dissident wrote:Your interpretation is very selective. It is not even an established fact that the Russian jet actually sliced through Turkish territory, i.e. the 3 km penis that projects into Syria. This is merely the claim of the Turks. Also, the missile was launched *after* the alleged 17 second transgression not during it which can be quite readily calculated from the position of the Russian jet when it crashed. It was too far away from the Turkish land penis for the missile to have been launched at it at that time.
I am granting them a large benefit of the doubt, as I said; and I also said I don't particularly trust their presentation.
As there's no way for us civilians to validate either radar track presented, or time stamps, or any of that; we have to speculate a bit.
My approach is to point out that legal or not, it was a really stupid thing to do; and legal or not, the cost of doing what Turkey did will vastly exceed any benefit they think they'd gain from it. It certainly won't deter Russia. It certainly won't spare any of their oil thievery mission, and it definitely won't keep those "turkmen villagers" alive.
God.. I'm ticked off enough to use scare quotes on somethings. That's pathetic.
Here's the bug that bothers me the most.
Turkish F16, in Turkey, fires on Russian bomber escorted by fighters in Syria; fighters return fire along with a bunch from S300; Turkish fighter is hit and crashes in Turkey; Turkey then claims they didn't fire on the Russians, and invoke Art 5.
Part of the responsibility of being part of NATO from a Westerners PoV, is that you won't unnecessarily pick a fight that would have a harmful effect on the other treaty members. I think Turkey may have forgotten that, and I *HOPE*, in that little private meeting they had today, that they got read the riot act, as it were.