Escalation: Syria Says Turkish Jet Shot Down Was Over Syrian Territorial Waters

Tyler Durden's picture

The "Syrianna" story from this afternoon, which many were quick to label as merely a lot of diplomatic hot air and rhetoric, just turned uglier, after Syria not only did not officially apologize as Turkey PM Erdogan implied had happened previously for the shot down Turkish F-4 fighter jet, but instead turned the tables on Turkey, and gave itself an out for what is now a definitive military action. From Reuters:

The Syrian military said it shot down a Turkish military aircraft "over Syrian territorial waters" on Friday.

 

"Our air defences confronted a target that penetrated our air space over our territorial waters pre-afternoon on Friday and shot it down. It turned out to be a Turkish military plane," a statement by the military circulated on state media said.

The only question remains whether Syria's act was offensive or defensive. Naturally, its version is one of self-defense. Turkey obviously will claim it was in its right to be wherever the plane may be, and will say this was an act of provocation. Then NATO, read Hillary Clinton, will promptly step in, and make this a case in which Turkey was in its right and that Syria committed an act of aggression. From there, things will just escalate, and can potentially deteriorate to a far more troubling scale, because as we reminded earlier, Syria has recently become a major symbol for NATO vs the Russia-China axis:

Here is the rub: Turkey is a NATO member, and by definition the alliance will have to come to Turkey's aid if requested. Syria, however is not just any country as has been made quite clear over the past several months of UN impotence: it is a critical staging ground for both Russia (which has a very critical regional naval base in the city of Tartus) and China, and according to the Jerusalem Post, the three countries are in preparation to conduct the "largest ever" war game. As such Syria, already gripped by fierce local fighting, where just like in Egypt and Libya the presence of US-based flipflop on the ground can be smelt from across the Atlantic, is merely a symbol. The real implication is how far can little escalations push until finally the showdown begins, with NATO on one side and Russia and China on the other?

Ultimately, the key catalyst here may be something as simple as whether the pilot of the Turkish plane are alive or dead. BBC explains:

Given the breakdown in relations between the two countries over the Syrian conflict, this incident has the potential to provoke a serious crisis. When gunfire from Syrian forces crossed the Turkish border earlier this year, Ankara threatened a military response.

 

Much will depend on whether or not the Turkish pilots have survived. If not, public anger might push the government into some kind of punitive action against Syria.

 

Syria's response will also influence Turkey's reaction. A clear apology, and a statement that the shooting was unintentional, might be enough to assuage Turkish anger.

 

But then again, we do not know yet whether the aircraft were clearly in Turkish airspace or not. Initial Turkish reports that they came down eight miles from Syrian territorial waters suggests that they were, but Syria may claim otherwise.

At this point it is clear no apology will be forthcoming as Syria's official story is that Turkey had effectively committed an act of aggression against it. So it is up to the viability of the pilots. If dead, anyone who may have been shorting Brent into the weekend may have a nasty surprise come start of trading Monday.

Where the crash supposedly happened:

courtesy of @Thalion_1

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
nope-1004's picture

Bullish, for some reason.

 

malikai's picture

If it really was over Syrian airspace, fair kill. If it was, it should be confirmed by ewacs.

That's how you say stop it in geopolitic-speak.

wisefool's picture

Good idea. Unfortunately, I doubt F-4s have GPS in them. The false flag makers are literally digging at the bottom of the barrel to get this rotten stuff started.

We need Al Gore to charge Turkey a carbon tax/emmision test for Turkey to fly these dinasours, such that they have to have NSA tracked gear just like every american 12 year old with an I-Phone. Some of the actual nicknames for the F-4 are "Fuel to Noise Machine" and "ThunderHog". Think of the planet! What would Jesus Fly?

magpie's picture

Actually the "other side" just has to preempt Helo-Ben and start dropping their $ over the Middle East and Anatolia.

knukles's picture

25.8 tonnes

25.8 tonnes of Official Gold Reserves

25.8 tonnes of Official Gold Reserves Awaiting a New Owner

"Nobody Cares for Your Gold Like NATO"

wisefool's picture

I dont think Gold or silver is a basis for currency. I have reasons for this. The other nick name for the F-4 afficionados justaposed vs. goldbugs is "Bomb Cart for the world"

I have all respect for the old timers. And I like savory food.

Conrad Murray's picture

"What would Jesus Fly?"

Lightning, listening to Metallica. Heard he took Thor in a game of dice for that hammer. Repent bitches.

wisefool's picture

naw. covered it in context above.

nmewn's picture

Yeah, and on the other side, it looks like the Iranian Republican Guard is helping out Assad.

O'Barry's Terror Tuesday briefing for his drone "kill list" just got a little longer ;-)

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/01/28/irans-revolutionary-guard-helping-assad-in-syria/

caconhma's picture

Assad is the problem. If an enemy tries to destroy your country, there is no room for negotiations. You must stand up and fight hard bringing pain, suffering, and distraction to your enemy, his country, and his people. You must hit his major population centers and most important industrial and infrastructure center.

Stalin did not negotiate with Hitler. His message was loud and clear: "Death to Hitler. Death to Germans."

This is why, even having nuclear weaponry, America & England did not dare to confront Stalin in an open confrontation.

 

prole's picture

If you have a problem with Assad, I suggest you grab a gun and go deal with your problem.

I have no problem with Assad, in fact, I am openly rooting for the man to prevail!! GO ASSAD!!!!

I forgot to mention to the 'fellas' He has the hottest smokin-hot British/Syrian wife of any world leader hands down no contest fuggetaboutit. Maybe that is why world trolls and gutter men hate him it's out of pure envy of his delightful wife. (Did I mention she was smokin-hot?)

(PS- I take back what I said. Please don't harm the man!!)

Cortez the Killer's picture

I guess ordering your goons to kill innocents is forgiven if you get to cornhole an arab hottie?

prole's picture

I guess if you have no intelligent thoughts in your head, you can just repeat Lamestream Media lies and propaganda and make yourself feel better?

malikai's picture

10/10.

Excellent work.

HungrySeagull's picture

Just call the Spirits from the Clan together and put 18 over there. I see 21 Airbases, 18 of which are worth attacking via one spirit each.

If the Spirits do a good job and don't get caught, Syria might find itself hurting. And no one will know anything at daybreak. Just a bad night's dream.

But why would we even do such a thing? Turkey can spark a war and dominate Syria in the air.

Matt's picture

BNO + NOC

BNO + RTN

Vote on your picks for maximum profit! Northrup Grumman is a leader in drone manufacturing, while Raytheon is the world's leading producer of missles.

magpie's picture

The way this trade is going, short Turkey, wait until they got their capital in Europe, then short the Euro to 0. Then long Dollar, or if you are feeling frisky, buy Yuan.

CompassionateFascist's picture

This just in: Republic of Hatay mobilizing....But Turkey will do nothing. U remember all the Turks murdered by Israel on that aid-to-Palestine flotilla? Beaucoup de Hot Air from Ankara, then nothing.  

prole's picture

They know better than to displease their masters.

Randall Cabot's picture

The Young Turks who carried out the Armenian Genocide were secret jews and secret jews still rule Turkey today so any conflict between Turkey and Syria should be observed accordingly.

Check out the name of the jewish founder of Atlantic Records with the current PM of Turkey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Ertegun

The Young Turks: http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/turkey/youngturks.htm

dick cheneys ghost's picture

Dont you mean the petrodollar NATO Jet?

Bob's picture

Where have we seen this script before?

francis_sawyer's picture

It would make for a shorter list if you asked the opposite of that question...

greensnacks's picture

You mean the script where N. Korea torpedoed a S. Korean ship, killing 46 and the only thing done was, well, nothing?

lesterbegood's picture

And used German torpedos as well.

el Gallinazo's picture

That wasn't a false flag but a real attack that caught the S Koreans and US off guard.  They hadn't scripted out a response months or years in advance or laid the domestic psy-ops groundwork with the MSM.

dark pools of soros's picture

exactly - just like that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building...  nothing to see here folks..  wait for the show

HungrySeagull's picture

A Cessna type plane with about 50 gal of fuel totally trashed that building.

Tunga's picture

FBI building. Not IRS. And the only death in the building was never named. 

Conman's picture

Lol. I love that statement.

 

Kind of like, i shot some guy that came onto my property with a ladder and tools. Turned out to be a cable installer.

 

 

ThirdWorldDude's picture

Turkey admitted the plane was on a reconnaissance mission, so no, the guy you've shot was your power company's meters reader.

Conman's picture

lesson we all learned is to shoot first. ask later. unless of course if your victim is wearign a hoodie.

nmewn's picture

"unless of course if your victim is wearign a hoodie"...and slams the back of your head into the sidewalk and punches you repeatedly in the face.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"unless of course if your victim is wearign a hoodie"...and slams the back of your head into the sidewalk and punches you repeatedly in the face.

 

Like I've told you before the white Republican authors of the Stand Your Ground Law side with Martin and support his right to defend himself against Zimmerman's threatening behavior. Zimmerman's only hope is that an activist judge tries to reinterpret the law to support him. Zimmerman is a Democrat social activist after all and you how those people stick together. At least Zimmerman has Alan Dershowitz on his side. Dershowitz helped OJ get off the hook and maybe he can work the same mojo for Georgie Z.

nmewn's picture

"Like I've told you before the white Republican authors of the Stand Your Ground Law side with Martin and support his right to defend himself against Zimmerman's threatening behavior."

Pardon, what does race have to do with this?

As you say, it is an accepted fact, that Stand Your Ground Law is acknowledged as color blind. The law deals with aggression not skin color. Don't start with a straw dog with me.

Zimmerman was not stalking Martin for a kill. What threatening behavior, following him? Calling 911? Hardly the actions of a someone intent on murdering a complete stranger...calling the cops beforehand.

Like I told you, to be charged with manslaughter yes, second degree murder no.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Like I told you, to be charged with manslaughter yes, second degree murder no.

 

I can get behind that. But if you see Martin as a victim then what compells you to be so flip about his death? It's as if you think that a kid practicing his right to self defense against a strange man who chased him with a gun and getting killed in the process is funny.

nmewn's picture

I've said before (and I didn't junk you, as you already know) and I'll say it again...Zimmerman put himself in a position where he had to defend himself...against Martin.

Martin became the aggressor by attacking Zimmerman for the simple act of following him.

Look, it sucks. A kid died who also overreacted to a stranger. Both families are now grieving over happenstance.

I've already shown you where Zimmerman stood up for a homeless black guy who was suckered punched by some punk white guy which got covered up because his family member was a cop. Zimmerman was the one raising hell about that...not Al Sharpton...and got him put in jail and the family member demoted (if I remember right).

Zimmerman is not a bigot/rascist. He is a cop wannabe who followed too close. That, I hope, is the overriding lesson in this...if you're not sure of a strangers intentions (Martins in this case) back the fuck off.

Unfortunate and travesty doesn't even seem to hardly qualify as words to describe the pain so far (for both families) and the pain still to come...but thats all I can come up with...lets not make it a travesty of justice to go along with it, is my opinion.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Martin became the aggressor by attacking Zimmerman for the simple act of following him.

 

 

The Sanford police have stated that Martin did nothing illegal that night. Representitive Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law, said that Martin had a right to defend himself against Zimmerman. Do you support rule of law or not?

 

BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have.

 

If a stranger followed me in his car, increased his speed when I ran, exited his vehicle to pursue me on foot, refused to identify himself or state his reason for following me and then reached for something in his jacket I'd feel completely justified in defending myself by physical force. So would you.

 

nmewn's picture

"The Sanford police have stated that Martin did nothing illegal that night."

Its kinda hard to charge a dead guy with assault & battery...I don't even know what your statement winds up meaning.

Witnesses are saying they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Period.

As far as Baxleys statement,its true except for one thing. Stand you ground includes deadly force and precludes using the law as an escape hatch for your own aggression. Following someone is not aggression...its just annoying.

At point of contact...Trayvon was the aggressor, as witnesses will testify or be charged with giving false statements.

Done.

Seeya

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

On March 13, 2012, Chris Serino sent a capias request to the state's attorney asking for George Zimmerman to be charged with manslaughter.[172][173] Serino stated in the request that "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern". "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."[174] The state attorney's office initially did not act on the request for an arrest warrant.[173]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#cite_note-kcstar...

 

Would the police say that Martin had not committed a crime if the evidence showed that he had initiated a violent attack on an innocent man? As Representative Baxley confirmed, Martin attempted to defend himself in a manner protected by the Stand Your Ground Law.

 

At point of contact...Trayvon was the aggressor, as witnesses will testify or be charged with giving false statements.

 

Do you realize what you're saying? You can't seriously believe that if a man chases you with a gun that you have to wait for him to shoot you before you can legally defend yourself.


 


nmewn's picture

"Would the police say that Martin had not committed a crime if the evidence showed that he had initiated a violent attack on an innocent man?"

Context is everything.

Were the police asked what crime Trayvon had committed in order for Zimmerman to be following him? That is, are you extrapolating an answer onto a different question? Were the police specifically asked if Trayvon committed assault & battery on Zimmerman?

"As Representative Baxley confirmed, Martin attempted to defend himself in a manner protected by the Stand Your Ground Law."

Baxley and you or I were not there.

If he (Baxley) is saying that Zimmerman chased Trayvon down and stopped him...then Baxley is right. Trayvon has the right to defend himself.

So far, what we are finding out is, that is not what happened. From everything out there (and we can't know it all yet) is Zimmerman had broken off "tailing him" and was walking back to his car when Trayvon approached him.

Which is a completely different set of circumstances regarding self defense or stand your ground.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin made Martin feel threatened. Any reasonable person would feel threatened if a stranger chased them in a car and then on foot and then refused to identify themselves or state the reason for the pursuit. It was not incumbent on Martin at that point to guess that at the exact moment Zimmerman stumbled upon him that Zimmerman had descide to stop acting in a threatening manner and retreat. Any reasonable person would consider the moment that Zimmerman stumbled upon Martin to be the most threatening moment of the incident in the eyes of the victim who is being pursued.

 

If you are ever chased by an armed assailant and he refuses to state the purpose for his pursuit will you simply assume at that point that the incident is over even though your pursuer is now directly in front of you and reaching for something in his jacket? Must all victims become mind readers before they decide that they will apply their lawful right to self defense? Of course not. As Baxley said, that's why he wrote the Stand Your Ground Law. Despite your self delusion Baxley has a much clearer concept of the intent and letter of the law he wrote than you do.

 

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
nmewn's picture

There are so many red herrings in your statement its almost impossible to catch them all...lol.

Chased?...as in running after? At what point did Trayvon ask Zimmerman what his deal was and know he was being "chased" by someone armed? When did that happen? If someone is "chasing me" and I know he's armed and I'm not...I maintain a fix on his location so I can avoid him...I don't lose sight of where he is.

If I do, I go to ground to avoid being caught and shot.

Stumbled on? Now they stumbled over each other in the middle of the street and/or sidewalk? What???...did they back into each other like in some sort of comedy scene?

Jeez Crockett...you and I both suspect what really happened here, that is, Zimmerman broke off following him because he lost sight of him and was going back to his vehicle. Trayvon was hiding from him and stepped out and confronted him as to why he was following him.

Its not self defense for Trayvon now as he is in Zimmermans face (now the antagnonist) when he could have stayed hidden and walked away. And Trayvon never once felt threatened enough to call 911 on his cell phone.

We'll agree to disagree on what self defense is I suppose...but it is not Zimmerman when he's trailing Trayvon and it is not Trayvon when he's confronting Zimmerman for following him earlier after he stopped following him.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Its not self defense for Trayvon now as he is in Zimmermans face (now the antagnonist) when he could have stayed hidden and walked away

 

The Stand Your Ground Law says that Martin didn't have to run away at that point. The law's author, Rep. Baxley, said so. They called it "Stand Your Ground" for a reason, you know.

 

he's trailing Trayvon and it is not Trayvon when he's confronting Zimmerman for following him earlier after he stopped following him.

 

Please explain how Martin could have defended himself against Zimmerman as was his right if he did not "confront" him. Would you have suggested that Martin defend himself by blowing kisses at Zimmerman? Get real.

I suppose that we can agree to disagree but will you be true to your position? If you are chased by car and then on foot and your assailant offers no explanation of his intent and then reaches for something in his jacket do you solemnly swear that you will just stand there and take what's coming?