Turkey downs russian jet


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Turkey downs a russian jet

Seems like things are going to get even more complicated in Syria...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please tell me we're not paging arch duke Ferdinand.

On the plus side the pilot bailed out, so I think he's ok?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Please tell me we're not paging arch duke Ferdinand.

On the plus side the pilot bailed out, so I think he's ok?

2 pilots, at least one reported dead - shot by rebels on the ground. Unclear about the other, but there have been reports he was captured.

Ugly and dangerous, but I don't think quite Ferdinand levels. Everyone's pushing for their own goals and status, but none of the actual powers are interested in fighting each other.


I've read that one is reported dead and the other in "rebel hands" but I was only glancing the headlines so I'm not sure which rebels.

Edit: Damn ninjas.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I've read that one is reported dead and the other in "rebel hands" but I was only glancing the headlines so I'm not sure which rebels.

Edit: Damn ninjas.

Near as I can tell, non-Daesh, anti-Assad rebels. Turkmen, not Kurdish, I think.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are conflicting reports that the second pilot was killed, captured, and rescued.

My read is that Turkey was looking for a chance to hit back because Russia has been bombing Turkmen just on the Syria side of the border. I doubt much will come of it unless there are further incidents... which is entirely possible with Russia's 'war against ISIS' continuing to hit Turks, Kurds, and other anti-Assad rebels having nothing to do with Islamic State.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Please tell me we're not paging arch duke Ferdinand.

On the plus side the pilot bailed out, so I think he's ok?

I pray this is not another Gavrillo Princip/Archduke Ferdinand kind of situation. In 1914 there were no nuclear warheads, and Russia happens to have a few thousands of those.

That said the two pilots were both killed it seems, apparently by the turkish backed rebels. Here's a report on what happened but it must be said successive sources claim the pilots were already dead. Besides that a russian resque chopper was destroyed by the rebels while searching for the missing soldiers.

Personally I hope things don't escalate from here but I suspect this was meant as a way to see to what lengths Russia can or is willing to go in order to keep a presence in Syria. There are most dangerous waters for everyone involves and after the killing of the pilots and the destruction of the resque chopper I fear an excalation is a very real possibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

There are conflicting reports that the second pilot was killed, captured, and rescued.

My read is that Turkey was looking for a chance to hit back because Russia has been bombing Turkmen just on the Syria side of the border. I doubt much will come of it unless there are further incidents... which is entirely possible with Russia's 'war against ISIS' continuing to hit Turks, Kurds, and other anti-Assad rebels having nothing to do with Islamic State.

Turkmen, not Kurds. Kurds and Turks hate each other guts.

It's clear Russia is defending its own position in Syria (I'm less convinced they want to keep Assad in power at any cost, but I'm pretty sure they want to keep their own military installations and a strategic presence in the country) and it's also clear Turkey wants a piece of Syria for itself (the part inhabited by the Turkmen minorities to be clear). As for these rebels being "good rebels" I'd be careful making strong claims. There are videos were these people chant Allahu Akbar over the body of one of the dead pilots. The syrian situation is really volatile and it's really difficult to make a distinction between each rebel group claiming there are "moderates". All I'm willing to say is there are people opposed to each other based on ethnic, religious, and geostrategical reasons, and in my opinion this development helps Daesh more than anyone else, but no one (besides Iran probably) considers Daesh a serious problem, some even consider it an asset and that's why getting rid of it has been so problematic thus far.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Turkmen, not Kurds. Kurds and Turks hate each other guts.

I'm aware, but the fact remains that Russia is bombing both.

Quote:
...and it's also clear Turkey wants a piece of Syria for itself (the part inhabited by the Turkmen minorities to be clear).

Yup. Though I'm not sure that annexing the Turkmen regions is as important to them as preventing the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds from getting together to form an independent Kurdistan.

Quote:
As for these rebels being "good rebels" I'd be careful making strong claims.

Didn't say that either. Just that the various anti-Assad groups Russia is bombing all have friends who may be looking for ways to retaliate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Turkmen, not Kurds. Kurds and Turks hate each other guts.

I'm aware, but the fact remains that Russia is bombing both.

Quote:
...and it's also clear Turkey wants a piece of Syria for itself (the part inhabited by the Turkmen minorities to be clear).

Yup. Though I'm not sure that annexing the Turkmen regions is as important to them as preventing the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds from getting together to form an independent Kurdistan.

Quote:
As for these rebels being "good rebels" I'd be careful making strong claims.
Didn't say that either. Just that the various anti-Assad groups Russia is bombing all have friends who may be looking for ways to retaliate.

-I'm not aware of Russia bombing Kurds. I know Turkey bombed them during and after the siege of Kobane, and I know the suicidal bomber hits in Turkey hit pro Kurds manifestations right before the elections. I also know the Kurds seem to be working with the Iranians at least to an extent (which it's pretty huge by itself).

-Compared to avoiding Kurdistan being born, annexing Turkmen land in Syria is a non existen concern for Turkey. Most of moder Turkish history is based around the idea there will never be something called Kurdistan, and they are willing to resort to any means to avoid that.

-If it's confirmed both pilots were killed by Turkmen forces I immagine the Russians will focus all of their military might on that part of Syria and try to convince the loyalists to push forward. A notion that would no doubt anger Ankara.

We are threading very dangerous waters indeed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
I'm not aware of Russia bombing Kurds.

Yes and no. They aren't bombing the Kurdish forces pushing ISIS out of northern Syria. However, Kurds in groups fighting Assad (mostly in the southwest) are fair game.

Quote:
If it's confirmed both pilots were killed by Turkmen forces I immagine the Russians will focus all of their military might on that part of Syria and try to convince the loyalists to push forward. A notion that would no doubt anger Ankara.

As those Turkmen forces have nothing to do with ISIS any such 'focus' would quickly result in yet more international condemnation of Russia. The whole 'we are fighting ISIS, oops was that one a Turkmen group?' routine has been poorly received to begin with. If they stopped hitting ISIS entirely nobody would go along with the pretense any more.

Of course, Turkey has been playing the same game... dropping bombs on Kurds in the fight against ISIS.

At this point ISIS is mostly just an excuse for various powers to attack other groups they dislike. However, that also points to a solution. France, the US, and most of the rest of NATO (not Turkey) get together and push ISIS from Syria back in to Iraq (where they originated before the 'surge' pushed them into Syria). No ISIS in Syria means no pretext for bombing everyone else and then we can get back to ignoring ISIS in Iraq and the various Syrian factions fighting it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

At this point ISIS is mostly just an excuse for various powers to attack other groups they dislike. However, that also points to a solution. France, the US, and most of the rest of NATO (not Turkey) get together and push ISIS from Syria back in to Iraq (where they originated before the 'surge' pushed them into Syria). No ISIS in Syria means no pretext for bombing everyone else and then we can get back to ignoring ISIS in Iraq and the various Syrian factions fighting it out.

And that's why Daesh is still where it is, it's useful as a mean to reshape Syria according to the interests of those involved.

As for the Turkmen forces I think you overstimate the impact "international condemnation" can have. And notice how a lot of people, expecially in Europe are dissatisfied with Erdogan and Turkey policies. The US can push for condemnation but they are not likely to gain much more than words. I seriously doubt there are any european states willing to go to war with Russia over the Syirian situation.

P.S.

Let's be clear here, if an american bomber were intercepted and downed after completing a mission and the pilots were killed on the ground we would be screaming bloody murder right now, no matter the circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roger Valertis wrote:
Let's be clear here, if an american bomber were intercepted and downed after completing a mission and the pilots were killed on the ground we would be screaming bloody murder right now, no matter the circumstances.

True, but i think the reaction is going to be different when the other side doesn't HAVE pilots to worry about. From their point of view a pilot attacks helpless people on the ground, and you'd be hard pressed to find a fighter in a bombing zone that hasn't lost some civilian family to them.

Is there any reason for why pilots get that special treatment? Any other soldier would just be shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Roger Valertis wrote:
Let's be clear here, if an american bomber were intercepted and downed after completing a mission and the pilots were killed on the ground we would be screaming bloody murder right now, no matter the circumstances.

True, but i think the reaction is going to be different when the other side doesn't HAVE pilots to worry about. From their point of view a pilot attacks helpless people on the ground, and you'd be hard pressed to find a fighter in a bombing zone that hasn't lost some civilian family to them.

Is there any reason for why pilots get that special treatment? Any other soldier would just be shot.

Shooting surrendered soldiers is generally frowned upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Shooting aircrew parachuting to the ground is criminal, it is no different than shooting sailors in the water after their ship goes down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
Shooting aircrew parachuting to the ground is criminal, it is no different than shooting sailors in the water after their ship goes down.

I don't think it is chivalrous to shoot a pilot descending from a distressed aircraft but I don't think it is completely illegal. It is against protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions but not everyone has signed/ratified the treaty, including Turkey and even the USA (signed but not ratified). What in your view makes it illegal?

This comment is just about the strict legality of it not the morality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:
Shooting aircrew parachuting to the ground is criminal, it is no different than shooting sailors in the water after their ship goes down.

I don't think it is chivalrous to shoot a pilot descending from a distressed aircraft but I don't think it is completely illegal. It is against protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions but not everyone has signed on to the treaty. (Including Turkey and even the USA) What in your view makes it illegal?

Edit the US has signed but not ratified Protocol 1. (A treaty is not binding upon the US until ratification)

This comment is just about the strict legality of it not the morality.

If we are talking about legality I find the fact the US didn't ratify the protocol to bear no weight whatsoever: those who shot down the russian aircraft were Turks while the ones allegedly killing the pilots were rebels.

That said I'm pretty skeptical about "international law". It's something that exists just as long as the nations endorsing it have convenience to claim they adhere to its mandates, nothing more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Parachuting aircrew from disabled aircraft are not legal targets in a conflict.

This is a legal distinction, not a moral one.

It is also wrong morally.

While the Rules of War are clear, as is the knowledge that the individuals on the ground at this local are not the uniformed armed forces of a sovereign nation, and thus are not bound by such Rules. It is none the less murder to kill parachuting aircrew.

I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest that such conduct is remotely legal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:

Parachuting aircrew from disabled aircraft are not legal targets in a conflict.

This is a legal distinction, not a moral one.

It is also wrong morally.

While the Rules of War are clear, as is the knowledge that the individuals on the ground at this local are not the uniformed armed forces of a sovereign nation, and thus are not bound by such Rules. It is none the less murder to kill parachuting aircrew.

I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest that such conduct is remotely legal.

Legal as defined by whom?

Dark Archive

They don't follow the convention, it doesn't matter. What is legal there might not be here. Same the other way around. Yea, they most likely killed the pilots, but is it considered murder to the rebels, or a fact of war?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest that such conduct is remotely legal.

No offense was meant and I tried to go out of my way to make that clear.

I don't think it is morally good to shoot a parachuting aviator.
That said for something to be illegal it must be contrary to law and that law must apply to the actor. What law prohibits the action?

Queen Moragan wrote:
If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

There are many things that are illegal in normal circumstances that are not illegal between belligerents in armed conflict.

Please don't take offense at this as none is meant, it is important to note that what is wrong can be legal and what is legal can be wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.

It would really depend on what I was doing while flying the plane.

People on ground are at the mercy of the pilot. Pilot drops bomb.

Pilot is shot down and is at the mercy of the people on the ground. People on the ground _____________


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.

It would really depend on what I was doing while flying the plane.

People on ground are at the mercy of the pilot. Pilot drops bomb.

Pilot is shot down and is at the mercy of the people on the ground. People on the ground _____________

Are you aware that the same logic can be applied to anyone? Let's say Daesh manages to bring down an american bomber and the pilots are able to eject themselves out of the cockpit before the plane goes down only to be gunned down by the "people on the ground" would you find this acceptable?

It's certainly human to want revenge, but revenge is not usually considered a very good reason to act. I believe the point here is if you want to appear as the "good rebels", "freedom fighters" and the like you don't do exactly what could be expected the likes of Is would do.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder to keep it civil, please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest...

oh noes! And now I say I am VERY OFFENDED by you being offended, and so on...

Charlie Hebdo pretty much convinced the world that "I'm offended!" is no longer a viable argument among civilized people.
If you want to convince people, back your argument with logic, not drama.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:


Are you aware that the same logic can be applied to anyone?

Yes. Or well. Almost.

Quote:
Let's say Daesh manages to bring down an american bomber and the pilots are able to eject themselves out of the cockpit before the plane goes down only to be gunned down by the "people on the ground" would you find this acceptable?

No, but because they're Daesh and killing people to further that goal is pretty evil, not because they're shooting a pilot. I would answer yes given different targets, even with a US pilot.

Quote:
I believe the point here is if you want to appear as the "good rebels", "freedom fighters" and the like you don't do exactly what could be expected the likes of Is would do.

I'm pretty sure they're a few orders of magnitude below the level of organization needed to have a public relations expert on hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.

Morally right and legal are 2 different things, as has been explained multiple times in this thread. If you don't like people calling you out on the distinction, back up your argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm pretty sure they're a few orders of magnitude below the level of organization needed to have a public relations expert on hand.

I wouldn't be so sure, all things considered I'd say these particular brand of "freedom fighters" are acting in concert with Turkey, the moment the Russians and Assad push against them I'd bet a pretty penny they'll find a way to retreat into Turkey for example.

Bottom line: I don't think what happened today was an incident. The russian aircraft was unarmed, it could pose no threat to turkish national security. It may have invaded turkish airspace (for 17 seconds according to Ankara, and we are supposed to believe it has been warned 5 times to leave during that period of time) but it was surely brought down on Syirian soil, probably shot by the 2 turkish aircrafts entering Syrian airspace themselves to hunt it down. This kind of thing doesn't happen unless those who give commands want it to happen. Were the Russians provoking the Turks? Quite possibly, but their reaction was completely disproportionate, and I find it impossible to believe those who gave the order to engage didn't have a clear idea of the possible consequences. Therefore I think what happened was the outcome they wanted, and I believe this is a huge problem IF we want to region to stabilize. Incidentally I also believe Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. Call me a conspirationist theorist if you want.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

HHMM?

Big post got eaten.

I'll leave it there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No offense is meant here please don't take this the wrong way.

Queen Moragan wrote:
While the Rules of War are clear...

I respectfully disagree with this premise. The body of law that covers armed conflict is vast and often ambiguous. It derives from many treaties as well as long established traditions. There are many sources of this law but what law applies to who where and when is often difficult to discern. This is one of the reason why more organized armed forces draft Rules of Engagement in order to give the men (and women) on the ground more clarity as to when they can kill. As BNW pointed out the forces that did this lack strong organization. This lack of organization leaves the decision to kill in the hands of the fighters at the scene. There is no one set of explicitly clear guidelines, there are many JAG officers (military lawyers) in the US Military dedicated to operational law to discern what is and what is not lawful. Other large Armed Forces have their equivalents as well. The reason they are needed is because things are often not clear at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Incidentally I also believe Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. Call me a conspirationist theorist if you want.

Well, frankly, I agree that Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (No Kurdish State!)

I also believe that Russia doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (Assad stays!)
And that the US doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under our terms.
(Assad goes!)
The same is likely true of the smaller players, including Iran and the Saudis among others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Is this a crime?" seems to be less about "what did they do" and more of "Are they on our side?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
"Is this a crime?" seems to be less about "what did they do" and more of "Are they on our side?

Jakpot!

This is how politics work and international politics are no exception.

"On enemies we enforce the law. For friends, we interpret it"
Giovanni Giolitti, Italian Statesman, 1842-1928


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So Russia is promising a drastic response. Depending on what that means Turkey is likely to invoke NATO article 5. Then the poo will pretty much hit the jet impeller.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
So Russia is promising a drastic response. Depending on what that means Turkey is likely to invoke NATO article 5. Then the poo will pretty much hit the jet impeller.

They might just turn off the pipelines. Russia has used turning off the gas lines as a political weapon before.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now Russia calls a joint operation against terrorists 'doubtful' and put all joint military operations with Turkey on hold. While that is bad enough, right now it does't look like it is going to escalate into WWIII.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Russia knows WWIII is not going to be kinder on them than on anyone else. They are a poor country, in poor shape regarding production and civil society. Getting involved in a serious war would quickly see them in a very precarious situation. Not to mention, the West would quickly unite against them, and China would love to see a chance to carve out a piece of them. It is not a winning concept for them either.

Regarding shooting pilots... It is not something you should expect going in that your opponents will follow the rules of war, unless they are representing a nation, and often not even then. It is quite simply a very bad idea to eject in the wrong place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The second pilot is alive and back on base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Russia knows WWIII is not going to be kinder on them than on anyone else. They are a poor country, in poor shape regarding production and civil society. Getting involved in a serious war would quickly see them in a very precarious situation. Not to mention, the West would quickly unite against them, and China would love to see a chance to carve out a piece of them. It is not a winning concept for them either.

Regarding shooting pilots... It is not something you should expect going in that your opponents will follow the rules of war, unless they are representing a nation, and often not even then. It is quite simply a very bad idea to eject in the wrong place.

Staying on a plane that's going down isn't a viable option though.


Queen Moragan wrote:

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.

That's not how law works. It is not the case that all actions are presumed illegal and then explicitly made legal. On the contrary, all actions are presumed legal, and then certain actions are explicitly made illegal. So it's problematic to ask someone to prove or explain why something is legal. A much more reasonable way to go about it would be for the person asserting that something is illegal (i.e., you) to cite the relevant law that makes it illegal. You should be able to do that.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a war crime under protocol I of the Geneva Conventions to shoot someone descending via parachute... unless they are paratroopers. Then it's perfectly legal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
It's a war crime under protocol I of the Geneva Conventions to shoot someone descending via parachute... unless they are paratroopers. Then it's perfectly legal.
Geneva Conventions, Protocol I, Art. 42 wrote:

Article 42 -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

In other words, as soon as he hits the ground, he's fair game to shoot, as long as you can make the case that he is "engaging in a hostile act." Even if not, if you demand that he surrender and he doesn't, you can shoot him then, too.


I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.

I don't think that's quite how it works with rebel groups. There are provisions under the conventions for dealing with non-state groups, though I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment.

They're expected to abide by at least a subset of the laws of war and the state parties are expected to treat them as such.

Strictly speaking the rebel groups can't sign the conventions, since it's a treaty between states.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And even if your opponent is not a signatory, if you are you have to follow the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.

I don't think that's quite how it works with rebel groups. There are provisions under the conventions for dealing with non-state groups, though I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment.

They're expected to abide by at least a subset of the laws of war and the state parties are expected to treat them as such.

Strictly speaking the rebel groups can't sign the conventions, since it's a treaty between states.

Yeah, that is actually how laws work.

I hold this piece of land and defend my presence on it with force. I am able to prevent you from taking it away from me. The dude on the piece of land next to mine recognizes this is my piece of land.

If those three things are satisfied then I can make whatever I want to be legal or illegal on my land.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.

I don't think that's quite how it works with rebel groups. There are provisions under the conventions for dealing with non-state groups, though I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment.

They're expected to abide by at least a subset of the laws of war and the state parties are expected to treat them as such.

Strictly speaking the rebel groups can't sign the conventions, since it's a treaty between states.

Yeah, that is actually how laws work.

I hold this piece of land and defend my presence on it with force. I am able to prevent you from taking it away from me. The dude on the piece of land next to mine recognizes this is my piece of land.

If those three things are satisfied then I can make whatever I want to be legal or illegal on my land.

And if the dude on the piece of land next to you doesn't recognize that is your piece of land, suddenly there are no laws?

I mean, practically speaking, you're essentially right, but that invalidates all the Geneva Convention/law of war kind of stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't invalidate the conventions. Just keep in mind what the conventions really are; a gentleman's agreement on how you should engage in modern war between the major military powers. And trust me when I say it's non binding even among the big players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are places in various slums where GPS maps recommend you not to stop even if your car is having trouble because it's too dangerous. Similarly, yes, if your plane is going down, and you are landing in certain territories, it may well be that you HAVE no good options. Hopefully, the pilots knew this about the situation BEFORE going in.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Turkey downs russian jet All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.