Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
One of the two Russian pilots is dead. US and France urge Russia and Turkey to prevent escalation.
ps. On a side note, does Germany actually count as a military force? Because when we're talking about the EU's economic policy, we're basically talking about Germany. But when war is at the gates we always see France as the major European player.
Peaceful economic stalwarts have a great deal of capacity to mobilize a military when needed. Just look at Japan.
Many Germans aren't particularly fond of our military (seen more as a necessary evil) or deploying it for anything that isn't purely "peacekeeping".
And the cherry on top is that Syrian rebels have used one of the anti-tank systems the USA gave them against a Russian rescue helicopter searching for the pilots.
But if true, yes, it's certainly a war crime.
Were they, now?
All we seem to know at this point is that "Russia’s military general staff is quoted by Russian news agencies as saying" that (one of) the pilots (not both) were shot down, according to the Guardian. Do you suggest that we take statements attributed Russian military spokespeople at face value?
So, assuming description of the video is accurate -- does that mean they were "shot out of the sky"? From what you've quoted, wouldn't it be more likely to assume that they found the pilots in that condition on the ground?
I'm just looking for something resembling a logical substantiation for the allegation that was made.
[0] http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.a...
Turkey's military often likes to interfere in turkish politics, and this was probably caused by some hothead militant. I doubt turkey has at this stage anything to gain from confrontation with Russia.
"Turkey's military often likes to interfere in turkish politics": This is outdated information, the military nowadays appear to be subdued by the strong government presence. If there were "hothead militants" still around there would be many other goals they would be pursuing other than downing Russian planes.
The Russian bomber was on a combat mission near the Turkish border. Turkey has a legitimate interest in preventing combat aircraft from deliberately or accidentally bombing Turkish territory and Turkish people.
Turkey stated it would respond disproportionately to any incursions into its airspace and has shot down Syrian aircraft for similar incursions.
Now there will be predictable sabre ratting and retaliation from Russia - they do not want this to calm down...not really.
It's even possible that both sides could be making their claims in good faith - if someone's equipment isn't perfectly accurate. (Hmm. Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, Tomorrow Never Dies.)
Substantiation, please?
For one thing, the Turks are traditionally enemies of the Kurds, who want to establish their own state within Turkey's borders.
So it's not surprising (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) that Turkey would support ISIS, if not actively, at least passively.
But you're not providing any factual information to support the allegation that it actually is happening.
And it's obvious that the oil is going over land to a country near ISIS territory. That means Turkey, Iran, and possibly Jordan. Considering the friendly relationship that Iran has with Assad, I doubt they are buying oil to fund their opposition. With Jordan requiring travel through area's that ISIS doesn't have strong control over that's also not likely, at least not for their main source of funding. That leaves Turkey.
If you can't provide substantiation for this claim, perhaps you should be more careful in how you choose your wording -- especially when making rather loaded and incendiary allegations, of this sort.