The June 22 downing of a Turkish warplane which had just violated Syrian airspace set off a war of words and escalations which has both sides pouring tanks to their mutual border and had Turkish officials pressing NATO for a formal declaration that the loss of the plane amounted to an attack by Syria on the alliance in general.
But the bizarre narratives that have emerged since then have made little sense, and now the Turkish military is throwing the whole story into doubt by saying that they have zero evidence that the plane ever got hit by a missile in the first place.
The military concession comes in two parts, the first that the plane’s warning systems, which were meant to detect incoming missiles, never detected anything, and the second that land-based radar saw no missiles when the jet was downed.
Turkish political officials, which had spent the past month railing against Syria, tried to downplay the seriousness of the issue, pointing out that Syria had admitted to hitting it with a missile. This presents as much a problem for their narrative as anyone, however, as Turkey still hasn’t managed to recover the bulk of the plane, and the military is now saying that its entirely possible the plane just crashed on its own.
A gem from that second link: A senior official dismissed the questions raised [ … : ] some “nuances” should not be overrated. […]“One should not be in an effort to reach different conclusions by focusing on some nuances.” Like the 'nuance' about the physical/electronic evidence and what the investigation sez about it so far… I'd missed that Turkey and Syria aren't even talking about the same mode of fire. And Turkey's politicians already wanted NATO in there? Who are they serving?
Don't forget that Turkish politicians and Turkish military brass have very divergent ideas about the direction to take in international and national affairs.
Didn't the Syrians at first say it could have been a missile and then later said it was more than likely AA fire from some local unit that took the plane out. In either case it was shot down where it had no business being.
And another possibility could be that the ack-ack fire scared the pilot and he lost control and crashed the plane into the sea while trying to evade.
When are people going to realize that scalar beam weapons
are being used ? They were used to stop the North Korean missile
launch, and were likely used to take down this Turkish jet.
Russia wouldn't have done it, but the US may have. If the "Israelis"
have access to US scalar equipment especially.
> 2012
> Still reading the latest iteration of "Tesla's WORLD-CONQUERING weapon!!11"
> Believing it
Not enough facepalm
if the plane was intact, they would have found it. the plane was blown to
smithereens by, YES, Tesla invented technology. It is real whether you
acknowledge it or not, you are ignorant on the subject, so your opinion is
based on nothing but spoon fed lies.
Agreed, MoT – From the start I was seeing the Syrians claim it was ground fire that brought the plane down, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone claim it was a missile strike. The fact is the Turks shouldn't have been there, and they paid for their actions. If NATO wanted a first-hand assessment of Syrian anti-aircraft capabilities, they got a small taste of it that day.
Yes…. Syria said it was AA fire. Turkey and the US were pointing fingers at the Russians for supplying them missiles. We were trying to point out to the world how evil the Russians are for supporting Syria. Of course the plane shouldn't have been there and the rest of the world shrugged its shoulders at the whole thing wondering what the hell the Turks were thinking considering the state of siege Syria is under.
Thanks Persnipoles. Without your comment I wouldn't have gone there.
Also from the second link:
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference in Geneva on June 30 that Russia has data regarding the jet incident and was prepared to present it. “We have our objective observation data and we are prepared to present it,” Lavrov said."
So think on this, and get back to me. "…prepared to present it." What does this suggest? Why have they not presented it forthwith? Of course, we're dealing with military matters, and there are genuine security concerns around revealing "capabilities", but what is the game here?
[I think the Russians have evidence that supports their agenda, but are waiting, briefly, before showing their hand. Waiting for the US to stake out its position — see below — and then, if Washington is clumsy in its spin — ie bullsh*t level — the Russians can win some points by embarrassing the hell out of the US. YMMV.]
"In remarks published on Wednesday, a senior US official was quoted as saying the US has information about circumstances surrounding the jet incident but is not planning to make it public."
This prompts basically the same question as with the Russians. "What do you know, and perhaps more to the point, why aren't you telling?" What is clear, almost without saying, is that Washington will tell you only what it wants you to ***believe***, which is whatever furthers its agenda. Of course, as always, truthfulness is not a consideration, beyond not wanting to get caught ***immediately*** in the obligatory lie.
The US refusing to reveal evidence can only mean — virtually proves — the evidence to be exculpatory for the Syrians, which explains the below-stated US position:
"The official, speaking to daily Hürriyet, said whether the plane was hit over Syrian territorial waters or international waters did not matter to the US. “What matters to us is that it was downed,” the official said."
Which translates to: "Pay attention to these facts, and don't concern yourself with some other facts which we have but won't let you see."
This is getting so messed up. Syria ALWAYS said it used AA fire and not missiles to bring down the plane. Their argument was that since the range of the AA fire was only 1.5 miles the plane was clearly NOT 15 minutes out of Syrian airspace as Turkey said.
Meanwhile Turkey inisted initially that the plane was shot down by an antiaircraft missle. Turkey continued to make this calim to NATO and had a fit when the Wall Street Journal said that evidence existed that AA fire had been used.
NOW Turkey is finally admitting that the plane was NOT hit with a missile. Turkey is admitting it was hit with AA fire. Turkey is NOT saying that the plane crashed by itself as the writer of this article seems to suggest.
Russia was refuting Turkey's claim that the plane was hit by a Syrian missile. Russia insisted it had evidence that the plane was hit with AA fire. While NATO was inististing the plane was hit with a missile.
Its important because if the plane was hit with AA fire (as Syria claims) it was certainly not 15 minutes out of Syrian airspace (as Turkey claims).
I think the basic point coming away from the Turkish military's latest statement is: we don't have any evidence concerning what happened to the plane… the only reason we have to think it was 'downed' by the Syrians is the Syrian's own statement. Logically, it would be very strange to be completely relying on the Syrian's statements regarding the 'downing' as the cause of the aircraft's crash, but then reject their statement as regards place of the downing (within or without Syrian airspace) as well as the means used to down the jet (AA gun or missiles, missiles being the only means to down a jet at distances outside of Syrian airspace).
Salvaging major fuselage or wing sections will almost certainly hold conclusive evidence as to the weapon used to down the plane.
That’s right. Perhaps Turkey decided that there’s no win in Syria (or that it may be a long, drawn out issue) so it has decided to save face by claiming it was an accident, thus no retaliation required on the part of Turkey. Smart!