Turkey seeks NATO meeting over downing of jet by Syria

[Machjo]

NATO to meet over Syria's downing of Turkish jet - World - CBC News

Sirya claims the attack occured within Syrian airspace; Turkey says it was in international airspace. Should it be found to have been in international airspace, would that not give NATO the right to at least destroy Sirya's capability of attacking beyond its airpsace?

 

[earth_as_one]

As I understand the facts in this case, an unidentified military jet entered Syrian airspace and it was shot down. The missile struck the unidentified military jet in Syrian airspace which crashed outside Syrian airspace. Whether the fighter aircraft was armed, unarmed, or a training mission... is beside the point. Also the Syrians coordinated search and rescue efforts with the Turks.

Considering that Syria has been bombed by unidentified military aircraft in the recent past and their dictatorship is fighting a civil war, I could understand why they might be more than just a little trigger happy.

Even though I don't like the Syrian dictatorship and I support non-violent regime change.... The facts appear to be that Turkish pilots either entered Syrian airspace deliberately (spy mission) or accidentally (training mission). The Syrians have the same right as any other nation to defend their airspace from unidentified military aircraft which might be hostile.

If the above facts are correct and the Turkish fighter was shot down in Syrian airspace or as it was leaving Syrian airspace, the Turkish pilots or who ever ordered them to fly into Syrian airspace is responsible for the consequences.

Syria complains to U.N. about Israeli airstrike
September 11, 2007

Syria accused Israel of a "flagrant violation" of its obligations when it carried out an airstrike inside the country last week, according to a copy of a letter released Tuesday. Syria called the incursion a "breach of airspace of the Syrian Arab Republic" and said "it is not the first time Israel has violated" Syrian airspace, the letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon read. It also accused the international community of ignoring Israeli actions.

 

[Machjo]

Of course this is conditional on it being found that the Turkish aircraft had not violated Syrian airspace.

 

[captain morgan]

NATO to meet over Syria's downing of Turkish jet - World - CBC News

Sirya claims the attack occured within Syrian airspace; Turkey says it was in international airspace. Should it be found to have been in international airspace, would that not give NATO the right to at least destroy Sirya's capability of attacking beyond its airpsace?

Why should NATO get involved at all?

From what I recall, the Turks were happy to rattle their sabre when Israel had blockaded access to Palestine and threatened actions, you'd think that they would be more justified in retaliatory actions against Syria in terms of this incident

 

[Machjo]

Why should NATO get involved at all?

From what I recall, the Turks were happy to rattle their sabre when Israel had blockaded access to Palestine and threatened actions, you'd think that they would be more justified in retaliatory actions against Syria in terms of this incident

Er... Turkey is a NATO member. Should it be found tht indeed Syria has committed an aggressive act against Turkey, that's to be interpreted as an aggressive act against NATO. If NATO does not protect Turkey, then what's the point of the alliance? Actually, if it turns its back on Turkey, then what's to say it's not going to turn its back on other allies in need? Canada ought to reconsider its membership then if that's the case.

By the way CM, were you even aware Turkey was a NATO member?

 

[earth_as_one]

Considering how much misinformation we get regarding Syria, I'm certain our MSM and political leaders will attempt to create a perception that Syria's actions were deliberately hostile towards Turkey, regardless of whether the Turkish aircraft violated Syrian airspace or not.

 

[captain morgan]

Er... Turkey is a NATO member. Should it be found tht indeed Syria has committed an aggressive act against Turkey, that's to be interpreted as an aggressive act against NATO. If NATO does not protect Turkey, then what's the point of the alliance? Actually, if it turns its back on Turkey, then what's to say it's not going to turn its back on other allies in need? Canada ought to reconsider its membership then if that's the case.

By the way CM, were you even aware Turkey was a NATO member?

Yes I am aware that Turkey is a NATO member. I am also aware that both Israel and Syria are not.

That said, seeing that Turkey was prepared to assume a non-NATO action against Israel over the blockade, why would they now get their panties in a bunch and run cheeping to NATO on a more direct issue with another non-NATO nation like Syria?

Of course this is conditional on it being found that the Turkish aircraft had not violated Syrian airspace.

Sounds good... Whose word do we take as fact?

 

[earth_as_one]

Some NATO countries probably would like an excuse to bomb Syria.

 

[Machjo]

Yes I am aware that Turkey is a NATO member. I am also aware that both Israel and Syria are not.

That said, seeing that Turkey was prepared to assume a non-NATO action against Israel over the blockade, why would they now get their panties in a bunch and run cheeping to NATO on a more direct issue with another non-NATO nation like Syria?

Well, if it's a non-NATO action between Israel and Turkey, then it has nothing to do with us unless Turkey violated some NATO rule of engagement in which case you could certainly present a link to that, right?

in the case of Syria though, turkey has now approached NATO, and so NATO has an obligation towards it unless Turkey has indeed violated Syrian airspace.

Sounds good... Whose word do we take as fact?

No one's. Is there no wreckage, no satellite pictures, etc.?

If it cannot be proven either way then NATO should not approve any strike against Syria but instead simply monitor the Syrian border more closely. Should Syria strike again against a NATO aircraft in international or Turkish airspace without provocation, then we take a next step after that.

 

[Vancouverite]

Syria is really asking for it, isn't it?

 

[earth_as_one]

Yes I am aware that Turkey is a NATO member. I am also aware that both Israel and Syria are not.

That said, seeing that Turkey was prepared to assume a non-NATO action against Israel over the blockade, why would they now get their panties in a bunch and run cheeping to NATO on a more direct issue with another non-NATO nation like Syria?




Sounds good... Whose word do we take as fact?

Turkey had to take unilateral action against Israel because NATO refused to act.

If Syrians had boarded a Turkish vessel in international waters and killed the civilians on board execution style as apparently shown in this video, I'm sure NATO would not have had any problems upholding their obligations.

The execution of activist by Israeli soldiers on board Mavi Marmara.flv - YouTube

According to eyewitnesses, IDF soldiers killed at least 9 activists execution style. (The activists were subdued, lying face down and not resisting when they were shot)

 

[captain morgan]

Well, if it's a non-NATO action between Israel and Turkey, then it has nothing to do with us unless Turkey violated some NATO rule of engagement in which case you could certainly present a link to that, right?

What are NATO's rules on a member nation trying to run through a legal blockade with the threat of waging a naval action in the process?

 

[lone wolf]

The jet was flying over water. To have been recovered in Turkish water after being struck by a missile tells me it was in one of the world's too many fuzzy zones when it comes to lines on a sea.

 

[Machjo]

What are NATO's rules on a member nation trying to run through a legal blockade with the threat of waging a naval action in the process?

It might depend on the details, but if Turkey had violated any NATo rule, NATO should have dealt with it then, not now. The Syrian issue here is a separate unrelated issue.

 

[taxslave]

Some NATO countries probably would like an excuse to bomb Syria.

Some non NATO countries would like to bomb Syria as well.

Turkey had to take unilateral action against Israel because NATO refused to act.

If Syrians had boarded a Turkish vessel in international waters and killed the civilians on board execution style as apparently shown in this video, I'm sure NATO would not have had any problems upholding their obligations.

The execution of activist by Israeli soldiers on board Mavi Marmara.flv - YouTube

According to eyewitnesses, IDF soldiers killed at least 9 activists execution style. (The activists were subdued, lying face down and not resisting when they were shot)

Do you ever do anything besides defend muslim terrorists?

 

[Machjo]

The jet was flying over water. To have been recovered in Turkish water after being struck by a missile tells me it was in one of the world's too many fuzzy zones when it comes to lines on a sea.

At the same time though, you don't shoot down an aircraft in a fuzzy zone. For instance, if Canadian fighter jets ever shoot a Russian Mig flighing in international airspace, however close to Canadian airspace it might be, Canada would be the aggressor.

In fact, even if the Mig entered Canadian airspace, the best move to be to first inform it or confirm if it needs assistance and attack only once it's clear it's an intentionally aggressive move.

Sure over water things might be hard to prove, so it might be that we might have no choice, barring evidence of course, but to just give Syria the benefit of the doubt here. But if Turkey can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that it was not spying, was not in Syrian airspace, and did not attack first, then that would be a different matter.

 

[lone wolf]

In time of war, you shoot first and ask questions later. Them things go really really fast!

 

[Just the Facts]

Didn't Syria apologize? If that's the case, then it's a one-off incident and not an aggression against Turkey, so no need to waste NATO's time.

 

[earth_as_one]

As some Turkish politicians branded the downing of the plane an “act of war”, a Syrian government spokesman said the aircraft had been an “unidentifiable object” and that the Syrian military had only realised later that it was a Turkish F-4 jet.

“We do not want any tension with Ankara,” said Jihad Makdissi, Syria’s foreign affairs spokesman, in a statement to a Turkish news website on Saturday. “Hopefully, we can transcend this issue swiftly. All I can say is that the announcement I have made is Syria’s official stance; there is in no way any animosity felt towards Turkey and the Turkish public.”....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ng-down-of-Turkish-plane-was-an-accident.html

 

[Goober]

At the same time though, you don't shoot down an aircraft in a fuzzy zone. For instance, if Canadian fighter jets ever shoot a Russian Mig flighing in international airspace, however close to Canadian airspace it might be, Canada would be the aggressor.

In fact, even if the Mig entered Canadian airspace, the best move to be to first inform it or confirm if it needs assistance and attack only once it's clear it's an intentionally aggressive move.

Sure over water things might be hard to prove, so it might be that we might have no choice, barring evidence of course, but to just give Syria the benefit of the doubt here. But if Turkey can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that it was not spying, was not in Syrian airspace, and did not attack first, then that would be a different matter.

Would that apply to other shall we say crimes as well- The victim who was murdered would have to prove he was indeed murdered? Otherwise, no case.
Your Honor I request that the case be dismissed as the victim is not only late but refuses to speak- Or the victim as we can see is not lively and just sits there pretending he cannot hear or speak-
Or the Victim due to his continued refusal to provide evidence should be awarded a suitable jail term for contempt.