Japan Today
world

Turkey: NATO should view Syria as attacking it

50 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

So a photo reconnaissance plane is flying at 200 ft above the water along and into Syrian airspace. And Turkey claimed it was a training flight.... Yeah sure, funny that a mere 150 km from where this jet was shot down the Syrian rebels where in the process of capturing a major Syrian arms base. Coincidence!!!! And not to mention the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels a mere 50 km from where this plane went down.... Still a training flight??? Will be interesting to see if the plane was shot down with a missile as the Turks claim or by cannon fire as the Syrians claim because that would reveal quite a bit about who's telling the truth about the plane.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just a lucky shot by them Syrians??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cletus,

I will be the first to admit we have had our disagreements. However, I have trouble believing you are seriously taking Syria's side in this. While the Turkish plane might have entered Syrian airspace, do you seriously think it was going to attack Syria? What do you think the purpose of the flight was as you obviously do not believe the Turks?

And not to mention the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels a mere 50 km from where this plane went down

That is quite an interesting way of describing a refugee camp. You do realize it is a refugee camp, don't you?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If this aircraft was knowingly inside Syrian airspace then they knew the risks and possible consequences. NATO should NOT be dragged into this conflict, certainly not by Turkey, let them fight their own battle if they want to. The Turkish military could probably decimate Syria if it chose to.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ben Jack

I will be the first to admit we have had our disagreements. However, I have trouble believing you are seriously taking Syria's side in this.

Firstly Ben l am not taking sides l am merely stating that there is more to this than is being said.

While the Turkish plane might have entered Syrian airspace, do you seriously think it was going to attack Syria? What do you think the purpose of the flight was as you obviously do not believe the Turks?

No Ben l dont think an unarmed plane was going to attack Syria. As the article states it was a reconnaissance plane l think it is more likely it was going to take some photos or see what was going on, on the ground. As l said it occurred around the same time the rebels where attacking the army base a mere 150 km away.

It has also been reported today that the plane was flying at 100 meters above the sea a mere 1-2 km from the Syrian coast when it was discovered. So if that is the case how exactly does that fit with what the Turks are saying that the plane was there to test Turkish radar. Sounds more and more like a spy flight gone wrong.

"And not to mention the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels a mere 50 km from where this plane went down" That is quite an interesting way of describing a refugee camp. You do realize it is a refugee camp, don't you?

MMM yes it is a refugee camp, it is also being reported that in addition to being a refugee camp it is also a are that the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It has also been reported today that the plane was flying at 100 meters above the sea a mere 1-2 km from the Syrian coast when it was discovered. So if that is the case how exactly does that fit with what the Turks are saying that the plane was there to test Turkish radar. Sounds more and more like a spy flight gone wrong.

Keep in mind, just like you, I have no idea what the real story is. I think your questions are perfectly reasonable. However, the situation you described above does also sound like it could have also been a radar testing mission. The countries border each other and the distances are not that great. The Turks have said the plane was a reconnaissance plane and a main part of their mission is to look at stuff. However, do you think the plane was trying to look at stuff 150 kilometers away? That part, I am not quite understanding.

yes it is a refugee camp, it is also being reported that in addition to being a refugee camp it is also a are that the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels.

If you are suggesting there are rebels amongst the refugees, I would agree that is possible. However, that is quite different than the suggestion that Turkey is 'giving shelter to the rebels'. What would you have Turkey do? Check whether the refugees have rebel secret decoder rings? What percent of the refugees in the camps do you think are rebels? What percentage do you think are merely refugees? The reason I ask is that your statement that Turkey is giving shelter to the rebels seems to suggest that Turkey is knowingly and actively giving shelter to people of whom a majority are rebels. Possibly you did not mean to say this. However, that is the impression given by your statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These two countries share a long history and a long border. If Syria breaks up it could be an opportunity for Turkey to control more land. The flight path of the plane shows it buzzing the Syrian coast, for whatever reason, and I am not surprised that Syria took the bait and shot it down. Naturally Turkey would love to see Syria get hit with the might of NATO, or even the threat of such. NATO itself will not want to get drawn into a tit-for-tat spat, but they will be collecting 'legal' reasons for action should such a time come..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jack

If you are suggesting there are rebels amongst the refugees, I would agree that is possible. However, that is quite different than the suggestion that Turkey is 'giving shelter to the rebels'. What would you have Turkey do?

No Ben l am not suggesting that there are some rebels mixed in amongst the refugees, l am specifically referring to reports and admissions that the Turks have been allowing the Syrian rebels and their leadership into Turkey. And while Turkey has denied arming the rebels they do not deny that they allow them on Turkish soil.

Check whether the refugees have rebel secret decoder rings? What percent of the refugees in the camps do you think are rebels? What percentage do you think are merely refugees?

Oh the good old Ben sarcasm. Ben they dont deny that they let the rebel leaders into Turkey, they dont deny that they have rebels on their land and allow them safe haven. Try looking it up for yourself rather than post silly comments.

The reason I ask is that your statement that Turkey is giving shelter to the rebels seems to suggest that Turkey is knowingly and actively giving shelter to people of whom a majority are rebels. Possibly you did not mean to say this. However, that is the impression given by your statement.

Nope given that it is widely reported that they are doing exactly this, and it is also been said by the Turks that they want a regime change in Syria then really is it that far a stretch. The Turks deny arming the rebels but say nothing when its suggested they are providing them safe haven..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And while Turkey has denied arming the rebels they do not deny that they allow them on Turkish soil.

Serious question, are they not denying letting them in as refugees or as rebels? My understanding is that Turkey is letting in refugees as refugees and not specifically letting in 'rebels'.

Oh the good old Ben sarcasm.

Hey, in this world filled with dark and sad things, there is nothing wrong with a bit of humor. Anyway, see above comment and question to you.

Nope given that it is widely reported that they are doing exactly this.

Again, see above comment and question, please. Also, where has this been widely reported? I have not been able to find such reports.

it is also been said by the Turks that they want a regime change in Syria then really is it that far a stretch

Yes, I think it could be a stretch. Suggesting Assad step down and specifically hosting rebels are two different things.

I think hosting the refugees came first and amongst them were rebels who operate in and from Turkey. However, that is not the same thing as claiming Turkey is hosting them as if they were specifically invited to Turkey to operate there. There are something like 32,000 Syrian refugees and I believe the rebels are amongst them, not the other way around. Could you share why you think what you do? I have not seen anything specific to lead me to believe Turkey was inviting rebels specifically to be housed and hosted in Turkey.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ben Jack

"And while Turkey has denied arming the rebels they do not deny that they allow them on Turkish soil." Serious question, are they not denying letting them in as refugees or as rebels? My understanding is that Turkey is letting in refugees as refugees and not specifically letting in 'rebels'.

Ben what does my comment say? Does it say refugees or rebels?

Yes, I think it could be a stretch. Suggesting Assad step down and specifically hosting rebels are two different things.I think hosting the refugees came first and amongst them were rebels who operate in and from Turkey. However, that is not the same thing as claiming Turkey is hosting them as if they were specifically invited to Turkey to operate there. There are something like 32,000 Syrian refugees and I believe the rebels are amongst them, not the other way around. Could you share why you think what you do? I have not seen anything specific to lead me to believe Turkey was inviting rebels specifically to be housed and hosted in Turkey.

Ben, as l said try looking it up for yourself. I have been able to find numerous US and European news outlets mentioning this. Here is one quote for you that was easily found:

Erdogan turned against former ally Assad after he rebuffed his advice to bow to demands for reform. He now allows the rebel Free Syrian Army to use Turkish territory as a safe haven, though Ankara denies supplying arms to the FSA.

This one is from Reuters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben what does my comment say? Does it say refugees or rebels?

So, you are specifically stating that Turkey has acknowledged specifically hosting the rebels? Got it.

Ben, as l said try looking it up for yourself.

I did. I did not find specifically what you said.

This one is from Reuters.

Allowing them a safe haven is not actually clear to me. It could also mean what I said it means in that Turkey is not trying to root out the rebels from within the refugees. While that certainly can be considered a kind of tacit support, I do not think it reaches to the definition of specifically hosting the rebels. Mind you, I am not saying they are not doing such a thing. I am just saying I don't think the report makes it clear that Turkey is specifically supporting the rebels.

Of course, you are free to interprete the news reports as you see fit and you might turn out to be correct. I just do not see that in the reports, including the one you kindly provided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While trying to find further information (unsuccessfully) I found reports suggesting Syria has also shot at, but missed, a Turkish transport plane that was searching for the downed F-4. Fortunately Turkey has specifically said that although they are considering responses, going to war over the incident was definitely not one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jack

So, you are specifically stating that Turkey has acknowledged specifically hosting the rebels? Got it.

Yes Ben that is what l have said since 8 am this morning.

I did. I did not find specifically what you said.

So you could not find one single mention of it at all? Funny l managed to find several reports in about 10 seconds. I guess you just where not looking hard enough

Allowing them a safe haven is not actually clear to me. It could also mean what I said it means in that Turkey is not trying to root out the rebels from within the refugees.

Ben, l know you like to get picky when your proven wrong so l will spell it out. The article specifically states "allows the rebel Free Syrian Army to use Turkish territory as a safe haven". Now that does not infer what you claim it specifically states that the Turks are allowing the FSA to use Turkish territory as a safe haven. Are you familiar with the term safe haven Ben?

While that certainly can be considered a kind of tacit support, I do not think it reaches to the definition of specifically hosting the rebels. Mind you, I am not saying they are not doing such a thing. I am just saying I don't think the report makes it clear that Turkey is specifically supporting the rebels.

Ok Ben, once again something is there in black and white and you claim you cant find any reference to it. Yet it is easily found. Then when a quote is provided that you ask for specifically backing up my statement you claim it doesnt say that. I guess this just cements my opinion that you hate to be wrong and when your proven wrong you will go to any length to refute it.

The joint Turkish-Syrian search and rescue operation sits uneasily with Turkey's hosting of the rebel Free Syrian Army fighting to topple Assad, once a personal friend of Erdogan.

Another quote from a different media outlet.

"Turkey may suspect that Syria and Iran are supporting Kurdish rebel activities now as a reaction to Turkish support of the Syrian revolt," he said.

And another

Of course, you are free to interprete the news reports as you see fit and you might turn out to be correct. I just do not see that in the reports, including the one you kindly provided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Somebody is trying to test the responsing ability of Syria's updated air defence system introduced from Russia, for a possible no-flying zone compaign. And now they have got the answer. Turkish PM Erdgan is insane and wrongly did the test for Mrs Clinton and became a victim ugly. For the Russian, it's a big success to showing off their ability and determination.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You've kind of messed up the quotes making what you want to say a bit confusing. However, let me try to respond as best I can. It is not a matter of not wanting to be wrong. I have not specifically spelled out an argument for one side of the other as far as this specific discussion is concerned. I am merely stating an opinion here. I have even suggested you could be correct. Please do not let your imagination get too far ahead of you. I still feel the word 'host' and 'safe haven' are being used too loosely here based on what you have provided and what has been reported so far.

For example, if the Turks claim they are not arming the rebels, how are the Turks supporting them exactly? How are they providing them with a safe haven? You see, I do not see specifics that indicate what you are saying. Maybe these things will be provided in future reports. However, I do not see them here, yet. As a comparison, when you and I have discussed another country's support, arming, training and financing of groups, it was clear what the support was. Here, I am not clear. If you are, could you tell me what the specific support is? Is it that Turkey agrees with their cause? Is it that kind of support? Is it that Turkey is allowing the rebels to use their soil to launch attacks, etc? You see, I have not see that yet in any reports. If it comes out that that is the case, so be it. I have no horse in this race. I am not tied to my opinions in the face of facts showing them to be wrong. I'm just participating in a discussion and offering my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jack,

For example, if the Turks claim they are not arming the rebels, how are the Turks supporting them exactly? How are they providing them with a safe haven?

Ben, the definition of safe haven is "If part of a country is declared a safe haven, people who need to escape from a dangerous situation such as a war can go there and be protected." So the Turks do not need to be arming them merely offering them a location that they can go and be safe from attacks by the Syrian military. But lm thinking you know this already and are just playing your typical word games.

You see, I do not see specifics that indicate what you are saying.

Ok Ben.... I said the Turks where offering the FSA safe haven (see post 0755 "the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels"). So l said the Turks are giving shelter to the rebels. You disputed this statement l then provided a reference which states "He now allows the rebel Free Syrian Army to use Turkish territory as a safe haven". So let me spell this out for ya. I said the Turks are providing a refuge for the FSA, media outlets say the Turks are providing the FSA safe haven. And you still say you cant see the link between my statement and the comment in the media. Wow Ben you really do shut your eyes when your proven wrong now dont you.

As a comparison, when you and I have discussed another country's support, arming, training and financing of groups, it was clear what the support was.

Ben, to quote you. We are not discussing other nations we are discussing Syria and Turkey so please bring the other countries up only when we are discussing them.

Here, I am not clear. If you are, could you tell me what the specific support is? Is it that Turkey agrees with their cause? Is it that kind of support? Is it that Turkey is allowing the rebels to use their soil to launch attacks, etc?

Ben, come on get real. As the numerous (which you claim you cant find) reports state. The Turks are offering safe haven to the rebels. They are offering them a place where the Syrian military cannot attack them. They are hosting the SFA leadership (as mentioned in other articles). As l even posted a comment the Turks are now worried that their support for the FSA will lead to Syria giving more support to the Kurdish rebels against Turkey.

Oh and as you seem to have issues finding any reports on the matter of Turkey assisting the FSA here is another l found:

Operating out of southern Turkey, units of the Free Syrian Army, driven by hatred toward Assad, are infiltrating their home country and fighting soldiers loyal to the dictator.

But you claim to be unable to find anything on this. Maybe you should actually try looking Ben as there are many many reports like this on the internet.

You see, I have not see that yet in any reports. If it comes out that that is the case, so be it.

Wow, you have seen no reports. Thats funny l have provided three for you now and you still cant find any. Try googling Turkey supports FSA. Thats a good place to start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At first Turkey said it was a reconnaissance plane, now they're saying it was a training flight.

They seem to be changing their story.

200 meters above the water in Syrian territory????? Come on, that's a provocation.

And the wreckage was found in Syrian waters. So how can the plane end up there when it was supposedly leaving or outside of Syrian airspace?

If the plane was ordered to leave (fly west) how can it fall back 20 km eastward after being hit.

The Turkish story is full of holes (pun intended) and the Syrians seem to be shooting straight (again, pun intended).

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"and the Syrians seem to be shooting straight"

With the civilians Assad's forces have murdered in repressing the uprising now in the tens of thousands, no one is doubting their shooting skills.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Somebody is trying to test the responsing ability of Syria's updated air defence system introduced from Russia, "

I agree, that's the most likely answer. And probably why they were in an obsolete, though albeit mighty American jet designed in the fifties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree, that's the most likely answer. And probably why they were in an obsolete, though albeit mighty American jet designed in the fifties.

Not that obsolete. The Turkish planes where all built after 1978, so while the initial design for the airframe is old the Turkish planes actually arnt that old at all. The Turks story also appears to be springing many more holes as its being reported that the plane was shot down not with a missile but a gun with a maximum range of 2 km. Seems like the Turks were either trying to sneak into Syria or where testing their reactions either way they lost.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Air_Force#Combat_aircraft

Their fleet would seem a little more modern than a jet that first flew in 1958

Do you support the Syrians shooting down the Turkish plane, Cletus?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So now Turkey wants NATO support, when before they wouldn't even allow NATO flyover space.

Seems the Syrians were a bit trigger-happy. A warning or scrambling a couple jets like the US used to do when USSR planes violated Alaskan airspace. Particularly when the plane had open electronic signals.

Let them recover the wreckage and find out exactly how it was shot down. Otherwise, next time Syria fires bullets that crosses outside its borders again, there may just be a Turkey-Syria scrimmage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Air_Force#Combat_aircraft Their fleet would seem a little more modern than a jet that first flew in 1958

Madverts considering the plane in question was built in 1977 and is significantly different to the one that flew in 1958.

Do you support the Syrians shooting down the Turkish plane, Cletus?

If infact the plane did violate Syrian airspace and that seems a given considering that even the Turks admit it did then yes. Turkey's airforce has a bit of a reputation for ignoring other nations airspace and sovereignty and going where it pleases. It routinely does it in Northern Iraq, Syria, Greece, etc etc. So its no great surprise that it was shot down.

Let me ask you this Madverts, if a plane suddenly appeared on radar flying a mere 100 meters above the sea heading straight in for your nation and was only 1-2 km from the coast what would you do? Wave!!!! The Turks knew what they where doing they knew the risks and now they are complaining about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Let me ask you this Madverts, if a plane suddenly appeared on radar flying a mere 100 meters above the sea heading straight in for your nation "

I'd have ordered what every other rational nation would have - scramble fighter jets to lock on, warn and escort from the territory, unless the foreign fighter attempted to engage in hostilities....

I agree airspace shouldn't be violated, but I think Syria is a regime about to collapse and is lashing out stupidly and OTT.

"Madverts considering the plane in question was built in 1977 and is significantly different to the one that flew in 1958."

What differences do you wish to cite to make an obsolete 50's jet seem the weapon of choice? The Turks have some pretty impressive jets, the F4 whilst a mighty beast in its' day is a dinosaur compared to the 232 F-16 Fighting Falcon's and various other modern war-planes in their arsenal.

I think the jet was expendable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

"Let me ask you this Madverts, if a plane suddenly appeared on radar flying a mere 100 meters above the sea heading straight in for your nation " I'd have ordered what every other rational nation would have - scramble fighter jets to lock on, warn and escort from the territory, unless the foreign fighter attempted to engage in hostilities....

Sorry but when it comes to Turkey that sort of thing just doesnt sink in. Where you aware that the Turkish airforce routinely violates its neighbors airspace on purpose, many times with armed aircraft. Even the airspace of fellow NATO members and ignores their complaints. For example from January to May this year the Turks have violated Greek airspace 705 times including 82 times when they sent armed fighters into Greek airspace. So l think we are talking about a repeat serial offender here. Also the plane in question was flying along the edge of Syrian airspace at several thousand feet before it suddenly dropped to 100 meters and went into Syrian airspace. It then left and repeated the process and that is when it was shot down. So lm sorry but they knew what they were doing they know there is a armed conflict going on in Syria so the military will be on higher alert. The Turks buggered up and now they want NATO's support!

What differences do you wish to cite to make an obsolete 50's jet seem the weapon of choice? The Turks have some pretty impressive jets, the F4 whilst a mighty beast in its' day is a dinosaur compared to the 232 F-16 Fighting Falcon's and various other modern war-planes in their arsenal.

Lets see the F-16's you mention are only 10 years newer than the F-4's and they are the only other "modern" warplanes the Turks have. They are also not tactical reconnaissance planes like the one shot down.

I think the jet was expendable.

And the two crew? I think the Turks where probing the Syrian defences as they do often. And due to the situation in Syria they got their plane shot out from under them. Its not a good development but its not one that Syria should shoulder all the blame for. The Turks should not have been there in the first place.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

the definition of safe haven is "If part of a country is declared a safe haven, people who need to escape from a dangerous situation such as a war can go there and be protected."

I understand this. What you have misunderstood, possibly due to my inablility to explain my opinion properly, is that I stil wonder which came first. I am of the opinion that Turkey is giving safe haven to refugees and among those refugees are rebels. That does not mean the Turks intended to give safe haven to rebels, although one could argue that is the result. That was the point I was trying to make. You are of the opinion that the Turks gave the rebels a safe haven because they wanted to support the rebel movement. I am not yet convinced that is the order in which it happened.

I said the Turks are providing a refuge for the FSA, media outlets say the Turks are providing the FSA safe haven. And you still say you cant see the link between my statement and the comment in the media. Wow Ben you really do shut your eyes when your proven wrong now dont you.

First, you have not proven me wrong. Look back at my posts in this discussion. I asked questions and offered an opinion. I never stated my opinion were facts. I am quite clear and careful when I discuss facts. You should know that by now.

Ben, to quote you.

Please note I took great care not to name any other nations as to not derail this discussion. Please do not ignore my point there. What I said is still my opinion regarding the use or misuse of the word 'support' in this discussion. I think it might be misleading.

The Turks are offering safe haven to the rebels. They are offering them a place where the Syrian military cannot attack them.

The Syrians have attacked actually and killed not only refugees, but also Turkish soldiers. Were you not aware of this. I maintiain the safe haven is for the refugees. If there are rebels, I believe they came in with the refugees and live amongst them. It was a refugee camp that Syria attacked not a rebel camp. Do you see the difference? Do you see where I might have questions about this? The safe haven is clearly for the over 30,000 refugees. That was the intent in my opinion. Until I see otherwise, it does not look to me like Turkey decided to set up rebel camps in their country. It obvously does to you. Fine. I disagree. If facts show Turkey has been setting up rebel camps or arming the rebels, I have no problem accepting such information as facts.

But you claim to be unable to find anything on this.

I never said the rebels were not in Turkey. What I said is I have not seen evidence that the Turks are actively supporting them. Remember my above post where I discuss what I mean by support? I do not see evidence of that here. Not yet anyway. There is a difference that does not seem to be clear in these reports.

None of your reports seem to show evidence of active Turkish support for the rebels. They are in the refugee camps. They are receiving the same services as the other refugees.

I know you are very desperate to show how wrong I am about something. However, we are talking about opinions here. As I said, I am not married to my opinion. As such, it is not possible for you to show me 'wrong' in this discussion. There is nothing wrong with asking questions nor with offering opinions as long as you are open to other ideas. I am certainly open to the possibility that Turkey is actively supporting the rebels. As I said, that may be the case. However, Turkey says they are not doing this and none of the reports speak to specifics of what kind of support Turkey is giving. Merely providing refugee camps does not qualify as active support in my opinion when the majority of the refugees are merely victims of the violence and just trying to escape with their lives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Turkish story is full of holes (pun intended) and the Syrians seem to be shooting straight (again, pun intended).

Never Submit,

The Syrians evidently also shot at a transport plane searching for the first plane. What is your explanation for that?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'd have ordered what every other rational nation would have - scramble fighter jets to lock on, warn and escort from the territory, unless the foreign fighter attempted to engage in hostilities....

Exactly. I also would have tried to ascertain to which country the plane belonged before shooting at it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Where you aware that the Turkish airforce routinely violates its neighbors airspace on purpose, many times with armed aircraft. Even the airspace of fellow NATO members and ignores their complaints. For example from January to May this year the Turks have violated Greek airspace 705 times including 82 times when they sent armed fighters into Greek airspace. So l think we are talking about a repeat serial offender here.

How many of those planes were shot down?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" Its not a good development but its not one that Syria should shoulder all the blame for. "

This is where we differ. The Syrians chose not to identify or challenge the Turkish aircraft and simply blew it from the sky. I'm surprised to see you so gung-ho Cletus....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"The Syrians evidently also shot at a transport plane searching for the first plane. What is your explanation for that?"

Amphibian-human hybrids from Blackwater and/or US special ops trying to cover up the evidence of a secret mind control device aboard Cletus's upgraded F4 to turn Syrians against their benevolent leader?

The things you can say when you don't have to support your argument..... :)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ben Jack

How many of those planes were shot down?

None Ben, not one. But just out of curiosity when did a full on shooting war start in Greece that l am unaware of? When did foreign powers start talking the possibility of air attacks in Greece? Hmm maybe if that was the case then there would be a similar result.

And given that Turkey has a history of launching air attacks into neighboring countries without warning do you really want to sit around and let them do as they please?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Madverts

"The Syrians evidently also shot at a transport plane searching for the first plane. What is your explanation for that?" Amphibian-human hybrids from Blackwater and/or US special ops trying to cover up the evidence of a secret mind control device aboard Cletus's upgraded F4 to turn Syrians against their benevolent leader?

Wow Madverts, did it take you long to come up with that one? Well done.

The things you can say when you don't have to support your argument..... :)

Yes the things you resort to when you cant have an adult conversation. Sad to see you turn to insults rather than discuss like an adult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

None Ben, not one.

So, in other words, generally speaking air violations between countries not at war with each other do not result in the plane being shot down, at least as far as Turkey goes? Right? Were Turkey and Syria at war with each other when this happened? No. Right? It has been reported that Syria did not know what country the plane belonged to until they shot it down. I believe it was the Syrian government that said this. Still think Syria shot it down for the reasons you listed above? I am not so sure. Given that planes are generally not shot down for such violations, that Syria had no idea whose plane it was before they shot it down and that Turkey and Syria were not at war with each other, it seems Syria's reaction can be considered unusual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

did it take you long to come up with that one?

Had you given him a few minutes longer, Never Submit would have posted it himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jack

So, in other words, generally speaking air violations between countries not at war with each other do not result in the plane being shot down, at least as far as Turkey goes?

Generally speaking that is correct. Mind you when you go intruding on airspace of countries in the middle of a civil war things tend to turn out different.

Were Turkey and Syria at war with each other when this happened? No. Right?

No they where not. You are correct. However is there a civil war occurring in Syria? Yes. Is it a good idea for a military aircraft to come into a war zone at 100 meters off the ground in proximity to a rebel attack on a military base? Nope its not, because the military will tend to be on high alert and be a bit trigger happy.

It has been reported that Syria did not know what country the plane belonged to until they shot it down. I believe it was the Syrian government that said this.

It has also since been reported that the Syrian's did infact know the origin of the aircraft. So which story do you believe.

Still think Syria shot it down for the reasons you listed above? I am not so sure.

Yep more so than ever Ben. You do not fly a military jet just off the ground into the middle of a civil war and expect good things to happen. Anyone with half a brain would know this, obviously the Turks didnt though.

Given that planes are generally not shot down for such violations, that Syria had no idea whose plane it was before they shot it down and that Turkey and Syria were not at war with each other, it seems Syria's reaction can be considered unusual.

Given that planes usually dont go flying in an aggressive manner not once but twice in the direction of a major battle in a civil war. If it had merely flown in at a normal altitude and there wasnt a major battle going on l would say Syria over reacted big time. But lets look at the facts, a Turkish plane not once but twice entered Syrian airspace at very low level and at speed (commercial and recreational aircraft dont fly at 100 meters above the sea and in excess of 300 knots.) The Turkish plane did this at the same time as a major battle was taking place a mere 150 km away (a mere 3 minutes flying time away). The Turkish plane flew in from the Med rather than across the Syria / Turkish border. So given all those facts (facts admitted by both sides) do you still think this was an accident or overreaction? I bet you still say yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It received some upgrades (none to the engines) but is still an obsolete fighter. My whole point is that is why it was sent out there, because it was an old jet that was expendable. If you'd read the link I provided earlier, you'd see what I mean in terms of spending in the 80's and 90's in regards to the fleet of F14's. Perhaps our resident USN pilot could give us more input?

I'm still surprised to see you of all posters so gung-ho over the incident and supporting a regime that has killed tens of thousands of its' own people in the last year or so.

I think it was wrong to shoot this plane down in these circumstances, and a huge strategic blunder by the Syrians. And like I said, Assad's crumbling regime is getting desperate and evermore trigger-happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus,

Given that planes usually dont go flying in an aggressive manner not once but twice in the direction of a major battle in a civil war.

I understand what you want to say. I agree it was potentially not a particularly swift move on the part of the Turks. I certainly have no intention of defending it. I still do not know what they were doing there. However, I believe you wrote something along the lines that the battle was something like 150 kilometers away. I seriously do not think Syria thought there was a connection. Who knows though, maybe they did.

The Turkish plane did this at the same time as a major battle was taking place a mere 150 km away (a mere 3 minutes flying time away). The Turkish plane flew in from the Med rather than across the Syria / Turkish border. So given all those facts (facts admitted by both sides) do you still think this was an accident or overreaction? I bet you still say yes.

Okay, if 150 kilometers is 3 minutes as you say. How long does it take for the plane to invade the distance it is said to have invaded? A couple of seconds? Seems to me it is possible it was an error. The fact the plane flew over the sea as opposed to over the land border seems to speak more toward there not being a malicious intent rather than there being one. Coming over the land border seems much more confrontational to me. Do I think the Turks knew they were near the Syrian airspace? Yes, I do. Am I sure they knew they had entered it? No, I am not. Is it possible? Yes, it is. Did Syria overreact. I think it is possible to see it that way based on what usually happens when planes enter another country's airspace. I understand what you are saying about the factor of Syria being involved in an internal conflict. However, no country outside Syria has been directly involved in the fighting and no country has said they want to be involved. So, unless Syria had a reason to suspect a sudden outside attack, (NATO etc usually announce their intentions quite far in advance, don't they? ) I do think it is possible to see this as an overreaction. Had they attempted radio contact or attempted to force the plane to land and the Turks refused to respond or follow directions, the Syrian reaction would be more reasonable in my opinion. Then, it would be hard to see the invasion into Syrian airspace as anything but aggressive.

It seems you disagree. You have a right to your opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

It received some upgrades (none to the engines) but is still an obsolete fighter.

If by some upgrades you mean complete avionics changes, external changes, upgraded engines. Then yes it did receive some upgrades. And yes the engines where upgraded.

My whole point is that is why it was sent out there, because it was an old jet that was expendable.

Old and expendable. You are aware the Turk's spent nearly $700 million upgrading their 54 aircraft in 2002, and that included structural and avionics updates. The work was done by the Israeli's and Turks together.

If you'd read the link I provided earlier, you'd see what I mean in terms of spending in the 80's and 90's in regards to the fleet of F14's. Perhaps our resident USN pilot could give us more input?

Well given the Turks dont operate F-14's but rather F-4's and F-16's then l think your off track. What's more the modern F-4's are very different to what the USN used in the 60's and 70's and the Turkish F-16's have a slower top speed, shorter range and cannot perform the same role as the F-4's. So l respectfully disagree that the plane was expendable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"f by some upgrades you mean complete avionics changes, external changes, upgraded engines. Then yes it did receive some upgrades. And yes the engines where upgraded."

No, you're wrong.

"Upgrades

Buying a more sophisticated supersonic fighter, like the F-15 Eagle or Panavia Tornado, was too expensive and instead, the THK decided to upgrade its Phantom fleet with improvements to avionics and structure, but not to the engines. In August 1995, after a hotly contested competition with DASA (F-4 ICE), IAI was awarded a USD600M contract to upgrade 54 F-4Es to Phantom 2000s. The first 26 aircraft were rebuilt in Israel, and the other 28 in Turkey."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_non-U.S._operators#Upgrades_4

I gave you this info earlier. What you're suggesting is similar to tweaking a 1958 F1 car and entering it into the 1974 Grand Prix and wondering why you failed to qualify. The plane is obsolete.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jack

Okay, if 150 kilometers is 3 minutes as you say. How long does it take for the plane to invade the distance it is said to have invaded?

Ben the aircraft was show on Turkish, Syrian, and Cyriot radar prior to dropping to sea level doing 300 + knots which is approx 550km/h. I will let you do the math.

The fact the plane flew over the sea as opposed to over the land border seems to speak more toward there not being a malicious intent rather than there being one. Coming over the land border seems much more confrontational to me.

The plane came out from Turkey towards Cyprus then turned down along the Syrian border before approaching the coast. As to why... Who really knows who is telling the truth and who isnt.

Do I think the Turks knew they were near the Syrian airspace? Yes, I do. Am I sure they knew they had entered it? No, I am not.

Ben, there was a report on Turkish TV that showed that the plane had been contacted by Turkish controllers after the first incursion instructing the crew that they had entered Syrian airspace and the plane then turned around and repeated the actions and that is when it was shot down. So they knew full well they entered the airspace. Even the Turks admit this in TV.

Did Syria overreact. I think it is possible to see it that way based on what usually happens when planes enter another country's airspace. I understand what you are saying about the factor of Syria being involved in an internal conflict. However, no country outside Syria has been directly involved in the fighting and no country has said they want to be involved. So, unless Syria had a reason to suspect a sudden outside attack, (NATO etc usually announce their intentions quite far in advance, don't they? ) I do think it is possible to see this as an overreaction.

Ben, Turkey has a history of attacking neighboring countries without warning. They have launched airstrikes into Iraq in the not so distant past. The conduct armed incursions into Greece regularily. Did Syria overreact? Yes probably, but the Turks where foolish to undertake the flight in the first place. Really who in their right mind would send a plane in low and fast towards a country in the middle of a civil war with a battle raging nearby and expect nothing to happen. It was a silly move by Turkey, it was a silly move by Syria. They both are to blame. But for Turkey to then turn around and complain to NATO is just plain pathetic. And remember the Turks have declared their support for the rebels and said the Syrian government must go. So really was the flight a wise decision?

Had they attempted radio contact or attempted to force the plane to land and the Turks refused to respond or follow directions, the Syrian reaction would be more reasonable in my opinion. Then, it would be hard to see the invasion into Syrian airspace as anything but aggressive.

And by the time they got them on the radio the plane would be long gone. The weapon that bought the plane down had a range of 2 km so they would have had seconds at best.

So lets just agree to disagree on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I doubt however that the pilots were expendable.

I guess nobody was expecting the Syrian over-reaction. It may still have simply strayed.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

"If by some upgrades you mean complete avionics changes, external changes, upgraded engines. Then yes it did receive some upgrades. And yes the engines where upgraded." No, you're wrong.

Really, you want to put some money on that. The RF-4E engines where upgraded from General Electric J79-GE-15 engines to General Electric J79-GE-17 then to General Electric J79-GE-17C standard.

Buying a more sophisticated supersonic fighter, like the F-15 Eagle or Panavia Tornado, was too expensive and instead, the THK decided to upgrade its Phantom fleet with improvements to avionics and structure, but not to the engines.

That is correct the Turks didnt upgrade the engines. The engines where upgraded from the original F-4 engines when the aircraft where built in 1977. So the engines are not from the 50's as you claimed initially.

I gave you this info earlier. What you're suggesting is similar to tweaking a 1958 F1 car and entering it into the 1974 Grand Prix and wondering why you failed to qualify. The plane is obsolete.

Really you still dont get it do you. You are comparing a 1958 designed and built F-4A to a 1977 built ( and largely redesigned) RF-4E. You seem to think it is exactly the same aircraft it was when it was designed in 1958. It isnt, it has a different engine, different avionics, different wing design, different fuselage design. It even weighs different and performance is different. You really should not rely on wikipedia for all your info Madverts. Is the plane old? Yes. Is it obsolete? Its getting there, but it still outperforms the more modern F-16 in the task it is designed for. Afterall you are comparing a fighter to a recon plane. Apples and oranges. One is designed to got fast and straight the other to fight.

By the way do you think the current F-16 is identical to the F-16 built way back in 1976? Of course its not. Just like the RF-4 is not the same as the first built F-4.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course not, the F16's were also upgraded in similar fashion as to be expected - actually built by the Turks under license making the F4 even more obsolete in comparison.

But I still don't understand your shift to a gung-ho attitude on this subject Cletus, maybe you could explain it?

This could have been resolved without loss of life and escalating tensions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts,

This could have been resolved without loss of life and escalating tensions.

I completely agree, if only the Turks hadn't acted so provocatively then non of this would have happened

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ben the aircraft was show on Turkish, Syrian, and Cyriot radar prior to dropping to sea level doing 300 + knots which is approx 550km/h. I will let you do the math.

Got it. We are talking about an extremely short period of time then. Of course, we really don't know exactly how long because we have different sides telling different stories about where the plane was exactly when it was hit and before it was hit. However, we know it was a few seconds or so.

there was a report on Turkish TV that showed that the plane had been contacted by Turkish controllers after the first incursion instructing the crew that they had entered Syrian airspace and the plane then turned around and repeated the actions and that is when it was shot down. So they knew full well they entered the airspace. Even the Turks admit this in TV.

Okay. What I am wondering is if they knew they were going to be entering the airspace (intentionally) and if they knew they entered again (intentionally). If the Turkish controllers were contacting them to tell them, doesn't it sound like it was not intentional? I haven't seen the report, so I don't know anything about it.

, Turkey has a history of attacking neighboring countries without warning. They have launched airstrikes into Iraq in the not so distant past.

Turkey is fighting with the Kurds in Kurdistan. It is certainly not out of the blue. The fight between these peoples has been ongoing. It is not a good comparison to this situation in my opinon.

The(y) conduct armed incursions into Greece regularily.

Now, I honestly have not checked this, but when has Turkey attacked Greece in recent history? Are you referring to Cypress?

It was a silly move by Turkey, it was a silly move by Syria. They both are to blame.

Yes, certainly they both wrong. I still question Syria's wisdom of shooting down (and attempting to shoot down another) plane when they claim they did not know who it was. They could have attempted contact or forced the plane down first.

And by the time they got them on the radio the plane would be long gone.

Yes, no harm, no foul. The Syrians could have rightly complained about the incursion and taken the high road. Syria had more to lose by hitting the plane, again in my opinion.

So lets just agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough. The area is a mess all around. To tell the truth, I think there is no explaining most of it, or pretty much any of it. However, I enjoyed the discussion. Have a good night.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Amphibian-human hybrids from Blackwater and/or US special ops trying to cover up the evidence of a secret mind control device aboard Cletus's upgraded F4 to turn Syrians against their benevolent leader?

Leaving out the French? How dare thee!

Syria is probably paranoid at this point. There is protocol which is followed in incidents like this but they freaked and shot first and asked questions later. Kind of like shelling entire towns and firing indiscriminately into crowds of people. Maybe it's about time to airdrop in some Valium or at the very least some California medicinal marijuana.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Leaving out the French? How dare thee!"

Not quite - thanks to extensive pressure from The New World Order syndicate, the French have refused to export luxury items such as Chanel, Cartier or any fine wines and cheeses to the Assad's.

I hear Asma Assad might not survive the week as a consequence....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cletus, so you support the Russian puppet? Why don't you support a member of NATO? Tovarish Cletus have you paid your party membership fee yet? Now I understand you at last, supports all things anti Japanese but you do not like the USA. Perhaps you support Russian bases in Australia? I have misjudged you Tovarish Cletus!

0 ( +0 / -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