It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Turkey shoots down Russian jet

page: 8
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave



My post here




posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




What about the armed NATO members' planes violating Syria's airspace?


When the country okays it they don't call it a violation of that countries airspace.



Why is that not a problem? They are actually dropping weapons over Syria. Who gave them permission.


Syria, as they are fighting ISIS not Syria with those airstrikes.

In fact Syria invited the US to help fight ISIS in Syria in Sept. 2014.



Syria has asked Washington to engage in military and intelligence collaboration to defeat their mutual enemy Isis, inviting US congressmen and senators to visit Damascus to discuss joint action against the jihadis who threaten both America and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.


www.independent.co.uk...


By what UN mandate? There no legal basis for them to fly over Syria.


UN resolution 2170, which does give them that right especially when asked by Syria to do so.

www.un.org...
edit on 10-10-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Actually the US has held its people responsible so maybe you can give us specific examples of which issues you are referring to. As for allies take it up with those countries you have issues with. I find it hypocritical to ignore the abuses caused by Assad and his regime, not to mention Iran and theirs - both nations which sponsor terrorism via Hezbollah and Hamas.

There is a difference in collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians, which Syria has been doing.

As for Turkey again you seem to be ignoring the fact Syrian warplanes have been shot down when they violated Turkish airspace, not to mention Syrian artillery being fired into Turkey near refugee camps. Or Syria shooting down Turkish aircraft when it violated their airspace.

Do you really think Russia would tolerate armed Turkish warplanes violating its airspace? The opposite holds true and since Russia has made it clear they are their to fight ISIS they have no grounds for entering Turkish airspace. Russia using the same lie - our forces got lost - didn't work in Ukraine and didn't work in Turkey.

You guys also seem to ignore the fact Syria has stated it welcomes foreign aircraft in the fight against ISIS. Any examples of US aircraft / coalition aircraft attacking Syrian government forces? Are you intentionally ignoring the Syrian position because it undermines the argument about violating Syrian airspace?



BS I'm in the US & I'm an American. What people have been held responsible for the 160,000 plus dead civilians in our Iraq War? Or the 80,000 plus dead Afghan civilians from our occupation? Or the millions of dead civilians in the Vietnam War? Or the entire torture "enhanced interrogation" scandal that our government won't even fully reveal, much less prosecute? Civilians killed by the US are literally considered "collateral damage". How is that holding people responsible?

Also, you should've read my post instead of kneejerk reacting to it. In my initial post, I literally wrote this about Turkey: "I agree that legally they would be within their right to do so." That's because I think all sovereign nations should have the right to defend themselves, just as all people should have the right to defend themselves. So don't twist my words.

But many of the Western flights are providing support for the "moderate rebels". WTF does that have to do w/fighting ISIS? The entire reason those groups are "rebels" is because they're rebelling against Assad, not against ISIS. We provide funding, training & arms to groups that are fighting against Assad. That clearly doesn't fit your description of Syria "welcoming foreign aircraft in the fight against ISIS."

In fact, the reality is just the opposite. The Western countries have been bombing in Syria for more than a year now, and ISIS was just as strong as ever. So I find it hard to believe that our militaries are only there to fight ISIS when we're both arming, funding, and training groups that are against Assad and get angry at Russia for actually destroying ISIS & al Nusra positions.


ONly INTENTIONAL CRIMES ar e held to account in warzones. Collatorral damage is not a crime. Civilians died FROM BOTH SIDES not just US/allied strikes. IN iraq most of the dead were from IEDs and terrorist killing because they know how to use propaganda to hinder operations.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


Syria has asked Washington to engage in military and intelligence collaboration to defeat their mutual enemy Isis, inviting US congressmen and senators to visit Damascus to discuss joint action against the jihadis who threaten both America and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.


They didn't give permission for military intervention.

Nothing you posted says that they gave permission. They didn't because the US didn't follow the requirements.





UN resolution 2170, which does give them that right especially when asked by Syria to do so.


Please qoute the part of the resolution that allows for military intervention on Syrian territory, period.
edit on 10-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




Nothing you posted says that they gave permission. They didn't because the US didn't follow the requirements.


You have been shown more than once that Syria invited the west to help fight ISIS...I cannot help you refuse to believe Syria invited the help, but they did.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Secondly trying to invoke NATO into the equation is just all sorts of fail on your part.


Only I wasn't, I responded to TSurfer's post,




Except the fact Russia has an armed aircraft not only in Turkish airspace it also violated a NATO member, so the Russian bear better hope he didn't wake up a big gun to handle that bear.


And you were saying.....




so please get your facts correct before making claims that are not supported by fact.








posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




Please qoute the part of the resolution that allows for military intervention on Syrian territory, period.



“5. Urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001), to cooperate in efforts to find and bring to justice individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida including ISIL and ANF who perpetrate, organize and sponsor terrorist acts and in this regard underlines the importance of regional cooperation;


So now finding and bringing to justice gives them the right and notice where it says regional cooperation...which brings us back to what you have been shown already.


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.


news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AwrBT7nQJxlWA60Ap9lXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'BybGY3bmpvBG NvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Maybe you should actually read sources as it shows above Syria knows and is okay with the US striking ISIS in Syria.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




Only I wasn't, I responded to TSurfer's post,


Yes I mentioned NATO because Turkey is a NATO country...it had nothing to do with NATO conducting airstrikes over Syria.

You need to get your facts straight before you distort them.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, they invited them to talk about it, and said that it was possible if the US followed a set of procedures.

They didn't, and no premission was given.

Again, nothing you posted says that the Syrian government gave permission to the US.

If it does, then you should be able to qoute the part that says permission was given. Sofar you didn't.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Do you even read your own links?


> 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.


edit on 10-10-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And I said "NATO member's planes because they belong to NATO. You were the one that mentioned NATO being threatened by airspace violations. I mentioned that NATO members were doing the same.

I didn't "invoke" NATO like Xscatdra said, you did.





Maybe you should actually read sources as it shows above Syria knows and is okay with the US striking ISIS in Syria.


Really, that is funny considering none of your sources show the Syrian government actually giving permission to the US. Still waiting....
edit on 10-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: all2human




>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.


And again they also said that any strike on Syrian land would need their okay...they were even told ahead of time and they didn't consider it an act of aggression now did they as they have stayed idle and let the airstrikes happen.

SO by what you say they should be shooting down US war planes as we speak...yet nothing.

That says they have ok'd them and are allowing them, or by your comment they wouldn't be staying idle.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, they invited them to talk about it, and said that it was possible if the US followed a set of procedures.

They didn't, and no premission was given.

Again, nothing you posted says that the Syrian government gave permission to the US.

If it does, then you should be able to qoute the part that says permission was given. Sofar you didn't.


They had no desire for dialogue with Assad but were willing to have a mandate to operate in Syria. All of that would be fine if the only motive the US had was indeed the destruction of ISIS. Now that the US training and arming moderate rebel program has ended, having failed, they say that they are going to continue to supply equipment and arms to Assad's opponents. I don't understand how this can be justified...who is saying Assad must go...and by what authority?


(post by ZakOlongapo removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


“5. Urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001), to cooperate in efforts to find and bring to justice individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida including ISIL and ANF who perpetrate, organize and sponsor terrorist acts and in this regard underlines the importance of regional cooperation;


Where does this say that military intervention in a sovereign state is allowed, without the permission of said state? Fail again.

Without permission, they would need a UN mandate specific to Syria.

This general resolution is not a free pass for action in Syria.
edit on 10-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JonStone

Russia, while it does make Mig 29's, doesn't have them in Syria. If a Mig 29 was really shot down it was likely Syrian.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




And I said "NATO member's planes because they belong to NATO


They don't belong to NATO, they belong to individual countries that are part of NATO...there is a difference that you should learn and understand.



You were the one that mentioned NATO being threatened by airspace violations.


No I mentioned Turkey being part of NATO that may have a problem with an armed Russian military plane violating it's airspace.

You said it was NATO armed planes violating Syria's airspace.



What about the armed NATO members' planes violating Syria's airspace?


You are the one who brought NATO into Syria...as I was only discussing Turkey nothing to do with Syria.



Really, that is funny considering none of your sources show the Styrian government actually giving permission to the US. Still waiting....


And yet Syria has done nothing or even complained about them...but they don't have permission to do so and Syria let's it happen.

Show where Syria has said they can't, and why has Syria let it happen when they even said if they didn't give permission they wouldn't stay idle...yet they have and we see US planes bombing ISIS...go figure.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
looks like one more post based on fantasy... but scary how some are very responsible in here xx



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ZakOlongapo




looks like one more post based on fantasy... but scary how some are very responsible in here xx


Care to clarify?







 
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join