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 shot down Russian Jet: reportedly by two F16's

page: 113
112
<< 110  111  112    114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

What NATO card?




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas


It wasn't mockery, they gave the pilot Eatern Orthodox rite as a gesture of respect and reconciliation.
edit on 29-11-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ploutonas


It wasn't mockery, they gave the pilot Eatern Orthodox rite as a gesture of respect and reconciliation.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001
The fact Turkey is protected from attack by Article V
while it has invaded, bombed and stuck Syrian forces dozens of times over the past few years.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: DJW001
The fact Turkey is protected from attack by Article V
while it has invaded, bombed and stuck Syrian forces dozens of times over the past few years.



Article V cannot be applied to a situation wherein the NATO member was the aggressor, so no "NATO card."



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human

Turkey is not protected by article V. I wish you guys would educate yourselves before making false claims. Because Turkey acted offensively in Syria, a response by Syria would not meet artice V requirements. Because Russia, a third party operating in Syria violated Turkish airspace its considered an act of aggression. If Russia were to respond by attacking Turkey, it would meet article V requirements.


Here - NATO Charter


Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.


It does not apply when the NATO member is the aggressor. Also notice its base comes from the UN Charter. It also refutes the false Russian claim of "NATO aggression".
edit on 29-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not what Turkey or Washington claim:
Obama: Turkey has right to defend its airspace
thehill.com...
There's that word, Defence
Attacks on Syria by Turkey were declared retaliatory, and defensive..
as was the case in the the downing of the Russian aircraft.

Turkey excuses their attacks upon Syria as defensive, so yes they are protected by article v from attack because again according to Turkey the attacks were 'defending of their nation'.

Various Turkish-NATO supportive articles:
On 9 October 2012, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen reported that NATO has completed making plans to defend Turkey from Syrian attacks.
en.wikipedia.org...
NATO's secretary-general said on Thursday he was prepared to send forces to defend Turkey
www.reuters.com...
UK assures Turkey of NATO support
nvs24.com...
British troops arrive in Turkey to support train-and-equip plan
www.dailysabah.com...
U.S. plans for more troops, fighter jets in Turkey
www.militarytimes.com...
Turkey allows French jets to use Turkish airspace for airstrikes against Daesh
www.dailysabah.com...
edit on 29-11-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human

Which they did by deploying Patriot missile batteries, since removed.

It doesn't matter if they made plans to defend them or not though, as Turkey was the aggressor in this instance. The NATO treaty doesn't apply to member nations that are the aggressors.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human

There is nothing at the link -

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.


Looks like russia has once again changed its story. Now they claim they werent warned using the right frequency.

TASS - Russia’s Aerospace Forces chief: Turkish F-16 didn't warn Su-24M crew at agreed frequency


MOSCOW, November 27. /TASS/. Objective control means of the Khmeimim airbase in Syria and of a Russian plane that was nearby did not register any single warning from Turkey’s F-16 fighter addressed to the Sukhoi Su-24M, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said Friday.

"Khmeimim airfield and lead aircraft objective control means registered no single request on the part of the Turkish plane’s crew addressed to our pilots at a frequency agreed earlier," Bondarev told journalists.

edit on 29-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Which is what I said before. The warnings were on a frequency not monitored by Eastern European pilots.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

From what ive read the frequency in question is the one US and Russia agreed to. The US awacs heard the warnings.

Also isnt the guard channel standardized for all nations and isnt it required to be monitored?
edit on 29-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: all2human

There is nothing at the link -

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.


Looks like russia has once again changed its story. Now they claim they werent warned using the right frequency.

TASS - Russia’s Aerospace Forces chief: Turkish F-16 didn't warn Su-24M crew at agreed frequency


MOSCOW, November 27. /TASS/. Objective control means of the Khmeimim airbase in Syria and of a Russian plane that was nearby did not register any single warning from Turkey’s F-16 fighter addressed to the Sukhoi Su-24M, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said Friday.

"Khmeimim airfield and lead aircraft objective control means registered no single request on the part of the Turkish plane’s crew addressed to our pilots at a frequency agreed earlier," Bondarev told journalists.


this is not today news, this is from day 2 of the incident, also the pilot who survived said, nobody warned him and turks attacked him while he was inside syrian space.

here it is : link
The news in western/english spoken websites come with a huge delay! OR maybe western media, wanted to delay this news, to give the impression first, that RUSSIA violated the airspace... media, a false siren....
edit on 29-11-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas
Yeah I know its not todays news.

And again article v doesnt apply when the alliance member is the aggressor.

They attacked when they violated their airspace.

edit on 29-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

then why the airplane and pilots fall 40 miles inside syrian space... Russia published satellite pictures of the event, it was inside syria. If you want me to search for the article with satellite pictures just ask. But I also think we gave that article days ago, in this topic.
edit on 29-11-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's complicated. The warnings were issued on Guard, but Guard is only required in international airspace. If you have pilots that don't normally monitor Guard suddenly in a situation where they should or are supposed to be, it would be extremely easy to overlook setting a radio to that frequency.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas

They didnt fall 40m inside syria.. where the hell did that come from? Yet they still violated turkish airspace.
edit on 29-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ploutonas
a reply to: Xcathdra

then why the airplane and pilots fall 40 miles inside syrian space... Russia published satellite pictures of the event, it was inside syria. If you want me to search for the article with satellite pictures just ask. But I also think we gave that article days ago, in this topic.


Actually it fell about 5 miles from the border it crossed to return to Syrian airspace.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Fresh news just now, Russia destroyed one more convoy of turks and vehicles and guess what, this MKO who is behind it (image), is also "fighting" hard for the human rights of all these illegal immigrants, that turks/them smuggle for 1500 euro per head in MY island and other Aegean Islands...

link

ps: did you know that my island hosts, since all this started, 40 mkos and more than the half are Turkish (who also act as smugglers). This MKO is known as ONE-NATION and the central offices are based in the UK, but it is organized and lead by turks.

Happy that russians through few little bombs into their warehouses. 7 Turks dead, many injured and 20 huge transport vehicles destroyed. According to the article, it is comfirmed they transfered weapons to Bab AL-Salama and Azaz.
edit on 29-11-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ploutonas
a reply to: Xcathdra

then why the airplane and pilots fall 40 miles inside syrian space... Russia published satellite pictures of the event, it was inside syria. If you want me to search for the article with satellite pictures just ask. But I also think we gave that article days ago, in this topic.

I want that source for 40 miles please.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's complicated. The warnings were issued on Guard, but Guard is only required in international airspace. If you have pilots that don't normally monitor Guard suddenly in a situation where they should or are supposed to be, it would be extremely easy to overlook setting a radio to that frequency.

Seems like a huge failure all around. There should be a frequency both sides are monitoring, and that should have been established day 1.




top topics



 
112
<< 110  111  112    114  115 >>

log in

join