Reports: Turkish F-16s shoot down Russian Su-24

[Valaran]

lol


Though if this is the sort of level that the spat continues at, then its safe to say that things aren't too bad. Russia has hinted at various escalatory options, but the only significant worrying (but understandable) one that they have taken would be the airdefence ship. Hopefully, it won't get much worse than that.

Turkish media is apparently reporting that the Russians just conducted another air strike, this time on a bunch of Turkish trucks that entered Syria this evening. I have an article on hand, but it's fully in Turkish.

Oh interesting. I certainly imagine the Turkmen and other Turkish supported groups won't be getting off lightly on the whole, but targeting weapon-shipments (a guess, but it seems a reasonable one) would make for a sound (on their side) and (relatively) non-escalatory reaction by Russia.

[Spirit of Hope]

1) Yes they have.
2) Because Russia has been attempting to support the Assad Regime instead of fighting ISIS. This is a regime that began this whole mess by firing on peaceful protesters, and using chemical weapons.
3) They also aren't signatories of the Geneva convention. While shooting at downed pilots is wrong, it is no where near the level of burning captured pilots alive, beheading journalists and POWs and strapping archaeologists to ancient wonders as you dynamite the ancient wonders.
4) Turkey has. Turkey has carried out its own air strikes against ISIS and has allowed US bases in Turkey to carry out strikes against ISIS. Russia however is not necessarily striking against ISIS (see point 2), and Turkey may not like Russia using its air space to better drop bombs on those rebels Turkey supports against Assad and ISIS.

Was there anything conclusive on the Ghouta chemical attacks?

So far as I'm aware, it never stopped being a "he said she said" situation. The west said they had definitive proof the government forces did it and... never released it. The UN concluded that... chemical weapons were used, which was never in dispute.

IIRC the UN inspectors said something along the lines of "saying the rebels did this uses bad logic," te report definitely said the attack was carried out by someone with access to the Syrian chemical weapons supply, and that they had training to use those weapons safely. I don't think anything concrete has been presented but most indicators I have read about point to governs use.

Turkey shoots down a Russian aircraft, even though the Su-24 may or may not have violated Turkish airspace, they posed no threat to Turkey. The only threat it posed to was enemies (IS and other guests) of an allied state (Syria) who invited them to fight in the first place. Now everyone wants to bomb IS so why not co-operate and allow for overflight between the anti-IS nations?

Because not all of the Russian air strikes have been aimed at ISIS, a number have been aimed at moderate opposition groups that the western coalition, including Turkey, have been supporting. Turkey isn't going to let Russia use its airspace to deliver bombs against people they support.

[Baltenstein]

Now everyone wants to bomb IS so why not co-operate and allow for overflight between the anti-IS nations?

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

If everybody's priority would be to fight IS, they would have been wiped out of existence long ago. Terrifying and depraved as they may be, they wouldn't stand a chance against a proper NATO and/or Russian military strike force.

[Novus America]

Now everyone wants to bomb IS so why not co-operate and allow for overflight between the anti-IS nations?

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

[Valaran]

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

If everybody's priority would be to fight IS, they would have been wiped out of existence long ago. Terrifying and depraved as they may be, they wouldn't stand a chance against a proper NATO and/or Russian military strike force.

Quite, though equally, such force would do little to create stability, or prevent a future IS/new terror group from springing up. But yeah, agreed. Everyone has competing goals, as well as fears that mean what forces they do use are limited.

[Baltenstein]

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

The West also has no plan for what comes after Assad. The very best deal seems to be to put Erdogan's handpicked puppets in charge.

[The Emerald Dawn]

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

[Imperializt Russia]

Was there anything conclusive on the Ghouta chemical attacks?

So far as I'm aware, it never stopped being a "he said she said" situation. The west said they had definitive proof the government forces did it and... never released it. The UN concluded that... chemical weapons were used, which was never in dispute.

IIRC the UN inspectors said something along the lines of "saying the rebels did this uses bad logic," te report definitely said the attack was carried out by someone with access to the Syrian chemical weapons supply, and that they had training to use those weapons safely. I don't think anything concrete has been presented but most indicators I have read about point to governs use.

Chemical artillery shells are, well, artillery shells. They're pretty hardy. I have no problem believing that someone who is not literally an ape could handle them "safely" through general use without specialist training.

[Valaran]

On the contrary, the sad truth is that no one's priority is to fight IS, except maybe the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

The US' priority is not to get dragged into another Middle Eastern Quagmire. That's the overall approach.

And I'd say the plan to get rid of IS is above in priority the one to get rid of Assad (right now), but is still lower than the overall goal of staying well back and keeping a strategic distance.

[The Emerald Dawn]

IIRC the UN inspectors said something along the lines of "saying the rebels did this uses bad logic," te report definitely said the attack was carried out by someone with access to the Syrian chemical weapons supply, and that they had training to use those weapons safely. I don't think anything concrete has been presented but most indicators I have read about point to governs use.

Chemical artillery shells are, well, artillery shells. They're pretty hardy. I have no problem believing that someone who is not literally an ape could handle them "safely" through general use without specialist training.

So long as they're not primed, yeah.

If they're primed, then no.

[Novus America]

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

The West also has no plan for what comes after Assad. The very best deal seems to be to put Erdogan's handpicked puppets in charge.

Which is probably the only choice. Erdogan is an ass, but Turkey is a hell of a lot better off than Syria. Honestly Turkey has the best chance in bringing stability. They are the closest and Sunni Muslim.

[Baltenstein]

If everybody's priority would be to fight IS, they would have been wiped out of existence long ago. Terrifying and depraved as they may be, they wouldn't stand a chance against a proper NATO and/or Russian military strike force.

Quite, though equally, such force would do little to create stability, or prevent a future IS/new terror group from springing up. But yeah, agreed. Everyone has competing goals, as well as fears that mean what forces they do use are limited.

Quite, though equally, such force would do little to create stability, or prevent a future IS/new terror group from springing up.

I'm not so sure that ISIS would be immediately replaced by something identical. Its Modus Operandi, organization structure, apocalyptic beliefs and utter depravity is pretty unique even among Islamist groups in the ME.

[Valaran]

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

And the latest attempt in Libya isn't exactly a stunning success.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

And the latest attempt in Libya isn't exactly a stunning success.

It was, I understand, quite the "Pool Party".

[Uxupox]

Chemical artillery shells are, well, artillery shells. They're pretty hardy. I have no problem believing that someone who is not literally an ape could handle them "safely" through general use without specialist training.

So long as they're not primed, yeah.

If they're primed, then no.

Our mortar rounds have to reach a certain amount of revolutions before they are considered armed aren't the artillery shells exactly the same? I've heard stories from an NCO of mine that the were people that smoked and even used their lighter on the mortar rounds just to prove a point that rounds won't discharge.

[Valaran]

Quite, though equally, such force would do little to create stability, or prevent a future IS/new terror group from springing up. But yeah, agreed. Everyone has competing goals, as well as fears that mean what forces they do use are limited.

Quite, though equally, such force would do little to create stability, or prevent a future IS/new terror group from springing up.

I'm not so sure that ISIS would be immediately replaced by something identical. Its Modus Operandi, organization structure, apocalyptic beliefs and utter depravity is pretty unique even among Islamist groups in the ME.

Perfectly true, though I did say 'terror group' as well. The underlying causes of such groups has not been addressed, and so something would likely appear.

And while I agree that nothing would be identical and there has been little precedent for it, IS' current image of success has provided a new blueprint; hence all the new affiliations across the globe. Most new terror groups seek to align themselves or in some way emulate it, and any who might survive IS' destruction could well want to create similar structures. IS could well become the new norm for aspiring terror groups, though I completely admit the context and such would never be quite the same.

[Novus America]

Actually the us has only bombed ISIS. Not because we are inherently good or anything but because we have no other strategy. We want Assad gone but have no plan whatsoever on how to do that.

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

Well Saddam was an autocrat, but his regime was at least mostly stable. Assad is totally different. Replacing Assad might leave Syria a fucked up divided mess, but that is not a change from the status quo. My problem with Assad is not so much that he is an autocrat. It is that he sucks at it. Assad is the worst of both worlds. An autocrat who CANNOT even maintain stability!

[Valaran]

And the latest attempt in Libya isn't exactly a stunning success.

It was, I understand, quite the "Pool Party".

It was. But now no one's turned up, except for that guy with the black flag and the kalashnikov. He's no fun. Won't even let us have the oil.

[Ararat Mountain]

Grab for the ham, 'cause there won't be any turkey left for Thanksgiving!

[Novus America]

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

And the latest attempt in Libya isn't exactly a stunning success.

Yes. But it was actually worse before we got involved. They still had a civil war, but at a much lower intensity and much less killing than they did before.

[The Emerald Dawn]

So long as they're not primed, yeah.

If they're primed, then no.

Our mortar rounds have to reach a certain amount of revolutions before they are considered armed aren't the artillery shells exactly the same? I've heard stories from an NCO of mine that the were people that smoked and even used their lighter on the mortar rounds just to prove a point that rounds won't discharge.

Flame wouldn't set them off, no. But dropping it can damage it once it is set (primed), and you don't want that shit mixing with air in a friendly area.

I'm assuming (yeah, bad word) that the chemical artillery shell we would hand the proverbial monkey would be the non-lethal smoke or proof shot. Once those start, you're going to be cleaning it out of your AO for some time.

Lethal chemical rounds? It's a different story.

[Baltenstein]

Well, the last time we deposed an autocrat, we kind of shoved our own dick up our ass so hard Belgium came.

Well Saddam was an autocrat, but his regime was at least mostly stable.

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

[Roski]

Yeah, of course, Wiki never lie.
And who claim this? See the links: BBC, CNN etc.
It's really bias and unconvincing. Especially [15].

RT is only the true source *nods*

I thought it was American Freedom Fighters...

[Spirit of Hope]

IIRC the UN inspectors said something along the lines of "saying the rebels did this uses bad logic," te report definitely said the attack was carried out by someone with access to the Syrian chemical weapons supply, and that they had training to use those weapons safely. I don't think anything concrete has been presented but most indicators I have read about point to governs use.

Chemical artillery shells are, well, artillery shells. They're pretty hardy. I have no problem believing that someone who is not literally an ape could handle them "safely" through general use without specialist training.

The attack used rocket artillery and sarin gas. Sarin gas has a relatively short shelf life, and this must be combined before use. What this means, as far as I am aware, is that you can't just store it in a shell and use it whenever.

[Valaran]

And the latest attempt in Libya isn't exactly a stunning success.

Yes. But it was actually worse before we got involved.

What can I say, I supported that intervention. But the results rather speak for themselves.

They still had a civil war, but at a much lower intensity and much less killing than they did before.

But that could easily spark up, and it has allowed IS to gain a foothold.