Turkey shot down Russian Jet: reportedly by two F16's

Turkish radar lol. U Turkey. I bet the Russian one is different.

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: Xcathdra

Even it did enter Turkish airspace, that fact that it left and entered Syrian airspace, shows that the pilots respected the warnings.

Turkey are in the wrong for shooting them down regardless.

Not really if it violated turkish airspace. Its not like this is the first time Russia did this and its not relevant it was in Syrian airspace when it was hit. It still intentionally violated Turkish airspace.

Can someone explain this please

“During the flight, the aircraft was flying within the borders of Syria, which was registered by objective monitoring data,” the ministry said, adding that the aircraft was "supposedly shot down from the ground.”

Supposedly shot down from the ground? How would this work??

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk
Russia, in either version, should have responded to warnings.

Oh, that part. Yes. When someone warns you that you are in their airspace the natural response is no I am not, not ignoring them. Russia does not deny they were warned about being in Turkish airspace. So in both versions Turkey said "you are in our airspace".

And back to my question. If they were in Syrian airspace, is it obligatory to respond to Turkey?

Obligatory? No. Smart? Yes. If someone claims I am doing something wrong, that I have been caught doing before, and I am not it's fairly stupid to keep going and ignoring them.

If I trespass on someone's property and they have caught me doing it, and they run up to me saying I am doing it again and ask why I am there holding a gun to my head it's very idiotic to ignore him and keep walking when I am a few steps off his property. Since I am not an idiot, I would say I am not on your property and I have no intention of entering it.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk
Russia, in either version, should have responded to warnings.

Oh, that part. Yes. When someone warns you that you are in their airspace the natural response is no I am not, not ignoring them. Russia does not deny they were warned about being in Turkish airspace. So in both versions Turkey said "you are in our airspace".

And back to my question. If they were in Syrian airspace, is it obligatory to respond to Turkey?

No, it's common sense that you do, just as you claimed that it's common sense for Turkey to just trust that Russia is there for ISIS and not them.
You can't claim the common sense excuse on one hand and then ignore it on the other.

Obligatory means it is compulsory by law. Common sense is irrelevant. I'm asking if it's obligatory for Russia to respond to Turkey if they were in Syrian airspace.
And on your point (or mines) regarding trust, even though I have never spoke about 'trust', if Russia was in Syrian airspace, Turkey need not bother what Russia is doing there. Trust, motive, why, where and who is non of Turkeys business.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk
Russia, in either version, should have responded to warnings.

Oh, that part. Yes. When someone warns you that you are in their airspace the natural response is no I am not, not ignoring them. Russia does not deny they were warned about being in Turkish airspace. So in both versions Turkey said "you are in our airspace".

And back to my question. If they were in Syrian airspace, is it obligatory to respond to Turkey?

Obligatory? No. Smart? Yes. If someone claims I am doing something wrong, that I have been caught doing before, and I am not it's fairly stupid to keep going and ignoring them.

If I trespass on someone's property and they have caught me doing it, and they run up to me saying I am doing it again and ask why I am there holding a gun to my head it's very idiotic to ignore him and keep walking when I am a few steps off his property. Since I am not an idiot, I would say I am not on your property and I have no intention of entering it.

Thanks.

Obligatory - No.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You sound like you have a personal vendetta against Russia.
They are fighting a common enemy ( if you believe the MSM ) at what point is it justified shooting down a plane who's obvious intention is to go bomb in Syria?

No excuses really.

a reply to: Vector99

Sitting back and not taking sides with who is in the right and who is in the wrong, I don't trust either of them.

Putin has shown a track record of pushing borders and lines. Georgia, Crimea, The Ukraine, the arctic and now the ME.

Turkey has been playing around since Iraq went down and has their own agenda. Kurds, what groups they support, the borders they've crossed to hit Kurds...

Neither of these guys are leaders in following rules. The Turks definitely don't want Putin to become a major player in the ME. Sucking NATO in by this move may be their gambit...or not.

Who won the football game last night?....

a reply to: Belgianbloke

I think its Russia trying to save face...

Here it is:



Very clear what it means.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Okay, but with what purpose?
Turkey and Russia are economic allies. Doesn't make to much sense to me .
They recently signed a huge contract that would benefit both country's.

Liverpool destroyed Manchester city :

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: Xcathdra

Even it did enter Turkish airspace, that fact that it left and entered Syrian airspace, shows that the pilots respected the warnings.

Turkey are in the wrong for shooting them down regardless.

Not really if it violated turkish airspace. Its not like this is the first time Russia did this and its not relevant it was in Syrian airspace when it was hit. It still intentionally violated Turkish airspace.

Turkey said they warned the SU-24 for five minutes with no response before shooting it down, looking at that map provided I can't see how that plane COULD have been in Turkish airspace for a period of FIVE minutes. ?

originally posted by: Danowski
Hmm, I wonder.. What will change the outcome of all this by discussing if they actually violated airspace or not.

Let's go guys, we can figure this sh*t out !!

I think that's going to quickly be forgotten to be honest. This is now going to be about those pilots and Russia being forced by the public to take action.

Imagine if this had been an American plane. The American people would be demanding Obama take action - against SOMEONE. They wouldn't much care who.

The same is now going to happen in Russia.

That might be why Russia is claiming that this plane was taken out by rebels and not Turkey. Russia doesn't want to attack a NATO country, it wants to continue to thaw relations with the west, while degrading the faith NATO has in Turkey through diplomatic channels.

However, if it was taken out by a rebel group using a Manpad, why the hell is Turkey claiming their fighters shot it down? The only reason I can think of is that they are deliberately attempting to attack Russia while using NATO as a shield.

If that's the case, NATO needs to eject it from the partnership - which is really something they should have done a long time ago.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You are fairly strict in sticking to evidence driven facts I believe.

Too much dialogue about who and what - he said she said

"The stricken jet appeared to be at 40deg at best going down.

This could be relevent depending when the supposedly fit and hungry pilots ejected.

... Slow descent after being winged - gone critical.
Or hit and bail ... "

Thoughts on this ... ?

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: angryhulk
Russia, in either version, should have responded to warnings.

Oh, that part. Yes. When someone warns you that you are in their airspace the natural response is no I am not, not ignoring them. Russia does not deny they were warned about being in Turkish airspace. So in both versions Turkey said "you are in our airspace".

And back to my question. If they were in Syrian airspace, is it obligatory to respond to Turkey?

Obligatory? No. Smart? Yes. If someone claims I am doing something wrong, that I have been caught doing before, and I am not it's fairly stupid to keep going and ignoring them.

If I trespass on someone's property and they have caught me doing it, and they run up to me saying I am doing it again and ask why I am there holding a gun to my head it's very idiotic to ignore him and keep walking when I am a few steps off his property. Since I am not an idiot, I would say I am not on your property and I have no intention of entering it.

Thanks.

Obligatory - No.

No one said it was obligatory in both scenarios. I said it was obligatory in the first, and common sense and should have been done in either. So I fail to see what the point of all that was.

originally posted by: Belgianbloke
a reply to: Xcathdra

Okay, but with what purpose?
Turkey and Russia are economic allies. Doesn't make to much sense to me .
They recently signed a huge contract that would benefit both country's.

Turkey had no idea it was Russian, they may have thought it was Syrian. If Russia had responded to the warnings maybe things would be different.

a reply to: Belgianbloke

Not at all.. Russia has violated Turkish airspace as well as other countries in europe / baltic. If russia respected those countries they would not intentionally violate their airspace. Russia brought this on themselves by acting with impunity.

originally posted by: ken10

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: Xcathdra

Even it did enter Turkish airspace, that fact that it left and entered Syrian airspace, shows that the pilots respected the warnings.

Turkey are in the wrong for shooting them down regardless.

Not really if it violated turkish airspace. Its not like this is the first time Russia did this and its not relevant it was in Syrian airspace when it was hit. It still intentionally violated Turkish airspace.

Turkey said they warned the SU-24 for five minutes with no response before shooting it down, looking at that map provided I can't see how that plane COULD have been in Turkish airspace for a period of FIVE minutes. ?

Warnings may have started before it entered. So they warned it on approach, ignored. Warned it as it entered, ignored. Warned it as it flew through, ignored. Warned it as it was leaving, ignored.

a reply to: asen_y2k

That it violated Turkish airspace?