cassity Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 . At the moment Turkey are a liability to NATO It could be argued Turkey indirectly probed the soviets retaliatory response..as for it being a liability..I doubt it considering NATO bases there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Surely you don't believe it's the same airplane that's been making all the constant incursions into Turkey? Maybe the fact that Turkey had the Soviet army facing it only across their border for over 4 decades, coupled with having to witness Russia invading one of it's neighbours recently may have made Turkey a bit twitchy about Russia's intentions? I think it was a lone aircraft that posed no risk to Turkey, not sure I like the idea of a NATO partner being twitchy enough to drag us all into a war with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) ISIS informed us that they would flood Eroupe with an army of fighters and nothing is done to stop them, one aircraft apparantly strays over the border but poses no risk and its OK to blow it out of the sky. How do you know nothing is done to stop them? A nations airspace is normally constantly patrolled and protected. If you have radar and sufficient aircraft then its easy to monitor your borders. The decision to shoot it down was partly political becayse the planes were bombing alloes of the Turks and parly just Turkey flexing its muscles. ISIS inform the media of lots of things, but theres no reason to believe an entire army of armed insurgents have made it across the borders. Ofc some will sneek in becayse you cna smuggle people, but its quite a lot of effort. most of the paris incident was from people already here. Its a much different task vetting hundreds of thousands of people, sodont really think you are comparing like with like , although your last comment makes much more sense about your concerns. Edited November 25, 2015 by 999tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 ISIS informed us that they would flood Eroupe with an army of fighters and nothing is done to stop them, one aircraft apparantly strays over the border but poses no risk and its OK to blow it out of the sky. It's a conflict zone, the Russians know this..flying into Turkeys airspace was a risk they were prepared to take..don't moan about it when you come a cropper...which in effect is exactly what the Russians have done, other than a token diplomatic spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I think it was a lone aircraft that posed no risk to Turkey, not sure I like the idea of a NATO partner being twitchy enough to drag us all into a war with Russia. Wouldn't NATO'S support and backing of Turkey be a far more effective way to calm them down against the Russian threat, rather then criticising and abandoning them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 How do you know nothing is done to stop them? A nations airspace is normally constantly patrolled and protected. If you have radar and sufficient aircraft then its easy to monitor your borders. The decision to shoot it down was partly political becayse the planes were bombing alloes of the Turks and parly just Turkey flexing its muscles. ISIS inform the media of lots of things, but theres no reason to believe an entire army of armed insurgents have made it across the borders. Ofc some will sneek in becayse you cna smuggle people, but its quite a lot of effort. most of the paris incident was from people already here. Its a much different task vetting hundreds of thousands of people, sodont really think you are comparing like with like , although your last comment makes much more sense about your concerns. I know because I watch the news. I agree it isn't like for like because the rusian aircraft posed no risk to Eroupe whilst the so called migrants that are flooding in from Turkey do pose a risk. ---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 21:08 ---------- Wouldn't NATO'S support and backing of Turkey be a far more effective way to calm them down against the Russian threat, rather then criticising and abandoning them? NATO's public condemnation of Turkies unprovoked attack would calm it down faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 NATO's public condemnation of Turkies unprovoked attack would calm it down faster. Only it wasn't 'unprovoked'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 NATO's public condemnation of Turkies unprovoked attack would calm it down faster. I guess we've got different understandings of the word, unprovoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I know because I watch the news. I agree it isn't like for like because the rusian aircraft posed no risk to Eroupe whilst the so called migrants that are flooding in from Turkey do pose a risk. ---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 21:08 ---------- NATO's public condemnation of Turkies unprovoked attack would calm it down faster. You really fail to understand the incident. Nato has expressed its support for Turkets right to defend its airspace. It isnt unprovoked as surely you have seen on the news the previous incursions by Russia and the complaints by Turkey. Your idea that it was unprovoked is clearly wrong if the Russian plane was in Turkish airspace at the time it was shot at. It had no right to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I guess we've got different understandings of the word, unprovoked. Yes, I wouldn't describe a 17 second incursion that was very likley to have been unintentional, as provokeing hostility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now