Turkey shoots down Russian jet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331558/Turkey-shoots-fighter-jet-Syrian-border-Local-media-footage-flaming-plane-crashing-trees.html

caught on camera!.....why did this happen? when military forces come into close proximity, we know this can happen, fast, etc and has happened before...if theRussians weren't too far in, seems like the Turks fired quickly
didn't know if this should be in Russian aircraft thread or not.....if so, please advise and adjust

 

Well, Adolf Putin has a problem!

 

On NPR this AM it said the Turks warned them to leave Turkish territory something like 10 times in 5 minutes before firing. The linked article mentions it as well. Russians are still claiming it was ground fire last I heard.

 

Would they perhaps be trying to avoid a sticky situation with Turkey by being adamant that it was 'ethnic Turks'?
Genuine question...
Why also would the Turkish government not be leaning the same way?

 

The Turkish government is the last to have the right of complaining about a violation of its airspace .It has declared a no fly zone of 5 km in Syria in 2012,obviously to conceal its help to ISIS. It has constantly violated the airspace of Iraq in its war against the Kurds .

 

The first photo in the Daily Mail link looks like an Su-27 or similar, with missile rails on the wingtips. The second looks like an Su-24, with wings in the forward swept position.

 

A bit better article IMO:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983

 

The morning report on CBS showed a track crossing a spur of the Turkish/Syrian border. Hard to see how it took a jet 5 minutes to cross straight line (granted they could have begun warning on the approach to the border). Reading between the lines, some reason to suspect this is payback for Russian strikes on Turkomen rebels within Syria.

 

Sensible Kurds (ie. not the PKK) would be seeking to open a 'Kurdish State' embassy in Moscow right now...

 

Things could get very serious, very fast. Putin just accused Turkey of being an ISIS ally, which is mostly true. Turkey is playing a dangerous game and so far the west has ignored it because Turkey is "NATO." The Russians don't care about that. The Turks are already angry because the Russians are targeting fuel oil sites and convoys flowing into Turkey. The Turkish air strikes are mainly aimed at Kurds who are trying to close that gap along the border that ISIS is using to get oil out and supplies and recruits in. So, now Russia is targeting that very area and the sparks are beginning to fly.

 

Hell, yes!

 

Cockroaches following Russian jet story with interest

 

Was gonna check out that article, but got distracted by the link "what the perfect female body looks like around the world" and so.....

 

She looks the same, wherever you take her

 

Didn't the Turks declare some sort of "no fly zone" near their border with regards to Syrian planes? They may be applying it to Russian planes as well or just not able or perhaps willing to differentiate.

One of the most serious problems with Syria is that there appear to be way to many sides and just who is fighitng with whom at any one point is less than clear. Indeed we've seen cases of one "side" both attacking and helping another faction in some cases at almost if not exactly the same time.

 

My thoughts go to the pilots.

 

Landing in the midst of a group you have been bombing can be a bit challengeing. One report I read indicated that the pilot who was reported dead had been shot in the air.

 

Damn, this whole thing is confusing.
Thought Russia was buddying up with France, what with the dog gift, sending of a Slava class cruiser alongside the French aircraft carrier in order to attack isis.
Does this mean France is not following what Bama wants them to do?

Also, not sure if this goes here, thought it was the US that bombed the oil trucks...Now hearing it was the Russians. So why would the US drop leaflets warning of an attack if those were isis oil tankers.
Some help here, cause i don't understand what the heck is going on. duh

 

It's very simple. Here is the explanation Brian Smith posted on WW2talk a couple of days ago



President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).





But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)





So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.





By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.





Getting back to Syria.





So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?





But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).





Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.





So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.





Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).





So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).





To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)





Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.





So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.








So now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!