Posted on 11/24/2015 7:17:17 AM PST by Biggirl
President Vladimir Putin has accused Turkey of funding ISIS, and using its military to protect the terrorist organisation, after a Russian fighter jet was shot down near the Syrian border on Tuesday morning. The two-pilot Sukhoi Su-24 jet was shot down by F-16 fighter planes just after 9am this morning, after it violated Turkish airspace and ignored nearly a dozen warnings by the military, Ankara officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
How do you have this insight into what is in Putin’s head? The threat to the U.S. and the civilized world is not Putin. Islam is the threat and common enemy of both. Hussein Obama is the threat, not Putin. What attacks has Russia made on U.S. Citizens in how many decades? Ultimately, Putin represents his people. Bo represents the enemies of U.S. Citizens. Where have you been sleeping?
"Not really. The Soviets shot down KL-007. They recently shot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine and seized Crimea. The Russians are increasing their harassment of our planes and ships and flying near our airspace.The Turks warned the Russians days ago that they would not tolerate incursions into their airspace. The Russians ignored it and paid the price. WWIII won't happen because of it."
How sure are we about the Russians ( Putin ) greenlighting the Pro-Russian separatists to take down that airliner though? It seems like a stretch in this day and age of information flow. Obama or Kerry telling Turkey to shootdown a fighter plane is one thing, but a passenger jet? Man, I don't know. I just can't imagine that level of evil from anyone except Jihadists. I mean, what would he gain from it except anger and bad press? But anyway, we might finally get a dump of information about Obama, Clinton, Kerry and their shenanigans from a pissed-off Putin. So just maybe some of these things will become clear.
I'm not sure the KAL incident is a good parallel, and it certainly doesn't make the case for Turkey, in fact it kinda makes the opposite point IMHO. I learned a lot about KAL-007 the hard way, from knowing the family of two victims, a woman and her infant child ( yes, it was that terrible, the grief profound, not until 9/11 did I see anything approaching it ).
You see, the Communist propaganda was flowing freely. They planted stories about Langley using passenger flights like that one for recon, stories about the fighter pilot dutifully warning the airliner, wings tilting, lights flashing, the whole nine yards. But it was predictable kitchen sink distraction. And to some degree it worked. We had many dopes over here receptive to the nonsense ( like with the grassy knoll and the Apollo landings ) and repeating it so the victims got hurt coming and going.
Point is though, the shootdown was bad. There was no reason to take it down. KAL was a passenger flight, non-military, non-Intelligence, but even if it were it still would not have been a legit target. This was years after the Blackbirds came online ( the Soviets knew all about them since they tried to splash them continuously ) and an absolute eternity since Powers' U-2. And of course there were lots of satellites. Hence, if we wanted to light them up and look at their defenses we could have done it successfully in countless ways. Using a passenger plane was a ridiculous lie. The shootdown was simply bad.
So what some here almost seem to be doing is saying that the since Turks allegedly warned the Russians therefore they had it coming. This is similar to how the Soviets and their American fellow travelers tried to minimize the KAL murders. But it fails since the plane was no threat to Turkey. They were not going to bomb Istanbul ( I mean Constantinople, sing it with me ) No-one shoots down intruding aircraft unless it is a serious threat, or perhaps to teach a lesson and make a provocative point ( Reagan F14's splashing Libyan Russian fighters in the Med ). The disinformation from Turkey and/or Obama is just as much a strawman as it was with KAL-007. There is just no sound reason for shooting it down. You might light him up. You might throw up some flak. You might launch some missiles closeby. You might scramble interceptors. You might escort him down. You might mess up his electronics. You could just point a laser pointer in the cockpit. Anything short of a shootdown, unless there is a different, more provocative reason instead. It sure is starting to smell like a power play, and the hypothesis that Obama wants to change the focus back to Assad and stop Russian action in his defense, and is willing to use NATO as a pawn is very provocative indeed. It is also reckless.
Interesting tidbit. Not too long after KAL, that idjit Geraldo Rivera tried to do show where he planned to bring out the families of the KAL victims to the site of the shootdown in the Sea of Japan, no doubt to get their grief on camera. The family I know, he also happened to know, and he did try to capitalize on that friendship. They declined, as well as many others since I never again heard about this "show". It demonstrates how despicable he, and all major media clowns are. He got his comeuppance with the Al Capone vault thing later. :-) Of course, Fox News, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity have all since decided he really is a fabulous journalist worth putting on the air anyway! And sure enough, during the Friday the 13th terrorist attack he used his frightened daughter who was in Paris as a prop in an emotional segment as we expected he would have done with KAL-007.
“Iraq is not alone, as the USA etc are quickly becoming artificial countries too thanks to the globalist NWO pro multi culturalist elites intent on destroying national cohesion.”
Thank you for the clarity. We fought a revolution to gain our sovereignty from the British Empire and now we have leaders ready to give it away to the most corrupt world empire ever imagined. If we don’t go after the elites, it is going to happen and u.s. Citizens will become subject to criminals running such an empire. Imagine who will have votes that decide our fate—Castro, Mugabe, the ayatollahs, the kings in the Middle East, communist who have murdered thousands, and so goes the list of our new overlords.
Such rational and informed comments let some of us know, that some people care very deeply for America. I salute you.
Paul, your comments are good, but do you really think BO doesn’t know what he is doing to America? Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian criminal slut, is his chief advisor.
This is utter nonsense. In times of economic contraction a Keynsian expansion through government expenditures works - over and over again = as much as I dislike Keynes's C-student adherents. Let's see - what was the state of the US economy in, say, 1935? It began picking up after that because of Roosevelt's Keynsian expansion - lend lease and then December 7, 1941.
The Ukraine mess is a mess, to a significant measure because, when the Soviet Union drew boundaries, the Crimea, which had been Russian since Catherine the Great, was put in the administrative district of the Ukraine, never anticipating the consequences of a break-up.
The Russians are never ever going to give up their Black Sea ports - ever. It is too important for commerce and for its military influence. Right now, Russia can dominate the Black Sea if it needs to. Let Ukraine join NATO with the Crimea and Russia is out.
That isn't going to happen. Never - and yes, never is a very very long time.
I have no considered position on the Ukraine, but any American idiot who thinks the Crimea could be allowed to go its own way might consider the a likely US position on the secession of Hawaii.
Geo-politic is an adult game.
Erdogan’s son deals in ISIS oil. Reckon taking out some of the tankers was a sore spot.
Hopefully Putin will take the shoot, shovel and shut up approach so that the situation does not escalate into WWIII. We have a news blackout in Europe. A news blackout in Turkey would be most appropriate.
While that may be true, the big risk is that Russia will use its trump card. A limited nuclear war over Turkey is not a pleasant thought.
When they shot down KL-007 the Soviets also broke the rules. In fact, it was a renegade general who violated orders from his superiors to check out whether it was a civilian aircraft and directed that the plane be shot down since no one knew where it came from.
We also took a deep breath and did not start WWIII over that one.
The helicopter is fair game. They are fighting non-state actors who are not signatories to the Geneva Convention.
Huh? It is the non-state actors who loose their protection not that state actors pursuing them. Of course the non-state actors are not party to the Geneva Convention. They are and should be treated as outlaw murderers. Wanted - dead rather than alive.
And the Turks are serious about enforcing their airspace. The Turks are pretty tough customers. The Russians mess with them at their own peril.
Someone violates your airspace and you chase him out or force him to land. You don't shoot him down after he has already left your airspace.
And as we speak, our staunch and wonderful NATO ally, Turkey, is pulling us into an unnecessary conflict with Russia with a planned provocation against them.
Exactly what are those strategic national interests? To take the side of Turkey in its millennial fight with the Kurds? To use the mutual defense clause of the NATO treaty to back Turkey in its aggressive acts? [Defense treaties don't work that way].
Your problem is that like Rumsfeld and Cheney you see the world through cold war eyes. Putin's moral character is not the issue. The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state. Islamic terrorism is a threat to both of our vital interests, but we have Obama trying to sort the world into good terrorists vs bad terrorists. It just doesn't work that way.
Yes, this.
So was Assad
***Do you have a source for the assertion that he wants to “begin the caliphate with the center of it in Turkey”?***
*** So we deserved the two bombings of the WTC, our two embassies in East Africa, the USS Cole, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Kobar Towers, etc.? Do we deserve these attacks?***
No you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said any of these things.
We should have bombed Saudi Arabia after 9/11 because that is the source of all of this Wahhabi, Sunni terrorists crap is from. They get their funding from there, and that's where the majority of the terrorists who struck us came from. That's where the funding for all these mosques around the world that preach hate get their message and funding from. They didn't get it from Iraq or Afghanistan. If Bush had been serious he would have cut off the head of the snake. But to many dirty politicians are owned by them, including the Bushes.
Did I miss something? Did we go into Libya and overthrow Qaddafi for some past terrorist attack? What about Egypt. Did we interfere in their sovereign government you know, the one like Turkey, help the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow Mubarak because of some past terror attack seeking justice? And what about Yemen. Did Obama and Hillary help overthrow that government to get them back for the U. S. S. Cole? You and I both know those two don't give a damn about our soldiers. Turkey should have never been allowed to join NATO. No Muslim country should have been allowed in NATO. And because of that, you're about to see the end of it.
Is that the measure of religious freedom, i.e., more tolerant than Saudi Arabia? LOL. You need to get better informed about that wonderful place called Iran:
Iran Human Rights Report for 2014
The most significant human rights problems were severe restrictions on civil liberties, including the freedoms of assembly, speech, religion, and press; limitations on the citizens’ ability to change the government peacefully through free and fair elections ; and disregard for the physical integrity of persons, whom authorities arbitrarily and unlawfully detained, tortured, or killed.
International Religious Freedom Report for 2014 Iran
On July 28, the Secretary of State redesignated Iran as a “Country of Particular Concern†(CPC) and renewed the existing restrictions on certain imports from and exports to the country. The United States has no diplomatic relations with the country. The Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor addressed abuses and restrictions against Bahai, Christian, Jewish, and other religious minority communities in the country. Senior U.S. government officials publicly called for the release of prisoners held on religious grounds. The U.S. government supported religious minority groups in the country through its actions in the UN, including through votes to extend the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran and for resolutions expressing concern over the country’s human rights practices, including the continued persecution of religious minorities.
Syria was a fairly tolerant nation too under Assad and now we are supporting Al-Queada linked terrorists to overthrow Assad. It is truly bizarre.
Assad is a tyrannical dictator who has killed tens of thousands. Initially, this was a civil war with Syrians trying to remove him. AQ and ISIS came in later to hijack the revolution. Assad is just as evil as Saddam was. You can be against Assad and AQ and ISIS at the same time.
The biggest state sponsors of terrorism today are Saudis and their allies in the Gulf states, nothing Iran does comes close to what the Sunnis have done that is a simple fact.
Not a simple fact at all. The Saudi government is not a state sponsor of terrorism. They have not participated in the murder of Americans. The Saudi government is the target of AQ and ISIS and Iran. Please be specific as to what actions the Saudi Government is taking to sponsor terrorism.
State Department List of State Sponsors of Terrorism
but the US is under no obligation to form its foreign policy in order to suit the agenda of one of its allies
Just a strawman. Who ever said the US has an obligation to "form its foreign policy in order to suit the agenda of one of its allies'? Can you cite an example where this is happening.
If the Brits were doing stuff that got America into trouble the US would tell them to knock it off straight away and would be under no obligation to follow their bidding.
Are you saying that Israel is getting us "into trouble"? Be more specific as to where this is happening. I can certainly say the reverse is happening with the US nuclear deal with Iran. Israel must bear the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Iran has promised to wipe Israel off the map.
If Israel wants to cosy up with the fundamentalist Sunnis of Saudi Arabia or, increasingly, Turkey that’s Israel’s business, I hope they know what they’re doing but Israel doesn’t get to set US foreign policy, it’s not supposed to work that way.
First, it is not working that way, especially under Obama. Israel is not setting US foreign policy. Israel must look out for its own national interests. Working with the Saudis (a US ally) and Turkey (a Nato member) doesn't sound so sinister to me. Israel had some real problems with Turkey in the past. Remember the boats that tried to violate Israel's blockage of Gaza?
Huh? It is the non-state actors who loose their protection not that state actors pursuing them. Of course the non-state actors are not party to the Geneva Convention. They are and should be treated as outlaw murderers. Wanted - dead rather than alive.
LOL. Do you think they care about the rules? AQ, ISIS, the Taliban, etc are murderers and outlaws and are being treated as such. Do you think all of these attacks on innocent civilians around the world from the Philippines to Mumbai to Paris to London to Spain to the US are just as atrocious as blowing up a military helicopter coming to the aid of a combat pilot downed during a combat mission. We are at war with terrorists who could care less about the Geneva Convention and your outrage. Get real.
Someone violates your airspace and you chase him out or force him to land. You don't shoot him down after he has already left your airspace.
LOL. There is a list a mile long where this has not been the case. Is it against the rules to invade a country and take over part of it, e.g., the Crimea?
Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked once. After 9/11 NATO declared that an attack against the US was an attack against all. Hence the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan.
Your problem is that like Rumsfeld and Cheney you see the world through cold war eyes. Putin's moral character is not the issue. The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state.
Putin, the former KGB agent, is taking us back to the Cold War thru his actions whether it is buzzing our carriers or sending bombers close to our airspace off Alaska and California or invading and seizing a part of a sovereign nation. These theeaten our national interests as well as our allies. How do you think Poland and the Baltic States feel about Putin and Russian aggression? Putin is a dictator. His moral character is an issue.
The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state. Islamic terrorism is a threat to both of our vital interests, but we have Obama trying to sort the world into good terrorists vs bad terrorists. It just doesn't work that way.
Putin is in Syria to prop up Assad, not fight ISIS. He is allied with Iran. Putin is not the defender of Western Civilization. He is a corrupt dictator and punk who needs to learn the limits of his aggression. Turkey gave him a needed lesson.
For instance you state Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked once. After 9/11 NATO declared that an attack against the US was an attack against all. Hence the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan.
Again you show your cluelessness. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a mutual defense agreement when a member state is "attacked." Turkey was not attacked by any definition of the word. Armed aggression was not perpetrated on Turkey; no property was destroyed, no lives taken, no extortion against Turkey committed. Turkey in this instance was the attacker, shooting down a Russian aircraft.
You just make my point that geo-politics is not for small children. From the fall of the Soviet Union we have done our best to stand with our toes on the Russian defense perimeter with our noses hanging over the line under the idiot argument of Condi Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld that we don't recognize "spheres of influence." But spheres of influence are physical law. Our ability to project power into South Ossetia varies as the inverse square of the instance from our support bases. Russia is right there.
Now you could try the argument that we are not going to accede to divvying up the world into spheres of influence to sanction immoral conduct (human rights violations, economic depredation, deprivations of basic freedoms, etc.) But, first, you have to make that argument and admit that that is what you are doing. Second you have to have the power to make it stick. But most importantly, if you are invoking the moral argument, you must be morally in the right, and this just fails laughably. Calling Putin a thug does nothing to attack the validity of his goals vs our goals.
So we can weigh Russian goals, Turkish goals, ISIS goals, Assad goals, and the goals of the [sarcasm] muslim "freedom and democracy party" [/sarcasm] that we are supporting. That is a worthy analysis and you have not done it.
It is like attacking a mafia Don when he provides protection and maintains the peace for residents in his territory driving out the riff raff and other kinds of ne'er do wells. Thug he is, I suppose. But when the alternative is rampaging lawlessness, the residents will put up with it and part willingly with a modest contribution for the service provided.
Oh really. What lesson is that other than do not trust the Turks and do not conduct ops unless you can maintain air superiority against the incursions of idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.