Slashdot Mirror


Turkey Downs Allegedly Intruding Russian Fighter Near Syria Border (reuters.com)

jones_supa writes: Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian Sukhoi SU-24 fighter near the Syrian border on Tuesday after repeated warnings over airspace violations. Moscow said it could prove the jet had not left Syrian air space. Footage from private Turkish broadcaster Haberturk TV showed the warplane going down in flames in a woodland area. Separate footage from Turkey's Anadolu Agency showed two pilots parachuting out of the jet before it crashed. A Syrian rebel group sent a video to Reuters that appeared to show one of the pilots immobile and badly wounded on the ground and an official from the group said he was dead. This is the first time a NATO member's armed forces have downed a Russian military aircraft since the 1950s. The Guardian is following the developments with live updates. Also covered by the BBC, which notes Russian aircraft have flown hundreds of sorties over northern Syria since September. Moscow says they have targeted only "terrorists", but activists say its strikes have mainly hit Western-backed rebel groups. Turkey, a vehement opponent of Syria's president, has warned against violations of its airspace by Russian and Syrian aircraft. Last month, Ankara said Turkish F-16s had intercepted a Russian jet that crossed its border and two Turkish jets had been harassed by an unidentified Mig-29.

36 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. I have an idea by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's start World War III over a piece of land in the middle east we all gave fuck-all about five years ago.

    Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region where everyone hates everyone else, and the only people they hate more is anyone who shows up to help? Are we really going to do this all over again with the advisers and the airstrikes and then another Iraq/Libya/Egypt clusterfuck?

    1. Re:I have an idea by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and the only people they hate more is anyone who shows up to help?

      I was with you until you said "help". Don't be so naive. If not for the oil, we'd have as many "helpers" in the Middle East as we do in the Congo.

    2. Re:I have an idea by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region"

      No, but we did get free healthcare!

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    3. Re:I have an idea by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region where everyone hates everyone else

      ...and ironicly, staying out of it is exactly what got us into this position. That's the problem with being the USA. We have treaty commitments (eg: Turkey is a NATO member we are pledged to defend, as is France), and letting situations fester until they start to spill over onto our allies only means things will be 100x worse when we are finally forced to get involved.

      On paper it might sound nice, but ignoring the nasty political swamps of the world is simply not an option for the US.

    4. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The region never got its borders sorted out through wars like Europe did. The current borders were drawn up by European colonialists, and don't reflect tribal/ethnic divisions.

    5. Re:I have an idea by njnnja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.

      Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!

    6. Re:I have an idea by Mishra100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the line then? There are millions of conflicts around the world that we can 'get involved with'. Saudi Arabia likes to behead and crucify people, should we 'get involved' with them? What is the number of wars and death it takes to make everyone do exactly what we want them to do?

      Did you know ISIS was born of intervention policies from the U.S. government? The reason why they are even around is because we are involved.

      Strangely enough, when you kill someone family members, they hate you every single time. I guess you should stamp out that hate with more death and hate...

    7. Re:I have an idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region where everyone hates everyone else, and the only people they hate more is anyone who shows up to help?

      Texas?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:I have an idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's totally different now. What about Anglo-German rivalry?

      Hang on a minute...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:I have an idea by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are actually not many armed conflicts around the world, and very few of them are high-intensity conflicts. Most of them are in Africa.

      The problem is that if a country or coalition of countries decides to intervene, they also need to be prepared to ensure some minimal level of security and political stability for about 40 years or more, instead of withdrawing after 5-10 years. History has shown that again and again.

    10. Re:I have an idea by halivar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nooo... I once was driving through Plano, Texas, turning right when I should have turned left. My local friend told me to stop and put on my left blinker. When I did so, the other four lanes of cars stopped and waved me through. Craziest damn thing I ever saw. I have never met anyone nicer than a Texan.

    11. Re:I have an idea by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.

      And everyone was telling them they can get lost with it, as it makes no sense and will just create more problems. Luckily they were right, it made sense, and now all the problems are solved. Iraq is a blooming democracy, and the neighboring feudal states are rapidly reforming towards pluralistic, democratic societies.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:I have an idea by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This a million times over. The three most recent examples being South Korea, Japan and Germany. In all instances we are still there more than half a century later. Well OK I am British so we are not technically in South Korea or Japan these days, but we still have bases in Germany 70 years later.

    13. Re: I have an idea by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Informative

      And your expertize comes from where?

      We all form our ideas based on the information we have. All networks and people are biased. CNN was just busted editing Trump to make it look like he was talking about Muslim databases by editing out him talking about the wall and border security.

    14. Re:I have an idea by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably as deliberate as Bush/Cheney when they fucked around in Iraq and broke it.

      Nope.

      The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven,

      Duh-huhn. Of course it wasn't, the invasion of Iraq was something they wanted to do from the start, the fact that they could scare the US public into believing that not only was Saddam involved with 9/11, but that he also hoarded WMDs to attack America "again" was simply all the excuse they needed.

      Point is: they had no plan beyond getting rid of Saddam.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And you lost me when you said oil, and helpers in the congo...

      The US DOES have "helpers" in Africa-- when it comes to training, we actually spend more money and send more units there. We train nearly twice as many people in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to the Middle east and North Africa combined. source

      Also note that special forces deployments are 10x what they were in Africa ten years ago, while presence in the middle east is actually going down. source

      I know you want to make this about OIL, but I think this is a gross simplification. Even if it were about oil, none of this would apply to Syria, which is not a large producer. source

      I'm not saying that oil companies have no influence in our government (I'm sure they do--- just like military contractors and a myriad other huge industries in the US and the world influence probably every part of our lives and governments) but the US is training and policing all sorts of areas of the world, regardless of whether or not they fit some predetermined "OMG OIL" narrative. Is this a great idea? Honestly I have no idea, I'm sure some citizens are happy to have the US intervene just as sure as some will hate us for it.

    16. Re:I have an idea by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the line then? There are millions of conflicts around the world that we can 'get involved with'. Saudi Arabia likes to behead and crucify people, should we 'get involved' with them? What is the number of wars and death it takes to make everyone do exactly what we want them to do?

      The conflict in Iraq is special because the U.S. precipitated it. I was against invading Iraq, but once we did it I was absolutely committed to staying there until it was stable. While Saddam Hussein was a monster, like most monsters his grip on power provided a good deal of stability. Removing him also removed that stability, so we had a moral duty to stay there until a comparable level of stability was restored. Unfortunately, a majority of the U.S. just wanted out quickly regardless of stability and the consequences, and elected a President who promised just that and delivered. What we're seeing now with ISIS is the consequence of shirking our responsibility to fix what we broke, and not withdrawing from Iraq until it could provide its own stability.

      Did you know ISIS was born of intervention policies from the U.S. government? The reason why they are even around is because we are involved.

      Did you know U.S. inteventionist policies were born from Muslim acts against the U.S.? You've probably heard the opening line of the Marine Corps anthem:

      From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...

      The Montezuma part makes sense. The U.S. fought several wars with Mexico, so of course the Marines would be involved. But Tripoli? That's way over in Libya (that's Africa for those weak in geography). What the hell were U.S. Marines doing there?

      Funny you should ask. Way back in 1800 when the U.S. was a freshly minted nation, it ran into a problem. Prior to the revolution, the U.S. was a British colony, and thus fell under British protection. When the U.S. gained independence, it lost that protection. The Muslim Barbary States decided to take advantage of the situation and began capturing U.S. merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom. Their thinking was that since these people weren't Muslim, it was ok to kidnap them and extort a ransom.

      The fledgling U.S. had its own domestic problems and didn't want to meddle with things going on in other countries. But it didn't have a navy which could deal with the situation, and attempts to negotiate a treaty with France to protect U.S. vessels fell through. So for the first few years, the U.S. just paid the ransom. Of course paying criminals just encourages them, and it became open season on U.S. flagged vessels. Eventually the payments became exorbitant, and the U.S. recommissioned a navy. President Thomas Jefferson (y'know, the guy who wrote famous things like, "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal") launched a military operation to Africa to end the kidnappings and free the hostages.

      That is how the U.S. Marines ended up in Tripoli. That is how U.S. meddling with foreign nations began. Because a bunch of Muslims decided to take advantage of a fledgling non-Muslim nation by kidnapping its citizens and demanding ransom for their freedom. So if you want to play the blame game, the first incident, the precipitating act which began over two centuries of animosity, was actually committed by Muslims against the U.S.

  2. Sigh by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes me sick to see the phrase, "Western-backed rebel forces". These are Islamists. When Russia says they're only going after the terrorists, they aren't lying. See, there aren't two sides in Syria's civil war, there are three (major ones). There is Assad's government, who represent a minority that would get massacred if they ever lose power (Russia is backing them), the Islamist rebels (we're backing them *puke*), and ISIS (against everyone). There aren't any good guys. The Syrians who want Western democracy? Laughable.

    It continues to amaze me, year after year, all the journalists who simply do not comprehend that there are three (major) sides in the battle. When Russia bombs the Islamists, this is nothing more than a proxy war. Putin thinks Obama is finished, weak, and America is ready to be swept aside. This is all Obama's own fault, of course, for his miserable failure during the Syrian nerve gas crisis of 2013. His "red line" was shown to be nothing that anyone need be afraid of. Russia saw weakness and swooped in. According to Putin, this was America's "Suez Moment" and without it Russia would today not be in the civil war and NATO wouldn't have just shot down one of their aircraft.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Sigh by tigersha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not true, there are lots of Syrians who want Western Democracy.
      The problem is, they are all leaving to live in a actual western democracy.

      Which leaves Syria with the rest.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  3. Some innacuraties by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No Mig-29 has ever locked a Turkish plane in the region. The Russians have none there. A F-16's RWR (Radio Warning Reciever) cannot distinguish easily between a MiG-29 or Su-30 or Su-27 radar.

    According to the data the Turks themselves have provided, the Russian plane was in Syria save for a very brief instant (5-20 seconds depending the airspeed of the Su-24). This is normal in operations. Small strays at the bad side of a border are common and are not worthy of an incident. If the Su-24 had been in a straight line towards the deep inside of Turkey then it should have been intercepted -not shot down- and either escorted outside of the airspace or sternly asked to land on some Turkish military airfield pending diplomatic exchange between the two nations.

    And you don't "warn multiple times" a plane in 20 seconds.

    The Turks are clearly looking for war with Russia for whatever reason. Or their political leaders do not realise Russia is not Armenia and they are going to react. They will think it trough but it won't be pretty.

    Until now, if you watch the images of Russian planes in Syria, you see they fly with old air-air missiles (R-27s) which show they didn't really expect anyone would be dumb enough to start a fight with them. That is going to change.

    I hope NATO will stay out of this. If they start a WW3, I desert. I won't fight or even pay taxes for islamists.

    1. Re:Some innacuraties by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Turks want Russia to stop effectively helping Kurdish populations within ISIS's grasp. Isn't that clear enough now. The Turkish government wants this war to go on long enough to wipe out the Kurds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. There's an old curse by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's an old curse that seems relevant: "May you live in interesting times." Times are certainly interesting. At this point, it seems like some sort of full-scale war between NATO and Russia is more likely now than it has been any time since the 1980s (granted then it would have been NATO against the USSR but the basic point is the same). Worse, at least historically the military and diplomats spent much of their time making sure that things didn't spiral out of control. Without the Cold War feeling, people may feel less of a need to guard against such issues. Worse, Russian military doctrine currently describes a limited nuclear strike on conventional military targets as a de-escalation http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation . While in official documents they reserve that terminology for using nuclear weapons to handle direct conventional military attacks on Russia itself, one finds very worrying the level of doublethink where one describes being the first to use nukes as de-escalating a situation.

    During the Cold War, one popular explanation for the Fermi paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox, the apparent lack of highly advanced civilizations in the universe, was that species end up blowing themselves up. For most of my life, this belief looked almost quaint but it is not looking disturbingly likely. At this point, the evidence for some sort of serious barrier to civilizations emerging substantially is much stronger than it was a few decades ago. The apparent lack of K3 or K2.5 civilizations is at this point substantially robust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale with around 100,000 galaxies searched and almost no sign of any civilization using a substantial fraction of its galactic energy output http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/. With this return to Cold War norms, it looks like we need to not only take seriously that there's a Great Filter, but that the Filter might be nuclear war. That's especially the case because a nuclear war does not need to kill every member of the civilization to completely destroy any hope of a technologically advanced civilization. If not enough natural resources have been consumed by the civilization (e.g. the easily accessible coal and oil) then even if the species survives it may not have the ability to reboot itself to a high tech level since getting to a high tech level may actually require access to these resources (in which case one gets essentially one chance to get to be a high tech civilization).

    1. Re:There's an old curse by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's an old curse that seems relevant: "May you live in interesting times." Times are certainly interesting. At this point, it seems like some sort of full-scale war between NATO and Russia is more likely now than it has been any time since the 1980s (granted then it would have been NATO against the USSR but the basic point is the same).

      This depends on who Russia focuses on as responsible, and how exactly they retaliate. Right now Putin is focusing mostly on Turkey and says it will hurt their "relationship". This could be something as small as a diplomatic tiff, maybe expel a diplomat or two; they could impose some kind of economic sanctions on them (not sure what the level of trade or cooperation there is between Russia and Turkey); or, most severely, retaliate in kind. Any kind of overt military action would be very dangerous as Turkey could immediately call in NATO for assistance. Russia doesn't want this, Putin certainly doesn't want this. He doesn't need war between Russia and the West, he just needs the relationship to be hostile enough to maintain his domestic support. The next few days will be very interesting to watch.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Re:This is why ISIS wins by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those parties are not really fighting amongst themselves; but they do have different interests in Syria. While their common goal is to fight IS, they each want to use this conflict as an opportunity to back their own horse in this race. Russia bombs the "moderate" rebels opposing Assad, while the rest likes to support those rebels. Meanwhile, Turkey bombs the Kurds.

    By the way, Russia has a long history of violating the airspace of other nations. I'm surprised there hasn't been such an incident earlier.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  6. Re:This is why ISIS wins by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    But does Turkey hate ISIS? The Kurds of northern Iraq have been one of the targets of ISIS, and every Kurd killed by ISIS is another Kurd that won't cause Turkey problems. Why do you think Turkey is the porous border that is allowing people and goods to flow into Iraq and Syria? Because they want ISIS to cause mayhem, kill lots of Kurds and send the message to Turkish Kurds that they'll happily send them to the slaughter too if anyone starts thinking about Greater Kurdistan again.

    The Turks have never been allergic to the idea of genocide. Just look at the Ottoman genocide of ethnic Armenians during WWI. I'm sure if the Turkish government thought it could get away with it, it would kill every Kurd it could find

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Russia won't retaliate by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think Russia is so much of an idiot as to give the Kurds anti-aircraft systems. Because Turkey would respond by giving the FSA anti-aircraft systems. Which would be far more devastating due to how close the Russian airbase near Latakia is to opposition troops and how Russia's been focusing so much on close air support, as well as the ratios of assets in the region that could be employed if necessary (Turkey and the other coalition states have far, far more)

    Russia's also at real risk of facing a heavy dose of irony. As the battle front has spread deeper into Latakia (yes, Russia/Iran/Hezbollah/Assad has lost ground in Assad's heartland since the Russian/Iranian surge) it's increasingly violent in Jabal al-Turkuman, aka the Turkman Mountains, aka an area to a large indigenous Turkic population. The Russian strikes there have stirred up anger in Turkey (probably no doubt a contributor to Turkey being a bit more trigger-happy on their antiaircraft missiles than usual), and in recent days pictures have started emerging of members of far-right parties in Turkeys that have crossed over to Syria and taken up arms. This has the potential to involve into a mirror of the situation in Donbas.

    BTW, and back to the original topic - why are so few people covering the helicopter downing in Syria? Look it up: one of the helicopters in Latakia on search and rescue mission for the plane crew went down. The rebels say that they hit it with a TOW. Russia says that it underwent a "hard landing", but that the crew is okay.

    Oh, and we still have Israel continuing to be a wildcard, having launched several strikes inside Syria again just the other day, in the heels of last week's attack on the Damascus airport. They seem determined to stop Iran and Russia from transferring advanced weapons to Hezbollah at any cost.

    --
    I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  8. Re:Russia won't retaliate by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh hey, speak of the devil, they just released a video of the hitting of the helicopter: link "Hard landing" my arse.

    They'd really be nowhere today if it wasn't for those TOWs. They film every attack - footage and return of the tubes is apparently part of the deal to get more, to prevent them from stockpiling them or transferring them to other militias, so there's a couple new videos put out every day. Saudi Arabia reportedly purchased 13k of them from the US which it routes through Turkey in batches of a couple hundred at a time.

    --
    I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  9. Re:This is why ISIS wins by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    I shudder to think how WWII would have ended if the alliance powers had each worried so much about what the other sides would do AFTER they defeated Hitler that they refused to ally with one another to begin with.

    Oh, believe me - they worried. Churchill openly worried about it (especially post-Yalta, where he saw that the UK got screwed pretty hard.) Roosevelt worried about it, though not as much... now post WWII, his big worry was that Gen. Patton would decide 'fuck it', and start a fight with the USSR anyway (just to get it out of the way).

    Incidentally, there were more than a few tense crises between East and West (towards and at the end of WWII) that never really made the papers - the relative silence was only because back then, the government would tell the press to shut the hell up about something, and the press (more often than not) compliantly kept quiet about it.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  10. Re:This is why ISIS wins by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Informative

    U.S., Iran, Turkey, Assad, Russia. All hate ISIS. All have an interest in destroying the ISIS "caliphate."

    Can't stop fighting among themselves for even a minute to even consider an alliance.

    Meanwhile, ISIS just slips across some other border that the side who happens to be fighting them at that moment can't cross.

    Bullshit - Turkey has been supporting ISIS in many ways, including logistics, since the beginning. This includes free passage for ISIS fighters while blocking the passage of anti-ISIS forces. Turkey is also acting as a de-facto air force for ISIS, by bombing their most successful adversary, the Kurdish forces in Syria.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  11. Re:Turkey downing plane by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

    If this claim is true, then Russians planes are shitty.

    (I'm turkish),

    The F-16 is a very capable fighter (especially when flown clean - that is, not weighed down with a LANTIRN pod or wing tanks). It's capable of sustained 9G maneuvers, and can even accelerate while flying straight up - which most jets cannot do. It has superior pilot visibility, has up to 9 hardpoints on which to mount armament, and there's a built-in 20mm cannon to boot (just behind the canopy on the right-hand side above the strake).

    It may have been designed and built in the early-mid 1970s, but it was far ahead of its time, even back then. It was originally built as a 'cheap-but-plentiful' fighter (to compliment/support the expensive flagship F-15 fighters), but in the right hands, 'the little jet that could' turns out to be quite a little badass in its own right.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  12. Re:He she said by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Russian violation was technical, according tothis morning's maps: in a flight across northern Syria, the SU-24 crossed a narrow finger of Turkish land sticking out of its southern border. The shootdown was over Syria, the crash was in Syria, and the crew were killed by Syrians after ejecting.

  13. Re:Redundant by ladoga · · Score: 4, Informative

    "moderate" factions... Yeah right, pull the other one. And please, keep passing the blame.. You wouldn't be you without that.

    There's a very good documentary about this called "Return to Homs", which everyone should see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt31...

    It shows how secular protests turn into massacre and then to desperate fight for survival. They received no support from outside world, other than from the islamists (who had plenty of weapons and supplies, likely sponsored by such countries as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). You can guess the rest.

    Watch it and then come here to say that they had a choice. I think that most western young people can easily relate to people shown in the film. They are not that different from us.

  14. Re:This is why ISIS wins by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's really not, at least among the major players. In the north (where the most relevant fronts are, even if there is still lots of random fighting elsewhere) you have Daesh in the east, the YPG (kurdish "Peoples' Defense Units") to the north of them, and JaF (Jaish al-Fatah, "Army of Conquest")/FSA alliance in the center (down to just north of Hama, and edging into Latakia by the Turkish border). The FSA has many different brigades but they're all pretty unified by wanting to fight Assad and Daesh and being composed of members who explicitly didn't join the (formerly much more powerful) Islamist militias. JaF is comprised of a number of militias, mostly islamist, the two most powerful being Ahrar ash-Sham ("Supporters of the Levant") and Jabhat al-Nusra ("The Support Front for the People of the Levant").

    Let's break down the players.

    The YPG, opposed by Turkey (out of fear of links to the PKK), controls a long strip along Turkey's northeast border, as well as a couple of pockets west of there. They have a long border with Daesh territory and fight almost exclusively against Daesh (even though there's one or two Assad pockets within their territory). Recently they've launched a major anti-Daesh campaign, using US-supplied weapons, in an alliance with Arab anti-Daesh forces, under the banner of Syrian Democratic Forces. So far it seems to be progressing well.

    Daesh (aka IS/ISIS/IL) is, of course, Daesh. A group of Islamists so radical that even al-Qaeda thinks they're nuts. That said, it should be reiterated that not everyone who fights for them shares their ideology. They literally do run what is effectively a state, with locally sourced money (based around oil pumping, refining with truck-mounted mini-refineries, and sales - both domestic, to Turkey (black market), and even to Assad, who they're vehemently against. This money funds a militia far larger than their ideological base, often made up of the poor and displaced in the conflict who need the work. That said, literally armed entitity who's not part of Daesh in this conflict is an enemy of Daesh, so it's hard to imagine them surviving in the long run.

    The FSA was once the largest fighting force in early post-revolution Syria, but atrophied to a lack of financing and weaponry, becoming a paper tiger. Since 2014 however a joint US/Saudi/Turkey program under the auspices of the CIA (not to be confused with the gigantic-failure Pentagon program) has funnelled them a basically unlimited supply of TOWs, which they've been making good use of - their kill rate is reportedly about 6 out of 7 fired. Their numbers have increased since then. So far they seem to have managed their assets quite well, with reports stating that only 2 (some say 4) have fallen into other hands (Jabhat al-Nusra), and they seem to have used them. FSA works closely with JaF but is not part of the alliance itself.

    Jaish al-Fatah is as mentioned a coalition, largely Islamist, although its individual members vary significantly. Let's go into the two biggest ones.

    Ahrar ash-Sham can be thought of as sort of like the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamist, supporting sharia, but locally focused. Saudi Arabia and Qatar seem to have this group as their favored dog in the game.

    Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda operating in Syria. Strangely despite this they haven't been behaving very much like al-Qaeda usually does, and they've been a very effective force against both Assad and Daesh. While they still take part in things like suicide bombings and human shields, they have a policy of not taking any anti-western activity and have worked hard to try to not engender local resentment, such as not imposing sharia on Christian towns. Qatar has been reportedly working to try to get them to break with al-Qaeda, but so far this campaign has not yielded any fruit. A large chunk of al-Nusra's fighters are foreign volunteers attracted by the name and they would risk losing them if they were to break with al-Qaeda.

    JaF is really tricky on how one should deal with it. Ahra

    --
    I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  15. Re:This is why ISIS wins by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Turkey doesn't like ISIS

    Bullshit. The western friendly Turkey as reformed by Ataturk is long gone. Erdogan's Turkey of today is being lurched back in the medeival Islamist totalitarian direction, and mark well that he was popularly elected. Turkey now sees everything through Moslem colored glasses. It has no problem with ISIS at all.

    You are right that Turkey hates Kurds with a vengeance.

  16. Re:This is why ISIS wins by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is why ISIS is so darned convenient for Turkey. It takes the piss out of the Kurds outside Turkey's borders and thus weakens the overall Kurdish cause. I'm sure the Turkish government is happy enough to take a few suicide bombings on the chin for the strategic advantage gained from allowing ISIS to run rampant and kill lots of Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. Re:This is why ISIS wins by fnj · · Score: 5, Informative

    By the way, Russia has a long history of violating the airspace of other nations.

    Ha. The USA made a wholesale business of such violations against the USSR with virtually no retaliation in kind. This little-known secret campaign began in 1946. There were losses, killed and imprisoned, kept secret. B-29s and Lockheed P2Vs were used; later C-130s and B-66s. By the 1950s, B-47 bombers were being repeatedly sent on deep penetration reconnaissance missions. Then came the U-2s. Francis Gary Powers' ill-fated spy flight was far from the only such.

    All told more than 40 US aircraft invading Soviet aircraft were shot down. Question: can you identify a single Soviet or Russian aircraft which was ever shot down over US territory? As far as I know they have never violated it; certainly not systematically and purposefully.

    Incidents of Russian aircraft probing the US which are drummed up as provocative are no more than Russians exercising their perfect right to range in international airspace "near" (gasp) to US territory.