Turkey shoots down Russian jet

It has just been reported here 9 mins ago.

www.express.co.uk...

originally posted by: victor7
No need to get past the nukes scenarios if that keeps NATO from any further aggression. That would be stupid on the part of Russian high command. Pakistan uses this option very well against India. Would US and EU want to be 80% destroyed in order to say that they defeated Russia? Makes not sense to abandon the nuclear tool. When spent 100s of billions on something they better ride it to use.

It works both ways. Would Putin be willing to turn his country into a nuclear wasteland with 95% of his people dead and all infrastructure destroyed while being diplomatically and fiscally isolated from the rest of the world over a relatively small incident?

Even if he would be willing, the rest of the world will listen to the threat, it's not just NATO. Do you think China wants a nuclear war? They'll be hit by all the fallout. Threatening a nuclear armageddon is no way to make or keep friends.

It might be kept secret while diplomatic processes took place to prevent WW3. It might also be kept secret to prevent WW3, leaving Russia to respond in some other hybrid-counterattack. Too many depend on MSM, when Russian jets entered Turkey last weekend, it wasn't mentioned anywhere until after the weekend. There were reports all over Ukraine about a Russian invasion, everyone ignored it...then guess what? MSM nailed it a couple weeks later (and took the credit).

If I was to say a UFO just landed in Syria, with ET's aboard, I'm sure many would ask "When? How big was it? What kind of aliens? Greys or Reptilians?"...but make mention of a possible shootdown in a region where fighting is the norm and over a dozen nations are all performing airstrikes on each other's borders, and I hear "No way man! Got to be a hoax!"

These reports could very well be wrong, but a lack of immediate confirmation doesn't necessarily mean that. I'm sure there are also some who disbelieve simply because they don't want to believe. Some of the eyewitnesses were journalists in the region with a reputation on the line.

If a nuclear war should ocur, i'm sure the only confirmation anybody will see would be missiles flying over their heads. If people are relying on MSM to stay informed, and counting on the government (US, Russia, whoever) to let you know, then they'll be the first to go come the main event.

I did not make this thread to "warmonger", I made it so others could help try to confirm it, maybe get the attention of someone in the area. I also created it to let people know something MIGHT be happening that could affect them. I did not create it so people could argue, gloat on how much they know about the middle east, or Russian jets, or what Russia would/wouldn't do based on their bias opinion. I'll try to keep that in mind next time I decide to give these boards a heads up on something.

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: JonStone

Nice find!

Here is the a VERY solid report that confirms the OP:
ITN News

That video refers to a Syrian jet being downed, not a Russian jet. I still can find no compelling evidence Turkey has downed a Russian fighter. I doubt this would be something that could be concealed for long given its potential implications, no? As always, I could be wrong of course.

From that video's description:

"Turkey's air force has shot down a Syrian jet for violating Turkish airspace, which Syria has condemned as 'blatant aggression'. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told supporters at a rally that the country's forces had taken down the plane, saying: "A Syrian plane violated our airspace. Our F-16s took off and hit this plane. Why? Because if you violate my airspace, our slap will be hard." Syria said Turkish air defences shot down the jet while it was attacking rebel forces inside Syrian territory."

Peace.

a reply to: MrSpad

When the enemy is 3x more powerful then Nukes are the way to go from the start and the other side needs to be told of this also. Standard of living of Russian is probably only 20-30% to that of the US and West.

Hence it is easy to decide who stands to lose much more.

Russia as a state would not survive as a nation in the event of defeat by NATO. So end result is the same but in the "more bright light" alternative, the other side is also finished and probably for next 20,000 years or more.

a reply to: AceWombat04

Thanks for the post. Unfortunately, that video dates back to March of last year. Too bad though, it would have explained a lot.

originally posted by: Aazadan

It works both ways. Would Putin be willing to turn his country into a nuclear wasteland with 95% of his people dead and all infrastructure destroyed while being diplomatically and fiscally isolated from the rest of the world over a relatively small incident?

It doesn't work that way ...

The US is isolated from the rest of the world, and is in no immediate danger. That is, if Europe or the middle east would turn into a nuclear wasteland ... the US would likely survive. UNLESS, Russia bombs the US.

So, your argument is idiotic. Russia is already under a major threat, as such it has legitimate reasons to reply. So, your argument is the other way around ... will the US be willing to sacrifice itself, over Syria, Turkey or Ukraine?

The answer to that question, is No ... sure, they US has it's "imperialistic" maniacs, from the old "Great British Empire days". But let assume, that the US is not imperialistic and has no real interest in world domination. Therefore, there would be no reason for the US to take its threats ... all the way. It would be idiotic, assenine and directly retarded.

The same applies for Turkey ... a war with Russia? Such a war, would turn the middle east to a wasteland ... and inhialate all possibility to "survive" in the middle east. Turkey would cease to exist ... the US would survive, Russia die and so would most of Europe. However, it wouldn't be beyond the Turks to be so stupid, when tactics are involved ... the way the people in the middle east fight, and cling to outdated beliefs ... is a proof, of their lack of judgement. Just as we know, China will always back down ... it lacks administrative backbone.

Russia, however ... is in a quite different position. If Russia does nothing, at least half of it's people will cease to exist. If Putin wants Russia to have a chance of surviving the future ... he's going to have to be willing to play hardball. He's going to have to win this game ... and that means, break a lot of eggs.

Like a lot of other things, you've got this all backwards.

Does anybody remember hearing about this one? I didn't until just now. I also don't remember it ever making official news. Happened just a few days ago, at least, that's when it got reported.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
It has just been reported here 9 mins ago.

www.express.co.uk...

Read this:

according to as yet unconfirmed reports circulating on social media.

This News is according to the social media probably linked to the same report as the the OP have. And it is unconfirmed.

It has been unconfirmed all day.

originally posted by: JonStone
Does anybody remember hearing about this one? I didn't until just now. I also don't remember it ever making official news. Happened just a few days ago, at least, that's when it got reported.

The thing in common with the story in your OP is that they are both based on nothing.

What does it take for this thread to be put in the HOAX forum?

Not one credible media source has reported on this.

a reply to: RogueWave

You're missing the point. That crash wasn't confirmed until way later, and this one could very well do the same thing. If you want to confirm something, confirm it is a hoax. There is not enough information available saying one way or the other.

a reply to: JonStone

What are you talking about, nothing was confirmed, in neither case. Why do you think it didn't make official news?

a reply to: RogueWave

So you think if something doesn't instantly appear on official news, then it didn't happen? We didn't hear about China cruising just miles off the Alaskan coast until over a week later. There are tons of reports that came out long after the event took place. Now you're calling this a hoax, i'm not saying it isn't because I don't know, but there is a difference between not being able to confirm something and it being a hoax. If something is a hoax, you can usually prove it by tracing it down to its source, finding outdated video evidence, faked pictures, etc. This shootdown is unconfirmed with at least two reliable witnesses, big difference. Something like this may not instantly come out in the media because involved parties may be trying to prevent WWIII, or any number of reasons where the media might be told to sit on something...which happens a lot under the current US administration. Anyone depending solely on official media is a sheepish way of thinking.

a reply to: bjarneorn

The above views are not mine but taken from this former Russian General who is now some geopolitical consultant, Col. Gen Leo Ivashov.

However, when talking of nukes, no need to limit to tactical only, start with the full menu in the arsenal.

US is powerful and those who are powerful understand the language of POWER better than other modes of dealing.

english.pravda.ru...

"Tactical nuclear weapons that are constantly threatening the United States must become the factor that will deter large-scale aggression. Holding it at gunpoint - this is the deterrent," General Colonel in reserve, MGIMO Professor, Leonid Ivashov, said in an interview with Pravda.Ru

a reply to: JonStone

Well, this news was a rare find! I can't find this information on much of the internet, and it is a big deal if it happened. I think I could believe either way... maybe it will be reported in the mainstream news later on, or kept under wraps, or maybe the explosion was something else.

originally posted by: JonStone
Does anybody remember hearing about this one? I didn't until just now. I also don't remember it ever making official news. Happened just a few days ago, at least, that's when it got reported.

Dont think Turkey downed anything, Not according to this article.

Mystery deepens as “unidentified Mig-29 Fulcrum” locks on a Turkish F-16 again

As already reported, on Oct. 3 and 4 October the Turkish airspace was violated by Russian Air Force Su-30SM and Su-24 aircraft in the Hatay region.

During the first incident, the Russian Su-30SM (initially referred to as a Mig-29 by the Turkish military) maintained a radar lock on one or both the F-16s for a full 5 minutes and 40 seconds before the aircraft departed the Turkish airspace. As explained, this was a rather unusual incident: violations occur every now and then, but usually aircraft involved in the interception do not lock on the “target” in order to prevent dangerous situations.

Well it happened again on Oct. 5 and, to make the whole story more mysterious, it looks like the aircraft was identified as a Mig-29 from an unidentified nation/air force.

Turkey airforce cant tell the difference between a SU-30SM and a MIG-29???

Accoridng to the Turkish General Staff, the Mig-29 locked on at least one of 8 TuAF F-16s performing CAP (Combat Air Patrol) on the border with Syria. What is more, the lock on lasted four minutes and 30 seconds.


Considered that the Russian Air Force has not deployed Mig-29s to Syria and assuming that the Turkish Air Force has properly identified the aircraft harassing its F-16s on border patrol, it’s is safe to believe the aircraft involved in the last incident was a Syrian Mig-29 “visiting” the TuAF aircraft in CAP station (as already done in the past).

In both the Oct. 3 and Oct. 5 incidents what is also quite surprising is the length of the lock on: both the Su-30SM and the Mig-29 (provided these were involved in the two close encounters) used their radars to paint the Turkish planes possibly exposing to several intelligence gathering platforms details about their systems. Indeed, if the Mig-29 is a very well-known weapons system, the emissions of the RuAF Su-30SM N011M Bars-R radar can be considered extremely interesting to both the TuAF, Israeli AF and NATO planes with ESM (Electronic Support Measures) capabilities.

why are the Turkish unable to determine nationality of the Mig? With all the ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft focusing on the airspace of northwestern Syria it is at least weird that a positive identification of the aircraft was not achieved. And isn’t it strange that the one later IDed as a RuAF Su-30SM was initially referred to as an “unidentified Mig-29”? Maybe the Russian Su-30SMs (the only aircraft belonging to the Russian contingent that have not been repainted with the Red Star insignia yet) and the Syrian Mig-29s are flying missions along the border with Turkey together making identification more difficult? Unlikely, considering once again the amount of allied AEW (Airborne Early Warning) aircraft in the vicinity.

It seams Turkey have problems ID-ing the Russian jets. Why is that when they also have this flying around.

what is probably a Boeing 737 Peace Eagle airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft can be spotted every now and then on Flightradar24.com circling at high altitude over southern Turkey, most probably monitoring the movements of the Russian and Syrian planes while collecting some intelligence data as well.

Image of the AEWC






theaviationist.com...


EDIT:

And one more thing i forgot to mention. Ghouta is not on the Turkish border, it is Close to Lebanon.

originally posted by: spy66
Turkey airforce cant tell the difference between a SU-30SM and a MIG-29???

To be fair, they are quite similar looking aircraft and that's assuming it wasn't the media reporting it wrong, or the Press Officer getting the wrong info down the chain.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: spy66
Turkey airforce cant tell the difference between a SU-30SM and a MIG-29???

To be fair, they are quite similar looking aircraft and that's assuming it wasn't the media reporting it wrong, or the Press Officer getting the wrong info down the chain.

In that case. Who shot it Down?

Ghouta is not Close to Turkey. It is just over Lebanon. This would indicate that it was Israel that shot this Down?

It's a trap.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

Wow! Do you not recognize how horrific your argument is?! As long as someone claims it was an accident, they're free to kill whoever they want? Really?! That's your argument? So as long as someone says they didn't know there were civilians in a building, you think it's ok to blow them up?

So what about the weddings & funerals we've hit with cruise missile strikes & drone strikes? How do you justify killing the civilians then when it's known that they aren't the target? How is it unintentional when we knowingly blow up a terrorism suspect that's among civilians? That's as intentional as it gets. Not to mention Vietnam, where we literally massacred entire villages because of the possibility that guerrillas were among the civilians (same for Fallujah in Iraq). Even when using your disgusting rationalization, we still aren't held accountable for the human rights abuses & flat out massacres we commit.

But thank you for the response. At least I know the mindset of the people I'm dealing with now.

Its not my mindset. Its a known fact in warzones people die. Murder by definition is the purposeful killing of someone WITH MALICE. Also Warzones have a diffrent system and are not under standard law. Also Terrorist who hide in crowds of civies are breaking international law by doing so. But they do it because they are trying to hide behind the thought they are safe. Also WHy dont you also blame the non uniformed/illegal combatants too?

BAck on topic though. Turkey has every right to light up any airspace invaders. even US warplanes.