Yes, the US did treacherously stab Russia in the back over Syria.

Russia informed the US approximately when and where Russia would be bombing terrorists, as part of their agreement to avoid incidents over Syria that might lead to World War III.

According to Russia’s account, shortly before the pre-announced Russian bombing near the border, Turkey put up two F16s which loitered near the border, awaiting the bombing run near the border. When the bombing began, one of the Turkish F16s crossed into Syrian territory and ambushed a Russian bomber – direct conflict between Russian armed forces and Turkish armed forces without the fig leaf of a proxy, an attack conducted outside Turkish territory.

How do we know the Russian account is true and the Turkish account is false?

We know it is true because the Turkish media got a professionally edited video of the jet coming down faster than the Russians got their rescue mission – which means the Turkish media and Turkish forces on the ground inside Syria knew what was coming, while the Russians did not know what was coming. Therefore this attack was undertaken in response to notification that the Russians would be bombing Turks inside Syria near the border, therefore not undertaken in response to a bomber straying over the border. Note also that Obama’s speech was all about Russia bombing the good terrorists instead of the bad terrorists, not about the supposed border crossing.

Therefore official NATO forces have already attacked official Russian forces in Syria without the fig leaf of proxies. Therefore B already owes me a bottle of Ardbeg.

Tags:

52 Responses to “Yes, the US did treacherously stab Russia in the back over Syria.”

  1. vxxc2014 says:

    Your analysis is sound.

  2. red says:

    Now we get to see if Russia backs down.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      Russia doesn’t have to. The entire reason the Turks shot down the plane was that the Russians were bombing Turkmen terrorists right next to the border (allies of Al Nusra). Russian planes will continue to bomb them with even more zeal, as they have started to do. The ball is in Turkey’s court. If they shoot another plane down, then it will be war, worse still if they shoot down an Iranian jet.

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim”,

    There is a new-fangled saying that goes: “With Jews you lose” (“lose” should probably be in italics).

    It means that there is no possible outcome in which one may make a gain out of an arrangement with a Talmudic Jew. In this case, and in many similar, it comes from a Talmudic practice of annualy fore-swearing any agreement made in the past or in the future with non-Talmudists…

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

    • peppermint says:

      there aren’t any Jews directly in this situation. The faggot in charge of Turkey has his son buying oil and selling weapons to ISIS, while talking like he’s the Sultan. In reality, the sand nigger is undoing what the Jew Ataturk did.

      Turkey has no future because it is a sand nigger country and sand niggers worthless subhuman garbage less capable of civilized behavior than the Jews.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

        The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

        And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

  4. coyote says:

    the alpha does not “back down”. they will punish the sock puppet turkey now; they will punish other pawns of the empire going forward: the ziokon masters are punished as their schemes, finances, etc are diverted and lost. political careers can be ruined through the thwarting of the plotters.

  5. Irving says:

    Also note that Turkey sent a media crew to Syria just moments after they shot down the Russia plane. How could they have gotten them there so quickly after it happened? As well, it is odd that Turkey would be so vigilant in protecting their air space when they’re so insouciant about protecting their extremely porous land border. Everything points to a premeditated strike.

  6. Alrenous says:

    Democrats played chicken with Republicans over the debt ceiling.

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    O/T Interesting, Mr Trump calls the New York Times a Cathedral – around 54 minutes into today’s speech:

    “The New York Times had a Cathedral, one of the greatest Cathedrals in all of the newspaper world, Nothing like it. 229 West 43rd Street. I used to go there when I was young…But, 229… So the New York Times takes this unbelievable place”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ekBR3eAQ_E

    A.J.P.

  8. B says:

    I said conventional ground forces. You were talking about Turks leading a tank charge to Aleppo.

    • jim says:

      I said conventional ground forces.

      The trouble is, you will always have a fair enough argument, since even if people start tossing nukes around, it will not be in the precise manner and order that I described.

      The general substance of our argument was that the fig leaf of proxies was going to drop, and you denied that there was any risk of the fig leaf dropping, and it turns out it had already dropped.

      • B says:

        The context of our argument was you writing about Turks leading a tank charge to Aleppo.

        I told you there would be no conventional Russian ground forces fighting conventional Turkish ground forces in Syria. And there aren’t.

        You want to present a Turkish plane shooting down a Russian plane as conventional Russian and ground forces fighting in Syria, be my guest. You might as well say that the Russians are fighting NATO in space-why not? After all, space is a flexible term, Turkey’s part of NATO, etc. etc.

        • pdimov says:

          “I told you there would be no conventional Russian ground forces fighting conventional Turkish ground forces in Syria.”

          Are the Russian T-90 tanks in Latakia considered “conventional Russian ground forces” in the above statement?

          • B says:

            Yes. Are they in combat with conventional Turkish forces?

          • pdimov says:

            Not yet.

            • jim says:

              In general, the Turks have been playing this game for 20 years+, and know very well how to support an asymmetric proxy without getting sucked in conventionally

              That was your original claim, and it is not true. Whether or not they get sucked in conventionally as a result of this incident, they deliberately chose to take a very great risk of being sucked in conventionally.

          • B says:

            Oh, ok. Well, let me know when the Turkish army decides to recreate El Alamein in Latakia.

            In general, the Turks have been playing this game for 20 years+, and know very well how to support an asymmetric proxy without getting sucked in conventionally. There are a lot of Chechens in Turkey for this exact reason.

            Much as Putin is trying to recreate the Russian empire, Erdogan might be trying to recreate the Ottoman one. Which had a rich tradition of using bashi bozouks, irregular volunteers, to fight wars that were too dirty or risky to get the conventional forces involved.

          • pdimov says:

            Just clarifying the terms.

            I agree that it’s unlikely for Turkey to invade. On the other hand, I though it extremely unlikely for Turkey to shoot down a Russian plane, and was proven wrong.

          • B says:

            I suspect that the Turks fucked up, and thought this was a Syrian SU-24. They’ve shot one down on the border at least once. Then, being a zhlob, Erdogan tried to play it off cool, so as not to lose face in front of his homies.

            • jim says:

              I suspect that the Turks fucked up, and thought this was a Syrian SU-24.

              If that was true, then you would win the spirit of the bet, though not the literal wording of the bet.

              But Turks did know it was a Russian bomber, because their prep shows that they were expecting it to be at approximately that time and place, which means that after the Russians informed the Americans they were going to be at that time place, the Americans informed the Turks that the Russians were going to be at that time and place.

          • pdimov says:

            “I suspect that the Turks fucked up, and thought this was a Syrian SU-24.”

            Eh. They had it on radar for 20 minutes. They also immediately announced that they shot down an “unidentified” aircraft. You know what that means, right? To reuse the old joke, “unidentified” in the same way the DPRK is democratic, people’s, or a republic. A day later, “unidentified” belatedly became “Syrian”.

      • Alrenous says:

        This is the exact reason I haven’t bothered to set up such bets. The kind of person who will admit they lost doesn’t bet contrary to reality in the first place.

    • peppermint says:

      yes, this is what I understood from what you and Jim were saying. I was under the impression that everyone knew that it was already an open fight between NATO and Russia, and that a Jew would know better than to place a bet against something that had already happened.

  9. Art says:

    Here are the terms of the bet:

    B (on11/27): “I will bet you two bottles of Ardbeg that in the next two months there will neither be Turkish conventional forces anywhere near Aleppo nor any ground confrontation between Russian and Turkish conventional ground forces.”

    Jim who often accuses B of coming up with unreasonable and intellectually dishonest interpretations is now claiming that B lost that bet.

    • jim says:

      We now know that the Turkish F16 crossed into Syria to shoot down the Russian bomber. That is “Turkish conventional forces near Aleppo”.

      So on the literal wording of the bet, he lost it, and on the general spirit of the bet, also lost it in that intent and spirit of the bet was whether the fig leaves separating proxies and principles would be preserved.

      • B says:

        Conventional ground forces.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        The literal wording was “ground confrontation” between “conventional ground forces.” B has not lost the bet. You can talk about the context, and how you won in spirit, and you might be right, but that was not the bet.

        Further, there isn’t even a real bet here. I didn’t see you accept any wager – B offered, but an offer is not the same as an agreement. As things stand, if B were to win, you could just say you never agreed to any bet, and you’d be absolutely right.

        • Simon says:

          Have to agree with B here…

        • jim says:

          No, the literal wording was “neither be Turkish conventional forces anywhere near Aleppo nor any ground confrontation between Russian and Turkish conventional ground forces

          So, if any Turkish conventional force crosses the border in the vicinity of Aleppo he is wrong.

          And as for whether the bet was made – he is never going to admit he was wrong whether the bet was made or not.

          For him to be right, he would have needed to say “neither be Turkish conventional ground forces anywhere near Aleppo nor any ground confrontation between Russian and Turkish conventional ground forces.”

          The dispute was whether the fig leaf of proxies would drop, and as things turned out, it had already dropped.

          You can reasonably argue that no bet was made, but a concession that he was wrong would be nice. Since he is never going to admit error, is never going to pay up on any bet.

          • B says:

            Holy cow, and I am the one getting accused of nitpicking.

            Obviously the conventional forces I was discussing were ones on the ground. This is more or less the standard usage, too-if you stood up in any military history forum and announced that the conventional forces USSR and USA had clashed during the Cold War, you’d get a lot of funny looks. And if you explained that you meant, say, the numerous shootdowns of American aircraft by the Soviet air force and antiaircraft, or vice versa, people would roll their eyes. If you referred to an outbreak of conventional warfare between the two sides, this would normally refer to the Red hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap. Not an aircraft getting popped.

            Also, Aleppo is 50 km from the border, as the crow flies. The alleged crossing of the border by the Turkish F-16 was nowhere near Aleppo.

            The debate was whether there would be major ground combat

            • jim says:

              Obviously the conventional forces I was discussing were ones on the ground.

              You were responding to my statement “ground and air”. So not obvious to me. And if you propose a bet, supposed to be careful with your wording.

              And if you want to go by the spirit of the words, rather than the exact literal meaning of the words, the spirit of the words was whether there would be an open clash without proxies in Syria near Aleppo, and it turned out that there had already been an open clash without proxies in Syria near Aleppo of which neither of us was aware at the time.

              You attributed to both Russia and Turkey an effort to avoid a clash of principals that Turkey has failed to show. So regardless of what exactly was bet, and the bet was never explicitly agreed to, so you can reasonably say there was no bet, you were wrong, and if I don’t get a bottle of whiskey, I would like an admission you were wrong.

          • B says:

            between the Russian and Turkish armed forces.

            The bet is still up, if you’d care to take it.

          • peppermint says:

            Jim thinks conventional means non-NBC. B thinks conventional means non-special forces, drones, and air.

          • red says:

            > B thinks conventional means non-special forces, drones, and air.

            I’m sure B believes what ever he wants believe so that he’s always right. If Turkish tanks attacked Aleppo he’s claim they were either Turkmon rebels, was stopped to far away from Aleppo to meet the conditions, or there wasn’t enough infantry to be conventional forces.

            Jim are you still convinced that progressive double think really isn’t really Jewish double think writ large?

            >Obviously the conventional forces I was discussing were ones on the ground. This is more or less the standard usage, too-if you stood up in any military history forum and announced that the conventional forces USSR and USA had clashed during the Cold War, you’d get a lot of funny looks.

            First he ignores the English definition:
            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conventional+forces

            >1. Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclear weapons.
            >2. Those forces other than designated special operations forces.

            Next he redefines the term conventional forces by illogically aligning it with the concept of conventional war thus redefining the bet to require a full war between Turkey and Russia instead of a limited war in Syria:

            >If you referred to an outbreak of conventional warfare between the two sides, this would normally refer to the Red hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap. Not an aircraft getting popped.

            • jim says:

              A denial worthy of Bart Simpson.

              Suddenly every word in the bet shifts its meaning to values that not only mean he has not yet lost, but also make it less likely he will lose tomorrow.

              While any one disagreement about meaning might be in good faith “when I said ‘conventional’, I meant ground”, a whole pile of disagreements about meaning is unlikely to be in good faith.

          • B says:

            > If Turkish tanks attacked Aleppo he’s claim they were either Turkmon rebels

            If grandma had a dick, she’d be grandpa.

            In the US military in the last 15 years, “conventional forces” means “non-SOF ground forces”.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Bet on the Russians in a fight with the Turks. Erdogan does not have nearly the kind of internal loyalty that Putin does, and it would be a long-haul battle

          • pdimov says:

            “Bet on the Russians in a fight with the Turks.”

            At the moment, I’d bet on Russians in a fight with anyone. And so, it seems, would most anyones.

          • pdimov says:

            “In the US military in the last 15 years, “conventional forces” means “non-SOF ground forces”.”

            Does it? Citation please? Everything I can find on defense.gov uses “conventional forces” in its ordinary definition, that is, non-nuclear, non-SOF.

          • peppermint says:

            Conventional forces probably also excludes the time the US depth charges started damaging the USSR submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but would include if it had been surface ships shooting each other.

            At least, that’s my perspective having played Call of Duty 3 on a i5-2500 with a GTX750ti. Ymmv, hand 🙂

        • B says:

          Person experience.

          You can look up CF on Wikileaks, for instance.

  10. Zach says:

    B, for fuck sakes…

    I’m a busy guy, I would rather not have endless conversations telling you you’re wrong (then and now) in regards to this bet.

    So please, just admit it.

    kthnxbye

  11. BobbyBrigs says:

    Jim I’ve never understood why you make the effort to treat a Jewish supremists like they have a sense of honor. The man would sooner steal your wallet than deal with you honorably.

    There’s a story in freakanomics about a guy running silent pay baggal delivery service in NYC. He found that lower and middle whites were pretty good about paying, while upper executive types tended to not fully pay. The worst group was the lawyers who only rarely paid and the money was regularly stolen from the lock box. The more jewish the group was the more rotten the outcome.

    You can’t expect jews to act like Anglo-Saxons and there’s no reason that you should extend Saxon hospitality to such a creature.

    • B says:

      >You can’t expect jews to act like Anglo-Saxons

      Do you mean inviting a bunch of Pakis and Arabs to rape our daughters and sisters? Or aerially incinerating civilians for years? In that case, I agree.

      Of all the nations to lecture someone about honor…

  12. peppermint says:

    Turkey has been buying oil from terrorists in contradiction of a UN mandate and jailed a journalist for reporting it. Murdering the pilot is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

    Kick Turkey out of NATO.

    Article 1

    The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

    Article 2

    The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

  13. […] He has full coverage on the NATO downing of the Russian fighter jet. And, by the way, how we know Yes, the US did treacherously stab Russia in the back over Syria. […]

  14. BobbyBrigs says:

    Turkey rushed thr troops into Iraq instead:

    http://atimes.com/2015/12/nato-taunts-russia-turkey-makes-hay/

Leave a Reply