world

Russia and Turkey refuse to back down in row over jet downing

49 Comments
By Nick Tattersall and Vladimir Soldatkin

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

“Nobody should expect us to remain silent against the constant violation of our border security, the ignoring of our sovereign rights,” Erdogan said.

Erdogan is a hypocritical little tyrant:

-Turkey buzzes weakened Greece In growing numbers Ankara’s fighter jets test Greek territorial claims. http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece-military-airspace/

10 ( +13 / -3 )

So, how's that anti-ISIS coalition coming along, guys?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

While violating airspace isn't a good idea, it's not an act of war, but shooting down a plane and killing its pilots sure seems like an act of war! Russia has NOT bombed anything inside Turkey, therefore deadly response was the wrong call and could really escalate the already complicated challenges in Syria.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

The Turkish military later released what it said was an audio recording of a warning to a Russian fighter jet before it was shot down near the Syrian border. A voice on the recording can be heard saying “change your heading” in English.

"It is routine for jet fighters to sometimes fly in and out over [national] borders... when you consider their speed ....These are not ill-intentioned things but happen beyond control due to the jets' speed." -- so said Turkish President Abdullah Gul after a Turkish RF-4E Phantom II reconnaissance jet was shot down near Latakia, Syria, in June, 2012. Both that jet and the Russian SU-24 crossed disputed borders of Hatay Province, land France ceded from Syria to Turkey in 1939.

See

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province

Assuming reports are accurate, the Russian planes had no hostile intent against Turkey, the Russian violation of Turkish airspace, if it occurred at all, was incidental and momentary, CLEARLY no internationally understood intercept occurred, and the Russian plane was shot down without justification.

The Turks keep stating that "warnings" were issued. But the "warnings" were issued on international channels, which the Russian aircrew, in an attack situation, may not have been monitoring, and in English, none of which justifies a shoot-down of a non-hostile aircraft.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Underscoring the message, Russian forces launched a heavy bombardment against insurgent-held areas in Latakia on Wednesday, near where the jet was downed, rebels and a monitoring group said.

I think looking at history it is evident Russia will not be intimidated by military action against its forces. Especially true under a leadership of a guy like Putin.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If anyone knows Steins;Gate, may I remind you that WWIII starts in December of this year, according to John Titor.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Of course the warning was in English, the international language for aviation! Do you think the Turkish pilots know Russian? An the Russians should have been monitoring 243 MHz, the international aviation channel for such warnings. They were attacking non-ISIS targets that were friendly to Turkey, and oops, their fault. Yes, let me overfly your country so I can make a better bombing run on your friends.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

President Tayyip Erdogan made no apology, saying his nation had simply been defending its own security and the “rights of our brothers in Syria”.

If the reason for downing the jet was invasion of airspace, how is the defending of their "brothers in Syria” relevant. Seems the latter is the real reason, and not invasion of airspace.

Erdogan said Turkey had made a “huge effort” to prevent such incidents but that the limits of its patience had been tested after repeatedly warning Russia about air space incursions in recent weeks.

But Turkey also claimed that they did not know it was a Russian jet. So why would previous warnings to the Russians be relevant. What if it was a NATO jet flying by? They must have known it was a Russian jet.

In this case, I think the Russian jet likely never crossed Turkey's national border and that this was an intentional planned provocation by Turkey. Now Russia has an excuse to clean up the whole area near the Turkish border, and Turkey better not decide to crossover into Syria. I hope the US won't decide to send in a sacrificial jet to be shot down.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

If the reason for downing the jet was invasion of airspace, how is the defending of their "brothers in Syria” relevant. Seems the latter is the real reason, and not invasion of airspace.

Its relevant to how much lee-way you are going to get.

Prove yourself to be an enemy of a country, and yeah, they will be extra sensitive when you violate their airspace. When a friendly country does it, you might be more sure you are not about to get bombed. No surprise.

And let us not forget that Turkey actually lives there. The Russians came from afar to stick their nose in. What happens in Syria means a hell of a lot more to the Turks than the Russians.

And you have to appreciate the way "leaders" play these games. Lives are expendable, until they are not. Then its threats over the loss of one plane and one pilot. Why exactly is Russian there again? Humanitarian reasons? Yeah, that would explain why they bombed a truck depot in retaliation! Every single "little" person involved in this or supporting any side is quite simply getting played. Enjoy the game all you lowly chess pieces! I want no part of this.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Turkey is a member of NATO. Russia looks like a wounded tiger who will be unstoppable. Interestingly Russia and Turkey will go further for settlement. What will be response of NATO?

Obama will warn Russia as

"Putin do not cross the red line! We will fly nuke missiles into your office!" Erdogan may be too young to remember how did WWII ended with Russian and German blood? He wants to provoke for WWIII with Russia. He should kiss the dead pilot shoes and bow deeply. He must apologize for his trigger happy and demented ground force.

He needs to swallow his pride and arrogance for preventing further clashes.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

close to the Turkish border because that was where the militants tended to be located.

Yup, ISIS, Al Qaida and all the other crazy jihadists have their supply depots there, because Turkey has been providing them air cover in a 10 km strip of land from the Turkish border.

That's where and how ISIS was able to incubate without being attacked by the Syrian Air Force.

The S400 will change that dynamic though.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Imagine Turkey saying they are "bombing terrorists" near the Russian border, but instead is really bombing Russian supporters in East Ukraine, and violating airspace while doing it. My guess is Russia wouldn't be too nice about it.

As for the Russians attacking oil supply lines, I have no problem with that, I even support it. But they don't have to be so careless with their actions. That's how incidents like this are possible. Stop the bully chest thumping and just get the job done.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Geographically speaking,

It is near impossible to use jets near that area without the jets having to violate Turkey's air space. They've been doing it for a while now, and Turkey had courage enough to stand up to that. It's a delicate situation when Turkey and Russia have different interests. It's going to create even more conflict.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

the “rights of our brothers in Syria”.

Ah, you mean those ISIS terrorists.........right!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Why exactly is Russian there again?

To do what the west has long been pretending to do, fight terrorism. For years, Turkey has been arming and training the terrorists. Russia (and Syria, Iran, Hezbollah) are the only ones that are actually fighting terrorism.

Humanitarian reasons? Yeah, that would explain why they bombed a truck depot in retaliation!

Yes, IS was making lots of money selling oil. Erdogan's son was also profiting massively from this.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

SuperLibNOV. 26, 2015 - 11:55AM JST Imagine Turkey saying they are "bombing terrorists" near the Russian border, but instead is really bombing Russian supporters in East Ukraine, and violating airspace while doing it. My guess is Russia wouldn't be too nice about it.

(While I agree Russia wouldn't be too nice about it, we can't say for sure wether Russia would shoot and kill, but Turkey DID! It's amazing that you feel that shooting a plane down and killing the pilots is only considered "not too nice".

As for the Russians attacking oil supply lines, I have no problem with that, I even support it.

(Russia is the only ones who are actually attacking ISIS income, sorry if Turkey also profits when ISIS does. Maybe you believe that the rebels are moderate, but I have to ask, what part of liver & heart eating is considered "moderate"?)

But they don't have to be so careless with their actions. That's how incidents like this are possible. Stop the bully chest thumping and just get the job done.

(Careless actions? Careless is shooting down a countries plane when your not at war with them and they haven't ever attacked you! That is how things can escalate and become far worse than the giant mess were already in.)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As for the Russians attacking oil supply lines, I have no problem with that, I even support it.

Those running those lines are not combatants. So I can't figure your objection to a warplane getting shot down as being "not too nice". The characterization seems to fit nicely with you support for killing noncombatants who have likely been forced to do their job under pain of death to themselves and their families.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the refugeeNOV. 26, 2015 - 01:53PM JST

Those running those lines are not combatants.

Do you have proof that all the oil ISIS is profiting from, is only run by non-combatants? Or that all of them are forced by ISIS to make those runs?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Those running those lines are not combatants.

Are you suggesting they are not aware they are transporting IS oil?

... noncombatants who have likely been forced to do their job under pain of death to themselves and their families.

Nah, probably doing it for the money.

So we should let them transport oil, thus helping them enrich IS? The reason Russia had to do attack the oil lines is that the West turned a blind eye to (and supported) the sale of IS oil. Its becoming clearer everyday that IS and the other terrorist groups in the region are simply proxies of the West. And the west is upset that Russia is genuinely combating these proxies.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Ralf Stinson:

" They were attacking non-ISIS targets that were friendly to Turkey, "

Oh give us a break already with this nonsense that Al Nusra et al are democratic "vetted rebels" that have nothing to do with ISIS. By now everybody should have woken up to that scam.

But "friendly to Turkey", yes. Islamist Erdogan is happy to by stolen Syrian oil from ISIS and to support his jihadist friends.

The real shame is that West is in this too, and Turkey is in Nato.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Wake up people, the only Boots on the ground fighting ISIS are the Kurds and the Turks are bombing them. Turkey is not our not our friend in the fight vs ISIS. If they were they would close their border and stop buying oil from ISIS, Turkey is the problem.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Russia is the only ones who are actually attacking ISIS income

Who told you that? The US is going after the tanker trucks, even dropping pamphlets before they do so people can clear out of the area to help minimize civilian casualties.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Who told you that? The US is going after the tanker trucks,

Yeah, it took them a long time to start doing that, after Russia made public the very long rows of tanker trucks, and they also announced who was buying the oil. And I wonder if the US is really going after the tanker trucks or again only pretending to (like they are pretending to destroy the Afghan poppy fields). Didn't someone (PBS?) get caught using footage of the Russians destroying the trucks while claiming that it was the US that was doing so?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Turkey is not our not our friend in the fight vs ISIS.

That's cause they're a bunch of turkies.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

SuperLib:

Who told you that? The US is going after the tanker trucks,

(I stand corrected, the US has gone after SOME tanker trucks with very limited results. Why do you think no one complained until Russia started really going after supply lines and refinery controlled by ISIS? Doo-Bop pointed out some facts about that, I guess you didn't like it.

Also, I'm curious of how dropping pamphlets did anything besides warn the drivers that they were going to be bombed? If you live near a road, are you supposed to wait until a truck goes by before leaving the area?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Stuart,

I stand corrected, the US has gone after SOME tanker trucks with very limited results

Vaporizing 116 trucks in one mission is what you call "limited results"? Do you see any heavy goods dealerships out there in MadBeard Land? How will they transport the black gold when they run out of wagons?

Camels? Heh.

My only mild complaint is my dear American cousins are being far to fair in their rules of engagement. The drivers are working for Daesh. They are legitimate targets. Hit 'em harder chaps !

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Turkey refuse to back down in row over jet downing

Turkey also refused to observe a moment of silence during a soccer game vs Greece. Instead of silence they cheered and shouted, "Allahu Akbar."

Turkey needs to be dropped like a hot potato.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Madverts: Vaporizing 116 trucks in one mission is what you call "limited results"?

(Yes, when it was also reported that as much as 1000 trucks have been seen in the very same area. There were less trucks in the area on that day, but that's probably due to the US warning them that they have 45 minutes to leave or be bombed.)

"United States warplanes for the FIRST TIME attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said."

(If the US has actually been bombing ISIS for over a year now, how come they are only now starting to attack their means to make money AFTER criticizing Russia for doing it first?)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do you have proof that all the oil ISIS is profiting from, is only run by non-combatants? Or that all of them are forced by ISIS to make those runs?

@Stuart hayward Ignorant and also logically flawed questions. And further, absolutely sickening. Even if one combatant is mixed with 99 civilians, you don't bomb the lot of them. Not if you are a decent human being anyway, and/or one that follows the rules of war.

We had people whining that the Russian pilot that got killed while parachuting down became a non-combatant the second he exited his jet bomber, even though we can easily guess he had a sidearm on his belt. So does not an ISIS militant become a non-combatant when he lays down his AK-47 and starts driving a tanker? But wait, I am hardly done. You don't bomb tankers GUESSING there are combatants in them. You have to KNOW. That is the way the rules of war work. And how do you KNOW combatants are in them if they are not shooting at you?? Do you imagine they roll down the road shooting their AKs at the sky?? Do you think the tankers are armed with SAM batteries on the roofs??

Also, do you think some guy straight off the goat farm can jump into an oil tanker and get it even 10 miles safely by himself with no training??

You ask me for proof?? You got this precisely backward! Its not up to me to provide proof of innocence. Its up to militaries and governments to provide proof of guilt!! But the proof has been bombed into a smoking hole in the ground!! This is the way sick, twisted people operating on your same warped logic operate. I don't accuse them of not knowing the rules, as you might not know them. They know the rules perfectly well. And they know how to make fools think what they did was right and good....such as....destroy the evidence....make sure the people are too dead to talk....and accuse them of being militants without ever having confirmed a damned thing!

You may as well trust me. Its all rather obvious. The bulk of the people running the oil operations are the same people who ran them for Assad, or whoever it was before ISIS came in and took over. Those guys have wives and children to feed. They can't quit out of principle. The are between a rock and a hard place. Or between a bullet and a bomb as it were.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

the refugee, the turkmons have rejected the rules of war by killing a helpless pilot on a parachute. Having a pistol for self defense does not enter the picture. While he is in the air the rules of war state, he is a non combatant. If he would of used his pistol than his status would of changed but the video clearly slows a man on a chute. I have no respect for these terrorists and since they have rejected the rules of war can not expect these rules to be applied to them. As for the trucks they are war material and can be taken out. As for the drivers they are choosing death but they are not alone.

Russia was asked by the legitimate government of Syria to help defeat insurrectionists in their country. The turkmon terrorists have been armed and supplied by Turkey which is an act of war against Russia and Syria. Turkey shooting down a Russian Jet flying over Syria is against Section 7 Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Syria should demand all NATO aircraft cease flying over their territory at once. It is an attempt at regime change and is against international law. NATO can concentrate on flying missions over Iraq if that country wants them.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

the refugee, the turkmons have rejected the rules of war by killing a helpless pilot on a parachute.

The Russians were bombing helpless people in tanker trucks etc. long before that. I am amazed how people like you keep going on and on about that one pilot, who I can guarantee killed several civilians before he got killed "innocently" parachuting out of a jet bomber.

The Russians have a long history of indiscriminate bombing and complete disregard for civilian life besides. I am amazed at how little we are hearing about the damage they are surely doing right now, and it cannot be coincidental. We are getting played. Well, some of us anyway. Not the first time I have been in a position saying these things either. I am getting sick of saying "I told you so".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

the refugeeNOV. 27, 2015 - 12:02AM JST

@Stuart hayward Ignorant and also logically flawed questions. And further, absolutely sickening. (That's funny, since I olny asked you to provide proof of your own claim.)

Even if one combatant is mixed with 99 civilians, you don't bomb the lot of them. Not if you are a decent human being anyway, and/or one that follows the rules of war.

(Are you now claiming that everyone of those 116 trucks that the US just blew up were all civilians?) As you already mentioned, the evidence or proof is now a smoking hole in the ground. It's interesting how your comments go from justifying Turkey shooting down and killing those pilots, to now sounding like you are anti war. Though I am actually agaist war, I honestly don't think the players envoloved will ever allow for a political solution, there's to many agendas and to much money to be made by prolonging this as long as possible.)

It's my hope that everyone cooperates together and rids Syria from ISIS and other extremist. (Preferably by stopping ALL individuals and ALL countries who fund ISIS.)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Russians were bombing helpless people in tanker trucks

!

I do not feel sorry for the truck drivers. They were directly involved in funding IS, so they were part of the problem. If the West did not buy IS oil, Russia would not have had to do that.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If we follow Turkish policy in this, that means Greece should have constantly shot down Turkish warplanes.....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Stuart: I stand corrected, the US has gone after SOME tanker trucks with very limited results. Why do you think no one complained until Russia started really going after supply lines and refinery controlled by ISIS?

I'm not sure what your point is. Who was complaining and what were they complaining about?

Also, I'm curious of how dropping pamphlets did anything besides warn the drivers that they were going to be bombed? If you live near a road, are you supposed to wait until a truck goes by before leaving the area?

Again, I'm confused if you think going after the tankers is a good idea or not. You seem to support Russia going after the tankers and criticizing the US for not doing it. Then you find out the US is doing it, so you switch gears and criticize the U.S. for trying to minimize civilian casualties in the process? There is something I'm missing here.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Super Lib just think of all of the thousands of innocents that will die with that blood money. ISIS will use it to fund new conquests beheading thousands of people destroying the past and beheading every Christian they can catch. Those truck drivers sealed their fate when they worked for the terrorists. They are not in the slightest bit innocent.

the refugee well I really pray Russia can chase the terrorist terkmen out of Syria. Legally the USA and NATO have no right to fly over and bomb Syria. Turkey wants to spread terrorism and is the chief sponsor of ISIS. Again and again legal is on the side of Russia and Syria and Turkey wants to capture Syria.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

(Yes, when it was also reported that as much as 1000 trucks have been seen in the very same area. There were less trucks in the area on that day, but that's probably due to the US warning them that they have 45 minutes to leave or be bombed.)

Seriously....?

Even Burning Bush has stopped saying things like that at this point in the conflict. I'm impressed Stuart. Or is it Styuard?

Vaporizing 116 forty metric ton trucks in one sortie shows the Americans have by far the biggest stick in this conflict, get over it man.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If the US wants to help in this conflict against ISIS they could ask their allies, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding and arming ISIS and to stop.

Curiously, the topic of how and why ISIS seems to have an unlimited supply of weapons and cash never seems to enter the discourse in the American media.

The rest of the world is a little bit better informed. We know that US allies in the Middle East are the culprits.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@the refugee"The Russians were bombing helpless people in tanker trucks".

Do you remember times when ISIS thugs were so proud, beheading innocent hostages from Europe, USA, Japan and filming it for youtube ? Those thugs were backed by "helpless people in tanker trucks" and their Turkish trade partners, involved in illegal operations with stolen Syrian oil. If you help any terror group by driving their trucks or trying to justify their actions on internet forums, you are nothing better than ISIS thug. Simple as that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SuperLibNOV. 27, 2015 - 02:50AM JST Stuart: I stand corrected, the US has gone after SOME tanker trucks with very limited results. Why do you think no one complained until Russia started really going after supply lines and refinery controlled by ISIS?

I'm not sure what your point is. Who was complaining and what were they complaining about?

(I will clarify, though I already posted it in another comment. The US has had a year of bombing campaign but they NEVER went after the heart of ISIS income (like oil income) until after Russia started, then the US and Turkey complained about it. Though I'm glad the US finally got on board with it, it appears they only did it because they looked bad by NOT attacking ISIS means to make money, for the last year.)

Also, I'm curious of how dropping pamphlets did anything besides warn the drivers that they were going to be bombed? If you live near a road, are you supposed to wait until a truck goes by before leaving the area? Dropping Pamphlets stating "you have 45 minutes before we bomb you" only allowed ISIS time to get out of there in a hurry.

Again, I'm confused if you think going after the tankers is a good idea or not. You seem to support Russia going after the tankers and criticizing the US for not doing it. Then you find out the US is doing it, so you switch gears and criticize the U.S. for trying to minimize civilian casualties in the process? There is something I'm missing here.

(Again, I'm glad the US FINALLY started bombing ISIS oil income but as I explained, they did not do so until after Russia started, and they complained about Russia doing so. Now that the world recognizes the need to stop ISIS funding, the US has jumped on the band wagon.)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Do you remember times when ISIS thugs were so proud, beheading innocent hostages from Europe, USA, Japan and filming it for youtube ?

Yes. I am not sure how many ISIS thugs were involved, but I also remember Abu Ghraib, Robert Bales and the rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her entire family. I remember several wedding convoys and parties "somehow" mistaken for combatants and summarily bombed. And I am very certain more American soldiers were involved in those things than ISIS thugs were involved in beheading hostages. And that was before the beheadings. And I am positive that I can't even remember and don't even know about all the atrocities American soldiers and mercenaries committed. Oh, which reminds me of the Nisour Square massacre. And of course there was the Haditha massacre.

But of course a handful of ISIS members behead a handful of civilians and the entire org is evil to the bone. America just made some "mistakes" and it punished some people, so its all good. I just wonder if you think that is good enough for people living the Middle East?

To tell you the truth, I don't trust the MSM is giving us the full and true story about any of this. Of course I don't think they could have all the answers, but I don't think they are imparting what they actually know either, nor imparting it in a balanced manner.

Anyway, you should go to Snopes and look up "Claim: ISIS militants have been beheading children in Iraq and Syria. ". It deals with the claim that especially Christians are being beheaded. The claims come from very suspect sources, and some are using photographs that were earlier used to condemn the Assad regime, etc.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that bombing defenseless tanker trucks is quite simply a war crime.

They are dirty and murderous. Yes. But so are we. So why not just leave them alone?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Stuart: Again, I'm glad the US FINALLY started bombing ISIS oil income but as I explained, they did not do so until after Russia started, and they complained about Russia doing so. Now that the world recognizes the need to stop ISIS funding, the US has jumped on the band wagon

Is this the same Stuart Hayward who said this in October 2014?

How come this coalition keeps saying that they are only trying to disrupt IS's lucrative oil refineries, without mentioning that they have equally bombed the Syrian owned oil refineries? The US officially bombed a total of twelve oil refineries, in Syria, six that were taken over by IS and six more, that are in Syrian control.

Can you see my confusion now? Perhaps someone hijacked your account and made those statements without you know it, I'm not 100% sure.

YuriOtani: Syria should demand all NATO aircraft cease flying over their territory at once.

Everything is coordinated. They don't talk about it but you'd have to be pretty daft to think Syria has been trying to shoot down planes and failing. Syria feeds info to NATO so NATO can come in and bomb their enemies for them. And that's the problem. NATO wants to take out ISIS but we aren't going to risk blood and treasure to hand the country back over to Assad. Assad wants to NATO to help him, but he says he won't leave. Even Russia is starting to talk about a transition government without Assad. At this point he's getting in the way.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@the refugee"that bombing defenceless tanker trucks is quite simply a war crime".

It is a part of fighting international terrorism.

"why not just leave them alone?"

See above, please.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But yamashi, you have to draw the line somewhere. In cities under ISIS control they have to pay taxes to ISIS. Does that mean we can start carpet bombing those cities since every citizen pays the tax and contributes to ISIS?

Either way, we're all agreed that going after the revenue stream is a good idea. Debating whether or not we should kill the truck drivers too is getting a bit crazy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ISIS will probably start putting children in the trucks. Then more people will hate the west for the bombing, and more people will join ISIS to protest the killing of children.

Time for the west to get out of there altogether. There is no scenario where the west wins, they all lead to a loss, more death, more killing, more anger, and more blood.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Do you have proof that all the oil ISIS is profiting from, is only run by non-combatants?

So yeah. Don't take my word for it. Don't exercise simple logic. You can run "oil tanker driver Syria" into any search engine. Here are some quotes I got:

"U.S. forces have for the first time bombed oil tankers in the Syrian desert, but only after dropping leaflets warning truck drivers – deemed to be non-combatants – to “get out of your trucks now and run away from them.”"

"“We assessed that these trucks, while – although they are being used for operations that support ISIL, the truck drivers themselves, are probably not members of ISIL,” he said."

"“They’re civilians, they’re citizens of Syria. Granted, they’re oil smugglers. But they’re not really members of ISIL."

Or that all of them are forced by ISIS to make those runs?

I can't find specific proof of that, but do you really think quitting is an option for them? They don't live in SoCal. They can't just go get a job at 7-11 until stuff blows over.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SuperLibNOV. 27, 2015 - 11:13AM JST

Is this the same Stuart Hayward who said this in October 2014?

How come this coalition keeps saying that they are only trying to disrupt IS's lucrative oil refineries, without mentioning that they have equally bombed the Syrian owned oil refineries? The US officially bombed a total of twelve oil refineries, in Syria, six that were taken over by IS and six more, that are in Syrian control.

Can you see my confusion now? Perhaps someone hijacked your account and made those statements without you know it, I'm not 100% sure.

(Wow, I'm not sure wether to be flattered or creeped out that you took the time to scroll through over a years worth of my comments.)

(The comment is referring to how the US bombed six Syrian owend refineries and six ISIS controlled refineries. It's my opinion that they want Assad gone so bad they will not only bomb important infrastructure of all Syrians, they were also making sure that he never gets back those refineries taken by ISIS as well. So rather than actually trying to stop ISIS,s income, there real objective is to destabilize & cripple Syria, to remove Assad from power. If they were truly trying to stop ISIS's income, they would have only bombed ISIS controlled refineries until their were no more.)

(Since then, the tanker trucks were untouched by the US until AFTER Russia started destroying them. And the US government was quite upset that Russia bombed other ISIS controlled refineries and tanker trucks, I honestly wonder why?)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

(Wow, I'm not sure wether to be flattered or creeped out that you took the time to scroll through over a years worth of my comments.)

You know most people would have had the common decency to disappear from the thread with that kinda hypocrisy being drawn from your comments. Yes, people will hold you accountable for things you have said in the past. Just ask Burning Bush.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh it was easy to remember because you kept repeating it over and over and over again. A quick JT search for "Hayward Syrian oil refineries" pulled it up on the first page. Maybe you are one of those guys who repeats what others say so it's easy for you to forget what points you have and haven't made.

Anyway, I think we can move past this. You made the claim that the U.S. wasn't going after ISIS's revenue stream until Russia started. Based on your own comments that's not true. Maybe it's time to switch to another BS point and hope no one notices. I wish you luck.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites