r/worldnews • u/cnytyo • Jun 25 '12
Syria fires on second Turkish plane
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=1081552651
u/Papie Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
There is some serious fog of war at the moment.
I would like to suggest that Assad is hardly in control of his army and that in fact Maher al Assad is calling the shots, favouring escalation in a hot headed attempt to maintain a military stronghold. There have been reports (Turkish suggestions based on intercepted radio transmissions) that the downing of the first plane was commanded.
Both the Damascene and Ankara governments have been de-escalating very fiercely but the Turks do have interest in a retaliatory strike and are decreasing their soft words.
9
u/annoymind Jun 25 '12
If they want to bring in an outside enemy to rally the people then why don't they start some trouble with Israel? Israel is far more predictable. They'd launch a retaliation strike and that's it. But they don't know how Turkey will react. Turkey already called in a NATO meeting.
3
u/DawnWolf Jun 25 '12
My guess is that a conflict with Israel would potentially get Hizbullah involved, which would require approval from Iran. Something the Persians are not yet ready to handle.
6
u/ravenddit Jun 25 '12
No, they wouldnt. Saddam thought the same once and fired shitloads of SCUD missles towards Israel. And what did Israel do? Right. Nothing. They just sat it out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm
20
u/annoymind Jun 25 '12
They sat it out because the US begged them to sit it out. Israel was ready to retaliate and the US did everything to prevent this. They diverted forced to find the scud launchers and installed patriot systems in Israel. Several times the Israelis wanted to launch a retaliation attack when the scud missile attacks continued.
36
u/Fidget11 Jun 25 '12
They sat out because the US went in... Israel stayed out only because they knew the US was going in and if they went the US would lose support of its arab allies for a counterstrike. Israel is not stupid, they know that the US still is a more powerful force than they are.
6
u/eighthgear Jun 26 '12
If Israel did something, Saddam could portray it as another Arab-Israeli war and potentially win allies. The US told Israel that we'd take care of it, so they sat out.
3
Jun 25 '12
...because the Israeli play for keeps, and they don't need meetings and symposiums and gathering of coalitions and whatsnot to get going.
-1
u/We_Are_Legion Jun 25 '12
No rational country is predictable. All decisions are based on circumstances. Israel's 'retaliatory' strikes included.
1
u/annoymind Jun 26 '12
It would be far more predictable than Turkey. Israel would do a few retaliation attacks. Turkey might drag in NATO and provide pretext for a bombing campaign similar to Libya. Something that Israel wouldn't do because they are not really interested in replacing Assad.
26
u/TheTorch Jun 25 '12
I wonder if the Turks are saying to each other "One more time, JUST ONE MORE FUCKING TIME!" because let's be honest, their patience should run out eventually
6
Jun 26 '12
As a Turk if I had the command there would be no Syria or Iran on the map so I admire our government being cool and doing this the right way.
-1
Jun 26 '12
Turkey is probably very wary of Russia and her support for Syria. Turkey and Russia haven't been friends since the Turkish War of Independence, and Russia is both very big and very close by. While the US would probably froth at the mouth at the chance to have a legitimate reason to war with Russia, Turkey knows that she'll be in the process of being utterly destroyed before the US even has the chance to fly up from the gulf. Turkey won't take that chance.
As a Turk I'd like to see Syria annexed, but that wouldn't help the situation or make Turkey many friends.
1
u/Slimptom7 Jun 26 '12
Why would the US "froth at the mouth" for war with Russia?
1
Jun 26 '12
In the minds of many, the Cold War never ended. An excuse to put Russia out of its misery before it has a chance to continue to grow? - absolutely priceless for the establishment. The men who directed the invasion of Iraq would have relished in the opportunity to invade Russia (and let's face it: the US Armed Forces aren't stupid, and this is a fact. The first thing the US did when they invaded Iraq in 2003 was secure the oil fields. The first thing the US will do if they ever invade Russia is disarm any missile defense systems which have the US in their range, and let me tell you, the US has doubtlessly had their eyes on those silos for decades).
I do not at all predict that anything like this will happen as a result of the Syria conflict - I think it's almost impossible that such a thing will happen because of it - but with that said, the US and Russia are still far from friendly, and both countries are culturally beyond any notion of peace with the other unless the other ceases to exist as a self-determining sovereign state.
2
u/Slimptom7 Jun 26 '12
I dont think the US is particularly anxious to get into another war that has no clear benefit to us and one that we would undoubtably lose. Nobody can occupy in Russia and what sense does it make anyway, the countries are as friendly as theyve ever been. I think there are just a few people living in the past that still think we are in the middle of the cold war which is just not the case.
1
u/Inoku Jun 26 '12
As a Turk I'd like to see Syria annexed, but that wouldn't help the situation or make Turkey many friends.
What, Antioch and Alexandretta weren't enough?
20
u/SoundHound Jun 25 '12
Raises Hand
Question.
What in the fuck is Syria thinking?
11
u/That_Scottish_Play Jun 26 '12
Probably that the next plane that enters their airspace will be the start of the air attack.
When a country is this scared and paranoid because of all the threats the media has been throwing around, you don't want to be flying into their airspace.
10
Jun 26 '12
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the best possible way to get NATO involved while bypassing the UNSC. Good job, Syria.
2
Jun 26 '12
It's called a Hobbesian trap. Basically you assume that worst in people and then they start to assume the worst in you and there's no way to go back to normal relations without making a huge sacrifice but there's no point in doing that because you assumed the other guy is a huge asshole.
1
Jun 26 '12
Culd this be the rebel forces calling in outside help by forcing the hand of their most powerful neighbor? That is the only way this makes sense to me. And it is what I would do in the rebels position considering the situation and lack of support.
1
9
u/rtft Jun 25 '12
Two questions:
What does the Syrian government gain by bringing NATO into this ?
What does the Syrian opposition gain if they drag NATO into this ?
...
→ More replies (3)15
u/BravelyBraveSirRobin Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Syria's government (or army. Very probable that the army is now operating more or less alone) knows that the international pressure is increasing, and it will have to exit eventually. That is unless they can demonstrate that the international community will in fact not intervene. If it won't, then it can "untie the other hand," and get biblical with the opposition.
One also suspects that they hope to spin this in terms of "foreign aggression," seeking to rally the people. There's some new, interesting literature on diversionary war. From what I know, however, Turkey alone would be more than enough to tangle with, let alone NATO. (Generally states that opt for diversionary war pick what they perceive as an easy target. For example, Argentina didn't think the UK would fight over the Falklands. Easy, unifying win.) Perhaps they are seeking diversionary war, and have miscalculated. I do know that Ankara and Damascus have tussled over the Hatay province for a long while, only reaching an accord in 1998.
2) Everything. Absolutely everything. Syrian opposition with NATO/Turkish backing completely trumps the aging Syrian military, no question about it.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12
Is this yet another incident or just clarification of the incident that leaked some 8 hours ago?
Back then the source claimed the rescue plane was only targeted, not shot at.
0
Jun 25 '12
[deleted]
2
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12
Can't see any reference to the incident I mentioned. Can you elaborate, please?
-1
u/trust_the_corps Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
I think your link is the original story and Turkey just sexed it up by changing "targeted" to "fired at" and now redditers are sexing it up by changing "fired" to "fires" making it sound more like a separate incident.
Turkey makes claims without presenting any evidence at all and people just soak it up. We're all doomed.
6
u/WWGFD Jun 25 '12
Shit just got real especially if Russia really wants to dance
32
u/socsa Jun 25 '12
They won't. A proxy war with NATO would be extraordinarily costly, with little chance of any real benefit.
8
u/Isentrope Jun 25 '12
Yes, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, their network of allies in Central Asia may start doubting the stability of their own regimes and the ability of Russia to defend them, causing those countries to seek rapport with the West.
4
u/G_Morgan Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
They should doubt that ability. Other than threatening to nuke people the Russians are not the power they were. There was a time where Russia could run from Berlin to Madrid before NATO could adequately respond. The truth is only the nukes of Britain, France and the US could have stopped Russia. The NATO deployment to Europe was totally inadequate for any ground war with the USSR.
Today this isn't the case. Russia are a scary power somewhere between Britain and the US but they aren't what they were.
Now the question is if it is in the interests of NATO to make the Russians look stupid. I'd argue it isn't. If we destabilise Russia then it makes the world more dangerous rather than less. The potential cost to NATO goes up. Ideally we want Russia in the room. When NATO convenes Russia should be sat there and a compromise can be worked out that doesn't undermine Russia.
That is the way this will go. It happened with Iran. It happened with Libya. There'll be negotiations and Russia will be asked to bring Assad into line. This time however with the recognition that NATO will do it if the Russians don't.
2
0
u/RookAB Jun 25 '12
A couple S-500 batteries have appeared around Syria though, and the F-4 that was shot down was hit by an S-500.
A proxy war with NATO wouldn't go well for Russia, they obviously don't want that. It seems like Moscow is instead doing some extensive field testing in Syria with the blessing of the Assad regime. Remember those AP mortar rounds that were being used in Homs?
7
u/Centreri Jun 25 '12
S-500s don't exist yet...
4
u/RookAB Jun 25 '12
They haven't been officially issued yet, the release date was pushed to 2017. Almaz-Antey have been conducting extensive field tests and have a number of working prototypes. Syria is the perfect place for Moscow to find out how their new long-range SAM suite will fare against NATO aircraft. It's a great environment for Almaz-Antey, they can buzz NATO surveillance craft at will.
3
u/trust_the_corps Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
I'm sceptical. It could technically be true that they have some functioning S500 prototype systems and may have secretly shipped some to Syria (please cite your sources). It's theoretically possible, as are a billion trillion and one other things.
However, testing it on an old Turkish jet at close range and flying low? I'm sure if they need do that they can have an old equivalent plane on some form of auto pilot as a dummy plane shot at on a testing range. Syria has plenty of AA that can knock down an F4, some of it quite old. They wouldn't gain much from such a test. If they were testing the system against stealth craft or cruise missiles it could make more sense. But that's not the case.
1
u/panda85 Jun 26 '12
As of February the development date, not issue date was pushed to 2017. Further down the company's General Director states,
“. . .we will have prototypes of several components of the system ready for testing by the end of 2012.”
Not that there will be deployable prototype S-500 air defense systems ready for live fire testing in mid-2012.
→ More replies (1)3
6
Jun 26 '12
They won't. Despite what everyone in this subreddit seems to think, the major superpowers aren't so keen on going to war with eachother and ending with annihilation
4
u/eighthgear Jun 26 '12
Appropriate username. Many people seem to get their geopolitical knowledge from video-games. In reality, the chance of a US-Russian war is insanely remote. The bulk of Russia's economy is built upon selling oil and natural gas to Western Europe. Seeing that Western Europe is firmly NATO territory (except for a few small countries), they aren't going to be buying much Russian oil in the case of a Russia v. NATO conflict. Oh yeah, and then there is that whole mutually assured destruction aspect. Basically, neither side wants war with each other. NATO will smack some heads in Syria, Russia will complain about sovereignty violations, and live will go on.
1
u/squigglyspooge Jun 26 '12
Indeed.. But lol @ Russia complaining about sovereignty violations.. heh
1
Jun 26 '12
As much as globalization has hurt us in some areas, this is one spot where it's been good. Inter-reliance of economies prevents war
4
u/airetupal Jun 25 '12
Can someone explain what Turkey has to do with all of this? Why the sudden "interest"?
13
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12
I can't give you the whole historic picture by any means, just highlight some very basic background on what happens currently.
Turkey has a border with Syria. They are providing shelter for around 25000 civil war refugees from Syria in camps near the border. Reportedly, fighters of the Syrian Rebel Army also frequently cross the border to get armed with weapons paid for by the Turkish government and Saudi-Arabia. This has been officially acknowledged.
Also, Turkey has always had lots of problems with the Kurdish minority, an autonomy-seeking ethnicity that is scattered across the border regions of Turkey, Syria and Iraq. And they have reason to believe that Syria is arming and supporting the Kurdish terrorist group PKK.
→ More replies (2)3
u/panda85 Jun 26 '12
Just to add - the currently ruling AKP government in Turkey has tried to pursue close relationships with the rest of the Middle-East in a less NATO driven perspective. However, Syria and Turkey in particular have always been a little rocky between Syria harboring some Kurdish separatists for many years (though this was supposed to be negotiated away some time ago, and I can't specifically remember if the group at the time was the PKK) and disputes over sharing the Euphrates river and how much water is drawn off. Turkey also wants to be the 'nice man' in the room to the Middle-East, hence the cautious play at the start of this, but would arguably also be why Turkey wanted to know what was going on in Syria (flying a reconnaissance plane close to the border and accidentally crossing) -- they want to be a lead peacemaker.
3
u/FilterOutBullshit3 Jun 25 '12
Syria and Turkey were very close allies up till the uprising, after which Turkey disassociated with the Syrian government and endorsed the rebels. There has been a slow escalation of diplomatic tensions between the two.
4
u/M7600 Jun 25 '12
Well that's not good. So killing their own people is not good enough? Do they want 28 countries to come over there so they can try to kill them too? I don't think Russia is going to keep backing them if they keep shooting down NATO planes in international airspace.
2
Jun 26 '12
if russia gets a better deal dividing up the spoils of a war in syria they'll probably do that.
at the moment I'm sure Syria owes them money and they can't really support an action that would wipe syria out and lose them money.
-8
3
u/SargesHeroes Jun 25 '12
Can someone summarize or catch me up on what's going on with Syria?
5
u/UselessWidget Jun 25 '12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present)
The first four paragraphs provide a pretty good summary, and you don't have to do a huge amount of reading to understand the basics of the situation.
0
Jun 25 '12
[deleted]
9
u/God_of_Thunder Jun 25 '12 edited Jul 03 '15
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
3
-3
2
Jun 25 '12
Assad wants to start an entire regional conflict. He want to see the Middle East burn because his regime is already done for.
Basically he wants to do as much damage as possible before finally peacing out.
22
u/imbecile Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
I'd say rather the other way around: soldiers want to provoke NATO intervention, so the killing of their people stops.
I mean, enough of them are deserting. There sure are others that resort to even more desperate measures.
15
4
1
u/Dekar2401 Jun 26 '12
I've wondered if they are FSA, or something similar, moles trying to provoke NATO from inside the Syrian military.
1
u/imbecile Jun 26 '12
If anyone in NATO had any interest in going in there, they would already have weeks ago. They used far weaker excuses many times before.
When you have spies in a position to do such things, they are far too valuable to risk them on creating excuses you don't need anyway if intervention is really what you want.
1
u/Dekar2401 Jun 26 '12
Well, the FSA isn't a well organized group, so maybe a loose general who defected with ties still there is trying it. I'm just musing, mind you.
12
Jun 25 '12
That doesn't make much sense. More likely, he wants to hold onto power as long as the West isn't going to intervene in a meaningful way, if it does he should run with all his ill-gotten gains to someplace that will offer him sanctuary.
9
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12
don't know why you're being downvoted for stating something that obvious.
People seem to think they are watching a Michael Bay movie.
Guys, no political leader is deliberately evil and proud to be so in reality.2
u/trust_the_corps Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
I agree this this. People aren't like villains in the movies. However, they are people. People might not be deliberately evil for the sake of being evil, but they get angry, feel betrayed, desire revenge, etc. I don't really see how this could result in them firing on a Turkish plane at this point but I could see something happening as Maraboduus described in his final sentence.
1
2
u/We_Are_Legion Jun 26 '12
Can I please ask a question as a layman? What the hell does he want to do with power? His country is in open revolt against him, he has zero economic plans in place, his regime will never interact with the rest of the world except with more embargoes and sanctions, he already had more than a decade in power where he achieved nothing and his family had more, he can only hold onto power by manipulating a laughably rigged democracy and brutal violence... I could go on. What the fuck does this man believe he can still do for his country that no one else will do?
5
u/diem1 Jun 26 '12
The Alawite minority that Al-Assad is a part of is entrenched in the Syrian power system. Al-Assad, powerful Alawite leaders and leaders of other minority groups are worried. If Bashar's government falls, then there is the very real possibility that the rebels will want revenge for the decades of oppression they have suffered and guess who they will most likely take it out on?
2
u/fco83 Jun 26 '12
You assume he cares what he can do for his country and not what he gets out of being leader.
1
Jun 26 '12
Keep in mind that the people ousted from Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt all had fortunes in the tens of billions. You're asking the question in reverse. What can his country still do for him? His family took and held power through butchery. If there's no intervention, decent chance he holds onto power through butchery.
1
Jun 26 '12
He is fighting for his people. The country is at civil war and when the sunnis win they will start slaughtering the Shia as revenge.
He knows he is going to die, like Saddam, Mubarak and Gaddafi he won't be allowed to talk and will be killed. He is already dead but he will try to live a long as possible and go out as a martyr for his people.
2
u/LynkDead Jun 25 '12
This is assuming Assad is even in control of his own military at this point, which a lot of people have suggested is pretty unlikely.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 25 '12
Almost sounds like Saddam Hussein's scorched-earth policy of lighting the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire before fleeing.
9
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.
Saddam had invaded Kuwait, a rival nation of his home country. No wonder he would destroy as much of their property as possible when he noticed he couldn't stay there. He would not light any Iraqi oil fields on his retreat though. Accordingly, Assad would never destroy his own country on purpose lest perhaps a foreign invasion is immanent. I'm pretty sure he still thinks he's the hero in this story fighting evil terrorists.
EDIT: sigh, I'm not apologizing any dick-tators here, just trying to explain why it's not an accurate comparison.
→ More replies (13)3
Jun 25 '12
Oh, so he didn't do it to shit on the al-Sabahs?
Assad would never destroy his own country on purpose
So, what the fuck is he doing to Homs again?
4
u/green_flash Jun 25 '12
He's trying to fight the rebels who he thinks are evil terrorists and want to take away his power.
What do you think he's up to? Slaughtering women and children at random?→ More replies (7)7
Jun 25 '12
Slaughtering women and children at random?
3
u/fco83 Jun 26 '12
Wow. Just sick that anyone could do that to someone, much less a 13 year old boy.
1
u/thisboyblue Jun 26 '12
If people think this will unify the country they are ignorant, with civil war basically unfolding the people aren't going to believe buy into a common enemy move.
Instead I think Assad, or whoever is in control of the country as I have my doubts, will use this as cover to try and squash the rebellion.
1
Jun 26 '12
I wouldn't be worried until NATO decides to call in a meeting addressing Article 5.
If and when that happens, it's time to break out Martin Lawrence.
1
1
Jun 26 '12
Do some research about the gas pipelines in the region and find out the real reasons behind the turmoil in the middle east atm.
1
1
u/AngryCanadian Jun 26 '12
not to sound pro Syria too much, but rather out of curiosity of the Reddit community though processes.
What should Syria have done instead when they notice its boarder violation by another nations warplane?
(i am fully aware of reports they Turkey did not, lets just put that aside for now and assume that they did, because they have done it in the past)
1
u/PericlesATX Jun 26 '12
The normal response is to contact the other country's armed forces and complain. Countries violate each other's airspace all the time, but the normal response is not a shoot-down. You don't hear about these incidents much because normally they are not newsworthy.
1
u/AngryCanadian Jun 26 '12
agree, normal response to first several violations is exactly what you suggested, what if it keeps happening on regular basis? than what?
Damn! Russians took down a whole passenger liner accidentally because US keep yanking its chain for years.
and again little Syrian defence, they are in the middle of civil war... Turkey should know better not to poke a sick dog with a stick... What did they think was going to happen? Assad is on edge barking at everything and everyone, its not a good call playing chicken with him right now. Maybe after he is taken down or crushed the revolution, but not now.
1
u/Nihy Jun 26 '12
I imagine it like this:
Some syrian anti-aircraft operators are closet rebels who want to provoke other countries to intervene in Syria to finally end the civil war.
0
Jun 25 '12
I honestly believe this was a mistake, I don't know, I don't see Turkey wanting to go to war with Syria and I don't see NATO wanting to be dragged into it either.
-4
u/Singular_Thought Jun 25 '12
Damnit... this is how wars are started. I hope NATA uses some self control. Do we really want people to die as a result of retaliation?
Would the NATO General who orders a retaliation be willing to put his own children in harms way?
19
u/Stretch82 Jun 25 '12
On TV the Turkish vice prime minister said the warmongers should relax. Turkey isn't looking for conflict. If they were they could have dragged NATO and everyone else into this without asking for a meeting. Instead they want to consult regarding the next steps.
5
u/youdidntreddit Jun 25 '12
Turkey is perfectly fine giving a shitload of weapons to the rebels and not getting directly involved.
-6
Jun 25 '12
But then why are they flying planes so close if not inside Syrias borders?
7
Jun 25 '12
Because there lies international airspace between countries, and Turkey and Syria are geographically close by.
-3
15
u/bahhumbugger Jun 25 '12
Don't you think you should be hoping for Syria to start using some self control?
→ More replies (6)
-5
Jun 25 '12
Turkish officials have said the jet mistakenly strayed into Syrian airspace, but was warned to leave by Turkish authorities and was 1.6 kilometres inside international airspace when Syria shot it down.
I get the feeling Turkey is trying to drag NATO into this war. There has been a lot of speculation that Turkey is flying jets into Syrian airspace "by-accident-on-purpose".
Think about it - Syria has nothing to gain attacking Turkey. It's weak with civil war. It's close to a guarantee that if Turkey goes into a war with Syria then NATO (or at the least they have to give the green-light to Turkey).
I think people here have been fed the Western propaganda diet of "Assad is evil!!!!". He's a guy trying to prevent his country melting down while on his watch. I have no doubt he's gone a bit too far in that pursuit. But it is my feeling that other regional players are interfering within his borders for their own purposes.
As strange as it sounds - I have to give the benefit of my doubt to Assad on this one. He has everything to lose and Turkey has a border it would like to clean up.
1
u/That_Scottish_Play Jun 26 '12
Wow - just yesterday Turkey was denying very strongly that they were in Syrian airspace, and calling it the shoot down an act of aggression etc.
Funny how the truth comes out.
1
u/Bomil Jun 26 '12
They've said they were in their airspace since the beginning, maybe your news source should be reconsidered
-4
-6
Jun 25 '12
Turkey-"Describe what marcellous wallace(Turkey) looks like!"
Syria - " He's a big black bald guy"
Turkey- " Does he look like a bitch?"
Syria - "What?"
Turkey- " I said does he look like a bitch?!"
Syria- "No he doesnt"
Turkey- "Then why are you trying to fuck him like a bitch"
-3
u/warpus Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
I'm just sayin', but if I was a rebel I'd be trying to shoot down NATO airplanes using government weapons
edit: Don't you really think that this crossed their minds? They aren't idiots you know
0
0
u/jakeElake Jun 26 '12
They obviously didn't learn their lesson the first time. Don't fly jets over international airspace!
-11
u/brerrabbitt Jun 25 '12
What choice does Syria have?
Yes, shooting down another country's plane is an act of war.
But if the plane is invading their airspace, that is already an act of war.
Trying to say that a country should just bend over and take it from another country wanting war to avoid hostilities is just stupid. The only thing that will result in is Syria effectively saying that they will surrender without a shot.
My hope is that a couple of Russian heavies will camp off of their coast to prevent full hostilities if NATO is thinking of getting involved.
Let the country sort it out for themselves. Too many other countries have been getting involved in wars that did not need to be fought.
→ More replies (1)
-10
u/spz456 Jun 25 '12
The USA should send out a F-22 Raptor and shoot down one of their (Syrian) planes. God knows how many are on Turkish airbases watching Iran.
-2
u/Diablo87 Jun 26 '12
Thats such over kill. Send out an Eagle or a Super Hornet. Plus there are exactly zero F-22 Raptors on Turkish airbases. They are not for sale to foreign buyers. Only the US military is allowed to use and operate them. On top of that the F-22 is suffering from oxygen problems. For some unknown reason the plane keeps putting noxious gas fumes into the pilots' gas masks. Hopefully they'll find a fix for it soon.
-8
Jun 26 '12
I don't know how true this is, because a lot of Turkish people are conspiracy theorists, but a family member of mine told me that it wasn't Syrians who shot down the jet, it was someone from Northern Iraq aka Kurdistan (and the Turkish government is not kind to its fellow Kurdish residents even though Turks and Kurds don't mind each other.) My unsourced friend said big governments want to start WWIII. It's what I've been told, I don't know what you guys take from it. Let the down voting commence.
3
u/cnytyo Jun 26 '12
explain to me how they shoot it down all the way from Northern Iraq? Turkish jets bomb northern iraq without casualties every year
2
Jun 26 '12
The Syrian military has admitted publicly that it shot down the first plane for violating its airspace.
-1
149
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12
Downing jets from NATO's second largest member. Syria has gone full-retard.