political territory for far too long.

War's not something I want to happen. The safety of our world's citizens is. Sadly, Russia's leading in the opposite direction. If China gets involved, I'll be very fearful.

a reply to: stumason

As I said before, the US has a perfectly legal justification for strikes against IS in Syria. They were requested to help fight IS by Iraq, seeing as IS is a cross border threat it is legally justifiable to strike them wherever they are. This same argument has been used by many nations the world over. The US/coalition action is perfectly legal.

Nonsense. Syria is not Iraq is it now?

International law states that for intervention in a souvereign state there has to be a UN mandate, or permission by that state. There is no UN mandate and US doesn't have permission. They didn't even bother to ask but just went ahead.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: spy66
Yes they are.

No, they're not. Read your own damned source.

EDIT: It's a damning indictment of the level of intelligence around here people star your rubbish.

Jesse's You live in the Uk you should know this better than me.

I Guess you will get it this week than.