Of all the Alawites I've known, not one of them has considered themselves Shia.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Agreed that theologically they are closer in some ways to the Sunnis, especially in that they don't emphasize those ritualistic elements of Twelver Shi'ism such as cursing of the first three caliphs and the Ashura celebrations which tend to mark them off from Sunnis. And as I've said, they reject the idea of infallible leadership and occultation. But in origin the Sunni-Shi'a split was not about theology, but rather about authority. In this they are still Shi'a and consider themselves thus, the term literally means the 'party' or 'supporters' of Ali, which the Zaidis historically are. The Zaidis actually played a major role in defining the early Shi'a apart from the mainstream Muslims (who hadn't yet become clearly distinguished as the 'Sunna'). Good book on this topic -
http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Sh-12ba-Eighth-Century-Civilization/dp/110742495X
You should have a read of this - http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/syria-alawis-and-shiism/
Alawite eldars had for decades been trying to win official recognition from Shi'a authorities in Najaf that they belonged in the fold of legitimate Shi'ism. Musa al Sadr in Lebanon began the process during 60s and 70s, and it was consolidated following the Iranian Revolurion.
So who is in Russia’s crosshairs in Syria?
by Andrey Fomin
The reactions of some Atlanticists figures, from the United States, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, when Russia bombed the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda —the Al-Nosra Front— speak for themselves. Those that these leaders refer to as "moderate rebel" actually belong to registered groups on the list of terrorist organizations by the United Nations.
The media frenzy in the countries of the anti-Assad coalition over the Russian air strikes on Al-Qaeda-linked guerrillas in Syria has made one very significant fact quite clear [1]. Along with the nervous reaction of the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some other countries it is irrefutable proof that the interests of seemingly opposing forces —NATO and radical jihadism— are actually tightly intertwined. And their relations go far beyond the Syrian crisis [2].
Ultimately it makes no practical sense to differentiate Daesh and Jabhat Al-Nusra merely on the basis of the fact that those extremist groups differ about the manner in which it is necessary to kill infidels. If Jabhat Al-Nusra enjoys the confidence of some US senators [3], then the real problem might be the educational level of those senators (try to disconnect Senator McCain from his handlers and speechwriters and you will quickly see what kind of person he really is). Once again: Daesh and Jabhat Al-Nusra are cut from the same cloth. And we should agree yet before acting: when determining military targets, all decisions must be based specifically on military considerations and situation on the ground and not on American vision of the future of “democracy in Syria.”
The military disposition in Syria is crystal clear. Primarily, blockade of the cities of Homs and Hama should be lifted and direct land route from Damascus to the Turkish border to be put under control of pro-government forces. The first strikes of the Russian AF were dispatched precisely in that direction.
In recent months, the terrorist groups in Syria were moving towards the sites of actual or planned air bases of the Syrian army. All major combat operations have now been moved to the Hama Governorate where Jabhat Al-Nusra is particularly active. Thus the starting Syrian army counter-offensive in that area is strongly supported by the Russian Air Force. Moreover, the Syrian 4th Armored Division has just received T-90 tanks as well as BTR-80 and GAZ Tigr armored vehicles from Russia. Once operation is completed there, Syrian regains control over all ports and military air bases.
The counter-offensive near Hama will very quickly make it possible to figure out whether the plans to drive Jabhat Al-Nusra into the desert are workable. That might not be consistent with the stated goal of battling Daesh, but in the field everyone understands that it is not possible to expel Islamists into the desert without lifting the blockades on the currently fortified regions. They have been —and remain— prime targets of the Russian air wings.
American and Saudi concerns have certainly nothing to do with the alleged civilian deaths from air strikes. The fact is that the billions spent by the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and other agents in their attempts to oust Bashar al-Assad have literally been tossed away into the sand.
Following are a few facts to support this:
Hussein al-Ramahi, the head of the political commission of Hezbollah brigades in Iraq, has repeatedly asserted that the boxes of weapons and ammunition seized from Daesh have markings proving that they belong to Saudi Arabia [4].
Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, was stating that US armed forces have been supplying Daesh troops with weapons and uniforms ever since the coalition was created [5].
During the battles for the Syrian city of Kobani, Iraqi and Syrian Kurds also claimed that they were in possession of video evidence proving that the Turks are assisting the Islamists by moving arms and ammunition through a security checkpoint on the Syrian-Turkish border and are even providing troops to reinforce Daesh divisions.
And in regard to the intrigues concocted by the monarchies, the US, and Turkey, I believe that the Islamists being bombed by Russia will actually soon be supplied with more up-to-date weaponry. I will not be surprised if the militants turn out to have not only portable air-defense systems, but also some that are only more or less portable. What’s more, these supplies will be delivered directly from Turkey.
No doubt that the Western intelligence agencies have already ordered their sponsored cells to elaborate resonant terrorist attacks against Russian interests worldwide. This shameless tactics will bring no other result but persuading everyone still hesitating about the real masters of ‘Caliphate Project’ that the black Daesh/Al-Qaeda banner is being knit far outside the Muslim world.
by Andrey Fomin
The reactions of some Atlanticists figures, from the United States, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, when Russia bombed the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda —the Al-Nosra Front— speak for themselves. Those that these leaders refer to as "moderate rebel" actually belong to registered groups on the list of terrorist organizations by the United Nations.
The media frenzy in the countries of the anti-Assad coalition over the Russian air strikes on Al-Qaeda-linked guerrillas in Syria has made one very significant fact quite clear [1]. Along with the nervous reaction of the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some other countries it is irrefutable proof that the interests of seemingly opposing forces —NATO and radical jihadism— are actually tightly intertwined. And their relations go far beyond the Syrian crisis [2].
Ultimately it makes no practical sense to differentiate Daesh and Jabhat Al-Nusra merely on the basis of the fact that those extremist groups differ about the manner in which it is necessary to kill infidels. If Jabhat Al-Nusra enjoys the confidence of some US senators [3], then the real problem might be the educational level of those senators (try to disconnect Senator McCain from his handlers and speechwriters and you will quickly see what kind of person he really is). Once again: Daesh and Jabhat Al-Nusra are cut from the same cloth. And we should agree yet before acting: when determining military targets, all decisions must be based specifically on military considerations and situation on the ground and not on American vision of the future of “democracy in Syria.”
The military disposition in Syria is crystal clear. Primarily, blockade of the cities of Homs and Hama should be lifted and direct land route from Damascus to the Turkish border to be put under control of pro-government forces. The first strikes of the Russian AF were dispatched precisely in that direction.
In recent months, the terrorist groups in Syria were moving towards the sites of actual or planned air bases of the Syrian army. All major combat operations have now been moved to the Hama Governorate where Jabhat Al-Nusra is particularly active. Thus the starting Syrian army counter-offensive in that area is strongly supported by the Russian Air Force. Moreover, the Syrian 4th Armored Division has just received T-90 tanks as well as BTR-80 and GAZ Tigr armored vehicles from Russia. Once operation is completed there, Syrian regains control over all ports and military air bases.
The counter-offensive near Hama will very quickly make it possible to figure out whether the plans to drive Jabhat Al-Nusra into the desert are workable. That might not be consistent with the stated goal of battling Daesh, but in the field everyone understands that it is not possible to expel Islamists into the desert without lifting the blockades on the currently fortified regions. They have been —and remain— prime targets of the Russian air wings.
American and Saudi concerns have certainly nothing to do with the alleged civilian deaths from air strikes. The fact is that the billions spent by the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and other agents in their attempts to oust Bashar al-Assad have literally been tossed away into the sand.
Following are a few facts to support this:
And in regard to the intrigues concocted by the monarchies, the US, and Turkey, I believe that the Islamists being bombed by Russia will actually soon be supplied with more up-to-date weaponry. I will not be surprised if the militants turn out to have not only portable air-defense systems, but also some that are only more or less portable. What’s more, these supplies will be delivered directly from Turkey.
No doubt that the Western intelligence agencies have already ordered their sponsored cells to elaborate resonant terrorist attacks against Russian interests worldwide. This shameless tactics will bring no other result but persuading everyone still hesitating about the real masters of ‘Caliphate Project’ that the black Daesh/Al-Qaeda banner is being knit far outside the Muslim world.
For me to answer the question, first we have to look at the trajectory of the FSA from inception till now.
They are primarily made up on ex military and governmental personnel (their hierarchy structure specifically). In terms of the civil structures and progression of the country as a whole, there is no one better placed. They know the running of the country, what's best for Syria etc. They stand for parliamentary and political pluralism. Their inception came about when Assad and his goons began opening fire on peaceful demonstrators. Following on from this, the FSA made incredible inroads into overthrowing the regime, and at their height (I'd say late 2012, early 2013), they were pretty close to succeeding. What unfortunately happened is that around this time, IS reared their ugly head (as well as other factions joining the conflict), and a lot of the progress they made was hijacked. I think this is the point here where there should have been more support for them from 'outsiders'. They didn't have the financial resources to compete with these other groups, and Assad was being supported by Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and the likes. The opposition and rebels were in the middle. A lot of people I know personally, when this whole conflict kicked off, went to Syria for humanitarian reasons, (to drive ambulances, and work in hospitals), and they eventually had to come back as the overall objective of this conflict (the liberation of Syria from Assad) was being lost as these outside actors began to have greater influence, and the noble fight was becoming more and more cloudy. It also doesn't help that the depravity and inhumanity of what Assad carries out is so under reported and largely ignored by Western media.
The FSA is the umbrella term I use, btw, but within that fall a myriad of groups aligned to them, including Free Alawites (an Alawite group), the Syriac Military Council (the Christian organisation), Kurds, Druze etc. So, if anything is going to be representative of the mishmash of different groups in that region, it would be the overall/larger FSA fronted organisation.
My take on Al Nusra:
I also don't think it's fair to lump in Al Nusra and other 'extremist organisations' or 'radical group' with IS. It's hiding the reality of the matter. Al Nusra, even though they are an affiliate of AQ, have a very clear mandate and modus operandi in this conflict which is distinctly different to the likes of IS and other such groups, and I feel that the differentiation is important. For example, here's some info about them:
In this particular conflict, and I don't want to be misquoted here and for people to quote me and say 'uzz is a terrorist' etc, but Al Nusra can't be considered terrorists. In fact, they have rebranded themselves to lose a lot of negativity associated with AQ, as they rely on the local populace's support and want to portray themselves as a credible alternative. I've (purposely?) avoided commenting on them too directly, as I don't want people to think I advocate a terrorist organisation, but in this particular conflict, by the definition of the word, they can't be considered a terrorist outfit. I mean, if they're committing terror acts in the UK or US, fine I'd say they're a terrorist outfit. But they're fighting a civil war against the biggest 2 terrorists in the region (Assad and IS for those who need that explained). All of their actions have taken place within Syria's borders. They've played a decisive role in key battles to win strategic placed towns off of the regime. I don't want to get drawn in into the semantics of terrorism, but Assad and the regime are terrorists, the US in certain instances are terrorists, the term itself is a fluid term. There is a lot of support for them out there, as well.
@Revan @Kaos
In short - if this wasn't a Syrian war, I'd consider them terrorists. But in this situation, I don't think that's a correct assessment, seeing as they're working to topple a murderous, savage, and inhumane regime i.e the real terrorists in non terroristic ways.
As for Hamas - I don't even know why they're in this discussion, so I'm not going to even reply to that.
Now any new gov't coming in post Assad will have to have sufficient Syrian Sunni representation as they form the overwhelming majority of the people in the land. But this isn't to say other minority groups/sects will not be represented. Earlier I mentioned pluralism, and this is something the FSA have wanted to implement, and which was lacking under the Assad dynasty.
This is the most pertinent point here that none of you are really understanding.
The regime needs to go. It has caused such widespread strife and destruction, that it literally is mind boggling how anyone could advocate it to stay. The regime has rape/sexual assaults gangs who are paid per rape/sexual assault. It has used napalm, chemical war, and barrel bombs on civilians, on schools, on hospitals. Here we have a Syrian in Syria telling you the reality of the situation, but all of you think you know better. It really is ridiculous.
So by that logic you wouldn't regard ISIS a terrorist organisation because they too are fighting to topple the regime?
I asked whether you thought Hamas was a terrorist organisation because you were quick to call Hezbollah one. Going by your generally sympathetic demeanour towards them in the Israel Palestine thread, it appears you dont, which is very interesting and somewhat telling.
No - IS are carrying out public executions and crimes outside of the conflict and generally calling on all and sundry in Western countries to commit equally barbaric acts. Of course they are terrorists. Al Nusra are solely focused on toppling the regime. Don't be disingenuous on purpose.So by that logic you wouldn't regard ISIS a terrorist organisation because they too are fighting to topple the regime?
I asked whether you thought Hamas was a terrorist organisation because you were quick to call Hezbollah one. Going by your generally sympathetic demeanour towards them in the Israel Palestine thread, it appears you dont, which is very interesting and somewhat telling.
If Hezbollah were running Gaza, do you think I'd call them terrorists? That's clearly what annoys you the most here.
I think it's somewhat more telling that this discussion hinges on who I do or do not view as a terrorist. You're willing to excuse everything that Assad has done, and he's done a lot worse than Hamas, Al Nusra, the FSA, and IS have ever done.
Last edited:
@Uzz as you know I ultimately blame Assad for the growth of the likes of Nusra in Syria. But your post is a whitewash. To take just one issue which you dismissed earlier in this thread - minorities. Look what Nusra did with the Druze in Idlib (while Ahrar al-Sham watched on). Look at what al-Julani said about the Alawites on al-Jazeera (basically, we'll leave them alone if they become Muslim). Why would any minority in Syria be reassured by an opposition movement which is, let's face it, dominated by al-Qaeda and its sympathisers?
Al Nusra have done almost all those things you've listed.
Hezbollah more or less run the South of Lebanon and are actually one of the biggest parties elected into the Lebanese parliament.
I don't want to be painted as some supporter of them here, btw, but what I've said is that they aren't a terrorist outfit in this conflict. I've been pro FSA the whole time.
I'm not trying to absolve them of crimes here either, no one coming out of this is going to be clean. Not the FSA either. The Druze in Idlib, I mean - obviously I'd want that to be avoided. al Julani has said specifically that they are not targeting religious minorities. And from reports, this incident only occurred when they refused to put down their arms. Al Nusra don't really have a track record of taking over villages and killing all. It's sad that it happened and I hope instances like that can be avoided.
This is what he said in that interview:
And on top of that, there are Alawite groups which are anti-Assad who are fighting under/with the FSA...who themselves are fighting in parts with Al Nusra.
No - they haven't.
Ok - so with that same line of thought, is it not equally applied to Hamas in Gaza?
That is how al-Jazeera, the media outlet which conducted the interview and which reflects the interests of the same Qatari regime which funds Nusra, reported the interview. You can watch the actual interview, with subtitles, here:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/abu-mohammed-al-golanis-aljazeera-interview-by-aron-lund/
As Aron Lund, not an Assad fan btw, says in that article:
"If you listened closely, Golani also said that Alawites are a people who have left Islam. He made it clear that not only must Alawites stop fighting for Assad, they must also abandon the elements of their faith that contradict Islam. And of course, by Islam he means his own salafi brand of Sunni Islam, not that they can be regular Shias or anything like that. So minus the wrapping, his core message remains the same: Alawites will be left alone as soon as they agree to stop being Alawites."
Assad can stay in power 'three years or longer', says Hammond
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad can remain in power for as long as it takes to end the conflict, Britain’s foreign
minister has conceded, even as the embattled dictator blamed the West for the crises
thronging his country.
Philip Hammond said that the UK could accept Mr Assad remaining as titular head of Syria for three
years or more if it meant ending the conflict, but that he would have to pledge not to run in any future election.
"If the price for doing that is that we have to accept
that Assad will remain as titular head of state for period of time, do I really care if that's three days, three weeks, three years or even longer?
I don't think I do," he said, speaking to Reuters at the Conservative party conference in Manchester.
Mr Hammond also said that for any agreement on a managed political transition to be reached, Mr Assad would also have to
give up control over Syria's security apparatus.
He added that there was no agreement with Moscow and Tehran on such a transition.
Britain has always insisted that Mr Assad cannot be a part of Syria’s long term future, but that position appears to have softened in recent weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...power-three-years-or-longer-says-Hammond.html
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad can remain in power for as long as it takes to end the conflict, Britain’s foreign
minister has conceded, even as the embattled dictator blamed the West for the crises
thronging his country.
Philip Hammond said that the UK could accept Mr Assad remaining as titular head of Syria for three
years or more if it meant ending the conflict, but that he would have to pledge not to run in any future election.
"If the price for doing that is that we have to accept
that Assad will remain as titular head of state for period of time, do I really care if that's three days, three weeks, three years or even longer?
I don't think I do," he said, speaking to Reuters at the Conservative party conference in Manchester.
Mr Hammond also said that for any agreement on a managed political transition to be reached, Mr Assad would also have to
give up control over Syria's security apparatus.
He added that there was no agreement with Moscow and Tehran on such a transition.
Britain has always insisted that Mr Assad cannot be a part of Syria’s long term future, but that position appears to have softened in recent weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...power-three-years-or-longer-says-Hammond.html
Except that it won't end but will rather prolong the conflict.
Yes, let us first supply these groups and act all surprised when they decide they split and go into their own direction. The policy of the United States has backfired immensely. Assad is actually fighting these terrorists and yet all we hear all about Assad bombing his own people. Putin has shaken everybody up with his recent comments about the creators of ISIS. People are now realizing that the USA and her allies have created a monster and therefore put a lot of countries in danger with these radicals now enlarging their territory and the potential in crossing the European borders. The Middle-East has succesfully been destabilized with fractions all over the place fighting for turf. Yes Assad has his flaws, but the most important thing was/is that before the entrance of Isis and American interference, people were enjoying safety and assurance within their national borders. How things have changed with milions of refugees fleeding their homes. Im all for military assistance for the current regime in their battle against a inhumane, barbaric terrorist group, which has no compassion for people of ALL religion and etnicity.
Why are Western countries deciding how long a person can stay in charge ? Where is the democratic aspect of that ? Do nations not possess an sovereignty and elections to let their people decide who stays in power ? Imagine foreign countries deciding which president or democratic party must stay in power ( in the land that you live in). Totally against the law and merely a reflection of a nation's intrest in the geopolitic field.
Why are Western countries deciding how long a person can stay in charge ? Where is the democratic aspect of that ? Do nations not possess an sovereignty and elections to let their people decide who stays in power ? Imagine foreign countries deciding which president or democratic party must stay in power ( in the land that you live in). Totally against the law and merely a reflection of a nation's intrest in the geopolitic field.
Syria is a dictatorship, as is Russia. The entire point in criticizing both of them is precisely because they are prolonging the conflict and serving as a roadblock towards actual democratic reform in Syria.
Exactly what I was expecting.
The question however is, looking at their historical background, if democracy works in nations like these ? Do you enforce democracy and therefore jeopordize the stabilty in these countries ? Libya was one of the richest countries in Africa and people enjoyed economic and social flourishment, before The United Stated and her allies decided that the new reforms that were going to be installed by Khadadi would interfere with their intrest ( such as stepping away from the dollar as currency for oil and introducing a Gold dinar for Africa), which would cause a huge blow for the dollar as a currency in general. These ''attemps' to bring democracy to these nations is not just a humane gesture of the big brother caring for the little ones. All these regimes became a part of a comfortable strategy that secured American and Western intrests in the Middle-East, such as a military posture, access to oil and security for Israel.
Democratic reform in Syria can only be secured if they work together in the battle against Isis and other groups and get the opposition around the negotiation table and reach a consensus with all involved parties. The problem however is that the West and America is concentrating about the longevity of Assad in stead of working together against the barbaric terrorists groups which have caused a national catastrophic social and economic instability with milions of refugees and thousands of man/woman and children dying. You then have nations criticizing ISIS when they have actually supplied them with weapons and intelligences. That is a bit hypocrite wouldnt you say ? You critize a group which you have financed and then resort to critizing a regime which is actually fighting against them for national freedom and liberty for Syrian citizens. Putin's speech at the UN council was merely a confirmation of what was circulation for a long time and that is that the likes of ISIS have been financed by the same nations who now critize them. Long story short, there is a lot of work to do there.
Don't offer any insight or reasoning, why don't you.
If you want so.
You were defending S.Arabia and other Gulf states why they were not taking refugees, saying that they are giving money instead. Then when S.Arabia a week or two ago said that it had taken 2.5m refugees (which to the best of my knowledge hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, and as @2cents explained in a more detailed post, it may well be just the nomadic people who constantly travell between Syria and S.Arabia) you took their word as gospel and mention it as much as possible. And now defended Al-Nusra while refused to answer the question for Hamas.
Anyway, I really don't understand how anyone might think that Al-Nusra (who after all is a branch of Al Qaeda) might go for a secular state and defend the religious minorities. In fact, I don't think that anyone really thinks that, but it is more cleaning face in order to defend their support with rebels (which is fine IMO) whom unfortunately are related with terrorist groups like Al Nusra.
Just to be clear mate, that was a blog post I posted by the editor of the Middle East Journal. Personally I have no idea about that issue, although I see no reason to believe anything the Saudis say about it.
Agree on that.
I can't remember who I was arguing with in this thread about it (Centsy?)but that above shows the amount the Gulf States have taken since the conflict began.
What we can see is that Israel has done sweet FA, but why would a racially divisive and evil government do anything noble anyway?
Here's the full article:
Facebook page which illustrated that Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE took in zero Syrian refugees. A number of media outlets used the graphic in their news reports and the graphic was shared on various social media platforms:
A number of commentators disputed the figures including Mohammed Khalid Alyahya, an associate fellow at the Saudi Arabian King Faisal Centre For Research and Islam who commented saying:
Zero is a very inaccurate number because Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a refugee policy. There are 500,000 Syrians in Saudi Arabia that have been given visas
He also pointed out the fact that:
It’s known fact that “refugee” status doesn’t exist in much of the Gulf. UNHCR only record refugee status
The Facebook status was edited to include his comments.
We also posted the following graphic to show that these states were playing a role in supporting the Syrian refugees by providing financial aid:
Whilst the numbers used in the graphic were technically correct according to figures obtained from the UNHCR, it was an over sight on our part for failing to explain that the numbers are zero because Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees. The UNHCR define refugees as:
“Persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection.”
Since then, there have been a number of Middle-Eastern news agencies including a few Western news outlets who have reported statements from government officials clarifying how many Syrians are living in their countries since the beginning of the conflict in 2011. Many have been given work and residency visas as well as access to healthcare and education.
The following graphic shows number of Syrians living in Gulf States since the beginning of the conflict with sources included below: [this I pasted at the top of my post]
And I never said al Nusra would go for a secular state, did I? I think you should read my posts word for word before making accusations.
Part 2 to follow.
These are from the Sarin gas attack.
These are Caesar's images.
Last edited:
FFS, spoiler that.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar
That's a bit more indepth if anyone wants to read about Caesar etc.
That's a bit more indepth if anyone wants to read about Caesar etc.
Can a mod please spoiler those pics.. Some of us are here to read the discussion and don't want to see such gruesome stuff..
And some of us also view this shit from our offices
go back to work!!And some of us also view this shit from our offices
Only a matter of time until an accident spirals into a full on confrontation.
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-says-russian-warplane-violated-airspace-071941187.html
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-says-russian-warplane-violated-airspace-071941187.html
Turkey needs to stfu. The amount of times they've violated Iraqi and Syrian airspace to engage in their favourite pasttime of killing Kurds.Erdogan is just salty that the Russians are blowing up his beloved jihadists.
Maybe someone should 'accidentally' shoot down their warplane like they did that passenger jet.
Erdogan is just salty that the Russians are blowing up his beloved jihadists.
You have obviously missed the point. It's dangerous for Russian jets to be flying anywhere other than Syrian airspace. One mistake could set off a contagion of events that lead to a much wider conflict.
No doubt the morons who did that are now assigned to Syria. I wouldn't fly a passenger jet anywhere near that area.
Well considering the amount of terrorist traffic coming in and out of Turkey, I'm not surprised their planes were drawn to their side of the border.
A more plausible scenario is the Russian pilots are either incompetent or attempting to flex their muscles over airspace that belongs to Turkey. In either case its dangerous and irresponsible given that one mistake can lead to Turkey (and NATO) getting involved.
That's probably true, but I still think the Turks are the last country I'd expect to complain about airspace violations considering they've made it a national sport.
Besides, I sincerely doubt Abu Bakr Al-Erdogan is going to have the audacity to bring down a Russian plane. He'll flex his muscles by targeting a few Kurdish guerillas but would probably shit himself at the prospect of creating an incident with Moscow. At worst he'll recall his ambassador, cry to his NATO allies and mention how very cross he is at the UN, just as was the case with the flotilla incident.
Sounds exactly like Assad and him running tail between his legs to Russia and Iran, no?
There is increasing talk of NATO and the US forming a no fly zone over all Syrian territory.