Turkey Shoots Down Russian Military Plane Near Syrian Border

[RC K9]

W.T.F. So what's the US do now? If Russia retaliates, do we have more than 2 choices? Turkey being an ally, do we aid turkey? I doubt we would win a war with Russia. Do we watch Russia blow Turkey off the face of the earth, and Russia continue to take over the world?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turkey-plane-syria_56541c75e4b0258edb32ce67

[mrs.cos]

Shit storms gonna shit storm.

[BStowers023]

We would win a war against Russia.

 

Nobody wants to see it come to that though.

[Orion]

We would win a war against Russia.

 

Nobody wants to see it come to that though.

 

No one wins a nuclear war. If you think that it wouldn't come to that, you're crazy.

[sol740]

The US needs to track down and rescue the pilots who ejected, as we supposedly have some ops in the area. This is a peaceful gesture to Russia, while not making an about face to Turkey, who believes their air-space and warnings were violated.

[Orion]

The US needs to track down and rescue the pilots who ejected, as we supposedly have some ops in the area. This is a peaceful gesture to Russia, while not making an about face to Turkey, who believes their air-space and warnings were violated.

 

Pilots are dead, homie. Turkmen rebels shot them as they were parachuting to the ground. Turkey is not exactly the most civilized of places right now.

[Mojoe]

The US needs to track down and rescue the pilots who ejected, as we supposedly have some ops in the area. This is a peaceful gesture to Russia, while not making an about face to Turkey, who believes their air-space and warnings were violated.

 

Whole lot of hope in that happening. No pressure to the boots on ground.

[sol740]

Pilots are dead, homie. Turkmen rebels shot them as they were parachuting to the ground. Turkey is not exactly the most civilized of places right now.

 

Damn, last I had read their status was unknown.

[Geeto67]

The US needs to track down and rescue the pilots who ejected, as we supposedly have some ops in the area. This is a peaceful gesture to Russia, while not making an about face to Turkey, who believes their air-space and warnings were violated.

 

The pilots that Syrian Rebels claim to have shot while under canopy as reported in the article?

 

Separate footage from Turkey's Anadolu Agency showed two pilots parachuting out of the jet before it crashed. A deputy commander of rebel Turkmen forces in Syria said his men shot both pilots dead as they came down.

 

not sure what good that will do. We probably need to facilitate a peaceful as a member of NATO but otherwise mind our own damn business.

 

This is the 1980's all over again. All we need is a senile out of touch republican president advocating trickle down economics and we would have learned nothing from 1980-1989. The only difference being that we are the ones in Afghanistan now instead of the Ruskies.

 

Also isn't there a war between the Russians and the Turks every 100 years or so? 1st Russo Turkish war 1768-1774, 2nd Russo Turkish war 1877-1878. sounds like we are about 30 years overdue.

[sol740]

The pilots that Syrian Rebels claim ...

 

I had read another news source's article where their status was in question still, and not the linked source.

[ShowHBK]

From Reddit:

 

This just in:

Turkey’s news agency Dogan repeats reports that Turkmen commanders have stated that their forces shot both Russian pilots while they were parachuting down, and that they have the bodies.

 

Wait until Putin hears this.

[Mojoe]

From Reddit:

 

This just in:

Turkey’s news agency Dogan repeats reports that Turkmen commanders have stated that their forces shot both Russian pilots while they were parachuting down, and that they have the bodies.

 

Wait until Putin hears this.

 

Not that any of what's below matters, but if Turkey is our ally, I would think they would have agreed to follow the Geneva Convention.

 

An additional protocol to the original Geneva Conventions. Article 42 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) states:

 

 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

 

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article. .

[ShowHBK]

Not that any of what's below matters, but if Turkey is our ally, I would think they would have agreed to follow the Geneva Convention.

 

An additional protocol to the original Geneva Conventions. Article 42 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) states:

 

 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

 

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article. .

 

I would agree 100%... I really hope they don't do something stupid (even more stupid then what they have already done) with the pilot's bodies.

 

We have enough shit going on as is in the world and the last thing we need is Turkey at war with Russia over something like this. I really hope they can sort this mess out.

 

They were saying on BBC this morning that I guess Turkey changed it laws recently to make it so that anything within 8 km of its boarders could be shot down if they did not turn away... guess they told the fighters 8 times to fuck off and they did not leave so they shot them down... WTF?

[Orion]

Not that any of what's below matters, but if Turkey is our ally, I would think they would have agreed to follow the Geneva Convention.

 

An additional protocol to the original Geneva Conventions. Article 42 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) states:

 

 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

 

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article. .

 

While I agree with you, the REBELS in Turkey, I would think, don't give a damn about the Geneva Conventions.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12013935/Who-are-the-Turkmen.html

 

It's entirely possible that those very rebels were the targets of the Russian attack aircraft in the first place.

[Mojoe]

Rebels will be rebellious.

[RC K9]

I have always found the Geneva convention a similar concepts to be somewhat of a joke in that, it WAR. Hey guys, we hate each other enough to kill each other, but here are some rules. F that. If something comes to war, you are in it to win it. Otherwise, there would be no need for nukes. Why not just write in the Geneva convention "Ohh yeah, and nobody can use nukes either." There it's in the Geneva convention so you can't do it. When it comes to war, you do whatever it takes to win.

[1fast5gp]

So Turkey shot down a Russian Mig 24 in Syrian territory, the the Turkey backed turkman rebels killed the pilots while they were parachuting down. I don't think NATO will do anything if Russia retaliates. Even if Turkey is a member of NATO, doesn't mean if Turkey was the aggressor, NATO will protect them.

[ShowHBK]

I have always found the Geneva convention a similar concepts to be somewhat of a joke in that, it WAR. Hey guys, we hate each other enough to kill each other, but here are some rules. F that. If something comes to war, you are in it to win it. Otherwise, there would be no need for nukes. Why not just write in the Geneva convention "Ohh yeah, and nobody can use nukes either." There it's in the Geneva convention so you can't do it. When it comes to war, you do whatever it takes to win.

 

Instantly what came to mind...

 

[Geeto67]

I have always found the Geneva convention a similar concepts to be somewhat of a joke in that, it WAR. Hey guys, we hate each other enough to kill each other, but here are some rules. F that. If something comes to war, you are in it to win it. Otherwise, there would be no need for nukes. Why not just write in the Geneva convention "Ohh yeah, and nobody can use nukes either." There it's in the Geneva convention so you can't do it. When it comes to war, you do whatever it takes to win.

 

the point of the Geneva conventions isn't to redress at the time of war. It is to prevent certain actions during by imposing punishments at the end of the war. Remember all those Nazi's hung at the end of WWII? that was the result of the predecessors to the Geneva Conventions, the treaties of war from 1864, 1906, and 1929.

 

Basically if you don't want to be tried and hung at the end of a conflict don't violate these things (even if you win). Most are pretty simple and meant to protect collateral damage: don't kill medical personal intentionally, don't kill surrendering troops or troops you have already captured without justification, treat your captured enemy humanely, don't purposefully kill civilians without a good reason (i.e. it's ok to drop bombs on military targets that have civilian collateral damage, but don't start targeting schools and orphanages as primary targets) ...etc...

 

Since individuals can be tried all the way up the chain, all a country has to do is put the rules in place, and then any officers can be held personally accountable and the government to which they serve have an obligation to turn them over as well as be responsible for their actions where they were sanctioned.

 

This is one government shooting another government's aircraft down and then a third unaffiliated faction not held to the Geneva convention killing the pilots. Other than carpet bomb the shit out of that part of Syria I can't imagine there would be much Russia could do about the death of the pilots. The downing of the aircraft on the other-hand, Turkey still has to answer for that and NATO and possibly the UN Security Council will review and determine if it was justified.

[Supplicium]

Russia also had 10 chances to leave the area.

[Turbs3000]

I have always found the Geneva convention a similar concepts to be somewhat of a joke in that, it WAR. Hey guys, we hate each other enough to kill each other, but here are some rules. F that. If something comes to war, you are in it to win it. Otherwise, there would be no need for nukes. Why not just write in the Geneva convention "Ohh yeah, and nobody can use nukes either." There it's in the Geneva convention so you can't do it. When it comes to war, you do whatever it takes to win.

 

While true in theory, you don't see member countries gassing populations, slaughtering civilians, or killing POWs like you would if it was no holds barred.

[criitter7]

Anybody see what was used to shoot it down?

[RC K9]

While true in theory, you don't see member countries gassing populations, slaughtering civilians, or killing POWs like you would if it was no holds barred.

 

So because you and I don't see it, that means it's not being done?

 

And you really think Geneva convention countries aren't slaughtering civilians? Of course they are. Wars are won through civilian casualties.

 

When did we drop nukes on Japan? 1945? How many people died? 90k-160k in Hiro and 39k-80k in Nag just on the first day? What percentage of those were civilian? When were the Geneva agreements made? 1949. Then the US was all like, "OK, we got our good lick in, so lets hurry up and make an agreement where no one can do that again. Glad we got ours in beforehand though." Wars are won through civilian casualties. Period.

 

POW's...let them live to fight and kill you another day.

[Orion]

Anybody see what was used to shoot it down?

 

Seems to be some confusion on that. Turkey initially said it was an SAM, Russia claims it was Turkish F-16's.

[Turbs3000]

So because you and I don't see it, that means it's not being done?

 

And you really think Geneva convention countries aren't slaughtering civilians? Of course they are. Wars are won through civilian casualties.

 

When did we drop nukes on Japan? 1945? How many people died? 90k-160k in Hiro and 39k-80k in Nag just on the first day? What percentage of those were civilian? When were the Geneva agreements made? 1949. Then the US was all like, "OK, we got our good lick in, so lets hurry up and make an agreement where no one can do that again. Glad we got ours in beforehand though." Wars are won through civilian casualties. Period.

 

POW's...let them live to fight and kill you another day.

 

Honestly, no. Not like you could see it and I'm sure it's kept people more peaceful. Is it perfect or even great? not even close, but it is at least a process to keeping the largest powers in the world slightly less dishonest.

Media in every country is biased but in the end most stories get out one way or another.

As for the bombs, that was part of the justification for things like this. As you said it was signed 4 years later. Also, it wasn't like those practices didn't exist before that. WW1 and 2 both involved many aspects of the GC already in play. It's not going to stop WW3 but it's a buffer for the small stuff for sure.