Syria Shoots Down Turkish Fighter Jet

asif iqbal said:

Please first do analysis for before making conclusions, Syrian military good? exactly what at? killing their own people

and where did Turkey fail where Israel suceeded?

downing a aircraft without issuing a warning in no way possible does that constitute success

Click to expand...

Syria is ruled by a group of Alawi Muslims who are the military that shoots Sunni Muslims. Being Sunni is almost like being a Palestinian/Arab in Israel.
You see the usual uprising by the less fortunate and privileged who are time and again robbed of their chances and achievements. But this is the Middle East and you can't be sure whether it's about a new tyranny with new favoured tribes replacing the old ones.
The Alawi rule Syria despite being a minority, because they have a military reputation and training in the Near East that is only second to Israel. The Syrian=Alawi and Israeli military are very similar in many aspects and had some of the toughest fighting against each other with an ongoing state of hostility.

Syria is especially security psychotic, making maps and computer cables, let alone computers, a rare commodity.
This extreme control pattern for stabilizing Alawi rule is a major economic hindrance and this is one in a long row of rebellions for economic chances that are very important for young Arab men in order to be able to support a family and thus marry. To quell this rebellion will be tried again in the usual pattern of outstanding intimidating brutality that is meant to crush the life aspirations of non-Alawi and non-Alawi-aligned youth. Syria is ruled by the , who are hardly different from the former mass-murder supporting Baath party in Iraq.

Israel has been succesful in penetrating Syrian airspace and conducting a military campaign against an alleged nuclear site a few years ago, called . The difference can be that Turkey faced improved defenses of the highest Syrian standard because the incident was next to the most important Alawi settlement area (look at the maps above). It can be compared to trying to fly a fighter with espionage equipment right up Tel Aviv and I ask myself whether Turkey wanted this hostile act to be commited.

If Turkey decides on a full fledged invasion in support of the Syrian insurgents, especially the Turkish insurgents, they might re-establish their great power credentials in this region. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until Turkey considers the situation ripe for them and until then they will fuel the destructive fire of civil war.

asif iqbal said:

so what is going to happen if they intervene? whats any Arab country going to do about it? what have they ever done about it, and the fact that the Arab league itself is asking for Assad to go makes it even more of a possibility

who supports Assad in the Arab world? fact here is this, Syrian goverment is killing itse citizens, no matter what anyone says its the job of the international community to save the lives of innocent people being slaughter, i dont care about the politics

US went to Iraq millions died what did Arab world do there? Iran and Iraq fight for 8 years what did Arab world do there? spending billions on weapons and yet unable to resolve a single issue, they have no say in the matter

Shias, Sunnis, Christians, Jews and Kurds have all lived side by side for centurys they have done it before and will do it again, ive visited Syria, ive seen a mosque, chruch and synagogue in the same street, they have no problems only leaders make the problems

if diplomacy worked then Russia asked Assad to meet the Annan proposal, Assad refused, if Russia cant use diplomacy then no one else can not even Iran, these people only know one thing, that is force, they are mentality unstable, even after they caught Gaddafi he was shouting and saying hes the ruler of Libya, these leaders are not normal they believe they can racially superiror to everyone else

Click to expand...

I think I have been misunderstood. I'm trying to highlight the possible problematic outcome we could see after an intervention. The US never thought that Irak would be sinking in violence right after her liberation and for so long. So the question is : What can happen in Syria that we are not able to predict ?

The complexity of this problem in Syria is it's beyond a nation-only level. Maybe the Arab World as countries didn't do anything to oppose the Iraq and would not oppose an intervention in Syria, but you have to get down to the individual level. Let's talk for exemple about terrorism. What was the 3 best recruiting tools for extremists organisations the last few years ? 1) War in Afghanistan 2) War in Iraq 3) Drone strikes. To intervene in Syria can give potential recruits a fourth reason to join them. My sources told me that even after the intervention in Libya they have seen higher numbers of recruits in those organisations, and even among the winner there was hatred toward the West even though they help liberating Libya. So can you explain that ? We really have to understand what kind of image of the West will be projected if they intervene, and in a case of a negative image, what are the consequence ?

The whole problematic is we have to think like the people over there, and understand the real state of mind of local inhabitant. And that's the real difficulty. The failure NATO countries have encountered those years is bad intelligence analysis. Afghanistan and Iraq are failure because the intelligence expert where not able to understand the complexity of human network in the Middle East, and of what I see currently in Afghanistan, I would say that they still don't quite understand. And I'm not betting my money on how they could now magically understand Syria.

Before potentially igniting a powder keg that we don't know how to extinct, we really should starting doing our homework about knowing and understand Syria and her people.

Give them the comic to read, it helps a lot to understand the problems there and how irreconcilable they will be(the series of ambushes in the desert). If Turkey wants to handle the case, let them handle it, they can't make things much worse for the Christian West. The only contribution we are left with in the West is to greet with open arms the refugees from the oldest Chrisitian communities that have finally been destroyed.

Al-Qaida is a nihilistic death cult that seeks any excuse to turn a life perceived as senseless into suicidal peer-group fame. The best recipe has always been to kill publicity. That's why newspapers are usually careful about reporting suicides because they cause . It's a centuries old truth known about human nature. If you want to fight al-Qaida kill their propaganda, one way is to use copycat proganda that gives things slight twists of doubt that destroy the well engineered manipulations. Bombs are the least best weapon as well as non-public courts or torture chambers, except if you need to grow new terrorists like mushrooms.

There are a few things that everyone should know;

1. Assad regime belongs to the minority Alawite-Shia sect, ruling the majority Syrians who're Sunni-Muslims. The regime has been in power for over 40 years now and will not give up it's hold on power, at any cost.

2. Turkey is being used by the West to establish safe-havens for Syrian refugees and also keep the flow of arms supply to the Free Syrian Army, uninterrupted. Also, Turkey's involvement is specifically to blunt out Iranian influence in Syria, as both Iran and Turkey share ethnic similarities with Syria.

3. Tartus is proving to be a double-edged sword for the Russians, as strives to keep a hold of its Navy Base in Syria, by supporting Assad regime. Russia does this, knowing that the Crimean Navy Base's lease could be annulled by Ukrainians, any time. Losing both Tartus and Crimean Naval Bases, would mean that Russia is completely cut-off from the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East.

4. The Americans and British have made sure that they have established very strong relationships with the Syrian National Council (would ascend to power, after Assad is toppled) and the Free Syrian Army (which would ensure that Assad is toppled). Establishing these relationships with FSA & SNC, ensures that the Russians and Chinese cannot possibly find favor with the new Syrian regime.

5. Russia finds itself in a tangle, where it cannot stop supporting the Assad regime, because they would loose their Navy Base in Tartus. On the other hand, when Assad is defeated and removed, the Syrian National Council will do exactly what the Libyan National Council did with the Chinese. Cut-off or put their relationship with Russia, in cold storage. Which also means that Russia's base in Tartus, would effectively be closed down for good.

6. Interestingly enough, both Syria and Egypt acceded to become one country in February 1958, called the United Arab Republic. The country existed for almost 4 years, before the Syrians experienced a coup, ushering in the beginning of the Assad regime, who severed the union between Syria and Egypt. Oddly enough, these very same countries, came back together again, this time as a military alliance, in 1973 to launch surprise attacks on Israel. And finally, both countries are experiencing regime change, where Egypt has already seen the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and Syria is about to witness the ouster of Bashar Al Assad.

I think the naval base of Tartus if you can call it that is a little over-hyped

I visited the city back in 2004, its a back water sleepy city, not big time activity, its nice on the coast and certainly not full of Russians or anything like that

and the naval base itself has 3 piers, it can take missile cruisers but not aircraft carriers, i think it can also take a nuclear submarine, but essentially its a replenishment base for Russian ships, where they can re-stock water and supplys, it also has basic repair facilitys but nothing special

yes its a point where ships dock where most of the military cargo is off-loaded, which makes it important for Syria

its more of a symbolic for Russia, they can say yes we still have a overseas facility where we can dock since time of Soviet Union, not a full blown naval base where the Russian fleet can sail from

so is it a reason why Russia support Syria? probably not, is it maybe part of the reason, well maybe yes but others things are also involved not only the base

asif iqbal said:

I think the naval base of Tartus if you can call it that is a little over-hyped. I visited the city back in 2004, its a back water sleepy city, not big time activity, its nice on the coast and certainly not full of Russians or anything like that and the naval base itself has 3 piers, it can take missile cruisers but not aircraft carriers, i think it can also take a nuclear submarine, but essentially its a replenishment base for Russian ships, where they can re-stock water and supplys, it also has basic repair facilitys but nothing special.

yes its a point where ships dock where most of the military cargo is off-loaded, which makes it important for Syria. its more of a symbolic for Russia, they can say yes we still have a overseas facility where we can dock since time of Soviet Union, not a full blown naval base where the Russian fleet can sail from. so is it a reason why Russia support Syria? probably not, is it maybe part of the reason, well maybe yes but others things are also involved not only the base

Click to expand...

The importance of Tartus Navy Base for Russia is of supreme importance. Strategically, the base represents Russia's ability to deploy forces out in the Mediterranean Sea, which affords Russia quick access to the Suez Canal, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. In essence, the entire Middle East becomes accessible to Russia and this is something that the West doesn't want. Why? Well because if Russia is able to deploy its nuclear submarines out in the Mediterranean Sea, then the US-NATO ABM Shield's capability to intercept missile, degrades.

The West has already, successfully, ousted Russian Navy presence in Egypt and has a developing relationship with Ukraine that can pull the plug on the Crimean Navy Base of Russia, which has been leased out to them. Ukraine and Russia do not see eye to eye and the 2005-2006 Ukrainian/Russian Gas dispute is an example of just that.

Strategic importance, militarily, is seen the time it takes to muster your forces in an area of dispute or potential war. To be able to have accessibility to the conflict hot-spot, holds the key on who would have the strategic upper hand in any potential conflict. To this end, Tartus is crucial to Russia and affords Russia multiple Naval Bases outside the country. It is similar to what American enjoys with military bases in Philippines, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

Here's another look at Tartus Navy base and its importance to Russia;

Russia forgave Syria of three quarters, or $9.6 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier in 2006. Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge its naval base, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean. Amid Russia's deteriorating relations with the West, because of the 2008 South Ossetia War‎ and plans to deploy a US missile defense shield in Poland, President Assad agreed to the port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships. Since 2009, Russia has been renovating the Tartus naval base and dredging the port to allow access for its larger naval vessels.

On September 8, 2008, ten Russian warships docked in Tartus. According to Lebanese-Syrian commentator Joseph Farah, the flotilla which moved to Tartus consisted of the Moskva cruiser and four nuclear missile submarines. Two weeks later, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the nuclear-powered battlecruiser Peter The Great, accompanied by three other ships, sailed from the Northern Fleet's base of Severomorsk. The ships would cover about 15,000 nautical miles (28,000 km) to conduct joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan Navy. Dygalo refused to comment on reports in the daily Izvestia claiming that the ships were to make a stopover in the Syrian port of Tartus on their way to Venezuela. Russian officials said the Soviet-era base there was being renovated to serve as a foothold for a permanent Russian Navy presence in the Mediterranean.

In 2009, RIA Novosti reported that the base would be made fully operational to support anti-piracy operations. It would also support a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean as a base for "guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers". In late November 2011, Pravda and Reuters announced that a naval flotilla led by the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was on its way to the naval base in Tartus as a show of support for the al-Assad regime. Tartus is the last Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through straits in Turkey, a NATO member.

Click to expand...

Not all is what it seems, brother. Russia knows the importance of Tartus Navy Base. Sadly they had to make the choice of supporting Assad regime, since their refusal to support Assad would've meant that they would lose the Navy Base, on the spot. The killing of innocent Syrian is also a grave ongoing loss. But one cannot ignore that the West's support for Free Syrian Army, is not at all what it seems. The West has used fighter-groups which have been implicated of terrorism elsewhere, as it was in Libya.

Dizasta1 said:

There are a few things that everyone should know;

2. Turkey is being used by the West to establish safe-havens for Syrian refugees and also keep the flow of arms supply to the Free Syrian Army, uninterrupted. Also, Turkey's involvement is specifically to blunt out Iranian influence in Syria, as both Iran and Turkey share ethnic similarities with Syria.

Click to expand...

The assumption, that Turkey is used by someone, is wrong. Turkey has always been very ambitious and active in this field. Turkey is rather the driving force and wants the rest of NATO to join them when more firepower is required, but they will shape the outcome with little power to the Syrian Kurds and much power to the Syrian Turkmen.

Kurt said:

The assumption, that Turkey is used by someone, is wrong. Turkey has always been very ambitious and active in this field. Turkey is rather the driving force and wants the rest of NATO to join them when more firepower is required, but they will shape the outcome with little power to the Syrian Kurds and much power to the Syrian Turkmen.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, there is no denying that Turkey is very ambitious and is aspiring to be a regional power of some sorts. Turkish aspirations to be part of the European Union and its membership in the NATO, are evidence of it having aspirations to be a regional power.

However, you don't literally have to be "used" per say, only manipulated on one's predictable behavior. Turkey's aspirations and ambitions are what have been manipulated by the West, if you say that they didn't use Turkey. This is an age old tactic, perhaps as old as diplomacy took shape since the time civilizations clashed.

There is nothing wrong is having an analysis such as the one I have. Manipulation is in every shape and form around us, just as you said in your own words, "they will shape the outcome with little power to the Syrian Kurds and much power to the Syrian Turkmen.". So my analysis of Turkey isn't too far off the bullseye target, for diplomacy works in diverse and in a variety of ways.

As the saying goes, bet on all the horses, who wins, who loses, in the end you still win!!!

I don't see anyone manipulating Turkey to do something. In my opinion it's similar to the German involvement in the Yugoslav wars with both powers having the goal of being recognized as regional or even great powers.

In the Yugoslav Wars Germany supported old allies against old enemies and the NATO had to came along in order not to lose face. The German involvement in official combat was small, but there were mercenaries like the "Black Swans" and other support for arming, organizing and stagging the uprisings. Most infamous became as an example of distorted information, similar to the Bush administrations casus belli against Iraq. The goal of these involvements was to re-establish German power in Europe and to some degree exert revenge. The Serbs cleared their country of the ethnic Germans during and after WWII with fast and brutal methods, prior German and allied occupation of the non-cooperative but neutral kingdom of Yugoslavia was equally brutal, creating the usual spiral of revenges.

Turkey has been an old diplomatic power among the otherwise Christian European great powers, I wouldn't be surprised if their ambition was beyond regional goals towards becoming the 10th permament UN-security seat member. Japan, Germany, India and Brazil have a promising alliance to push their interests, but could not decide on the planned 10th partner. Suggesting one of the regional African powers was not helpful, but Turkey has the chance to become the Islamic and Turkish champion once again, giving them much clout and visible softpower. The game in Syria will be a Turkish powerplay to demonstrate outstanding capabilities without risking total alienation of Russia in order to support their bid for their old role of preminence.

Just a few remarks:

The only united opposition against Assad is a propaganda group in London. The fighters are a few dozen groups of Syrians and non-Syrians sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the US, just as both in Dafur and Libya the fighting was done by some thirty disparate groups sponsored from outside.

@Asif
The Russian bombers are intercepted in the UK Air Identification Zone far outside UK territorial waters and certainly not over Scotland.